A century ago, nationalism led to the breakup of the imperial world order and World War II dismantled the remaining few empires. Since then, the nation-state system was forced upon much of the world, and more specifically, decolonized parts unready and unable to handle it. Integral to this system was the sovereignty to which each state was entitled meaning, among other things, that each state was master of its own territory and affairs. Others had no right to involve themselves in the domestic affairs of another state. Like nationalism, this system is also leading to the breakup of the world order we’ve come to rely on.
Failed states, ungoverned areas and transnational threats are on everyone’s tongues and in blogs and magazines everywhere. However, in retrospect, stubbornly sticking to our current system will only continue to foster that which threatens it, just as the imperial system fed nationalist movements that destroyed it. This author does not contend there is a single decision making body able to rewrite the rules (at least an effective one) nor that everyone would agree on such, but the idea needs to be marketed. Whether talking about limited sovereignty like in a future Kosovo, protectorates, peacekeeping and making, or guardianships, the fact remains that we’re already talking about and implementing a post-nation-state system of sovereignty. It’s the elephant in the room that nobody is talking about.
The UN Responsibility to Protect was the first step meant to formalize this reality as a political agreement. It breaks down into the responsibility to prevent, react and rebuild. According to German professor Joachim Kraus, around 6 million people died in the 1990s as a result of both inaction and ineffectiveness of the United Nations. From this, the United States began to reevaluate the system of collective security which dated back to the Cold War, namely that of multilateralism. Europe, however, did no such thing and the 2003 liberation of Iraq brought to light the widening gap between the two.
Yet, both within the United States and between the US and EU, debates tend to be idealogical and thus superficial. More worrying than the debate itself is that the ongoing instability in Iraq has confirmed many Europeans’ view that multilateral action is the only solution. Here, however, Europeans and the American left fail to further specify exactly the nature of the multilateral action they support. Whereas the UN is an open and large scale multilateral institution, the other post-WWII institutions like the IMF and World Bank are not, but are rather selectively multilateral. It is therefore no surprise that the dominating Western influence in the latter two has made them far more effective than the UN. Europeans don’t want a truly multilateral approach to transnational security issues, they don’t trust the Russians, Chinese and third world strongmen anymore than we do. They simply want to participate in the decision making process.
Yet, how can a political institution which has not yet revised its outdated policies expect to play such an important role? Far more important than the outcome of the ongoing hostilities in Iraq for Iraqis is that for Europe and the US because it will foretell the fate of those in similar situations around the world in need of help. It is highly doubtful that the United Nations is politically able to follow through on the responsibilities it took on with The Responsibility to Protect nor that they could pass a stronger version thereof. In addition, countries like Russia and others would attempt to use humanitarian intervention as a fig leaf for self-interested control of smaller states. Future interventions will need to be and will likely be be ad hoc coalitions of the willing within a select club of countries included in NATO and the G8.
Kosovo has been not only a success of selective multilateralism through NATO but a model for future interventions. Iraq called existing European security policies into question. The unresolved status of Kosovo is an opportunity for Europe to begin to answer it.
- BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
- « Roughed up?
- » Bill Cosby Wisdom
COMMENTS / 10 COMMENTS
University Update - Iraq - But What Kind of Multilateralism? added these pithy words on Jul 18 07 at 9:47 pm[...] House Link to Article iraq But What Kind of Multilateralism? » Posted at ComingAnarchy.com on [...]
lirelou added these pithy words on 19 Jul 07 at 12:43 amPerhaps there should be a United Nations process for decertifying states that have been internationaly recognized but can no longer govern the territories they claim. But, were they to do so, would such become “U.N. protectorates”? Of course, vacuums are perceived as dangerous, so the real question is: who would police such entities? Once upon a time I believed in a U.N. military force, but why should a U.N military force be any more reliable and effective than U.N. relief efforts? I see no remedies for the problems inherent in such a process, but it would get rid of the ship registry game and reduce the amount of international fevelopment funds available to whatever gang is in power.
Daniel Nexon added these pithy words on 19 Jul 07 at 4:17 amI’d like to hear more about why you think Kosovo is an example of a successful intervention.
Anyway, I don’t know which members of the left you’re referring to, but most liberal internationalists are perfectly at home with limited-membership multilateral institutions and “coalitions of the willing” that capture the benefits—whatever those may be—of multilateralism, e.g., not the kind going into Iraq in 2003.
Curzon added these pithy words on 19 Jul 07 at 7:43 am
Anyway, I don’t know which members of the left you’re referring to, but most liberal internationalists are perfectly at home with limited-membership multilateral institutions and “coalitions of the willing”? that capture the benefits—whatever those may be—of multilateralism, e.g., not the kind going into Iraq in 2003.Partial ditto to Dr. Nexon. The truth is that the UN and NATO have only worked when the United States has led the way. Japan and Europe provide most of the rest of the funding, but never provide leadership. This was shown throughout the 1990s, and explained most clearly in Halberstam’s bestseller, War in a Time of Peace: Bush, Clinton, and the Generals.
Part of the Bush administration’s plan in prosecuting Afghanistan and Iraq was not fussying and fannying about the “multilaterlism” title, and calling a spade a spade. Gulf War I only looked like multilateralism, but the US did all the heavy lifting. But appearances are important, as is real participation. The substantial involvement of any other party—Europe/NATO, India, Russia, China—would have helped keep the peace in post-war Iraq.
IJ added these pithy words on 19 Jul 07 at 4:43 pmThis seems like an attempt to replace the United Nations with the United States.
The US public will need some convincing that this is the way ahead, per this PIPA survey. Moreover the rest of the world will need persuading, per this Pew survey.
strategist added these pithy words on 19 Jul 07 at 6:31 pmYour article highlights an important danger of intervention – that international coalitions attempt to resuscitate a failed state, rather than replace it with a more stable and natural system.
Solomon Islands is a case in point – the Australian / New Zealand intervention, while well-meaning and effective in restoring order (at least for now), simply props up a government that is incapable of governing effectively and a ‘nation-state’ that never was.
Mark added these pithy words on 20 Jul 07 at 5:29 amThe UN is as obsolete and useless as the nation-states that make up its members. The UN will become increasingly irrelevant. Any childish dreams of world government don’t stand a chance in reality, just like dreams of the US being the world’s policeman.
andres kahar added these pithy words on 20 Jul 07 at 7:25 pmDamned good post.
Your article highlights an important danger of intervention ”“ that international coalitions attempt to resuscitate a failed state, rather than replace it with a more stable and natural system.
Indeed. But, it wouldn’t really be in greater powers’ interest to dismantle, or even delegitimize, the Westphalian state system, would it?
Already ample evidence that the realists are pushing back against the democratic messianism of the neocons. This much is articulated by Richard Haass in his The Opportunity: America’s Moment to Alter History’s Course (in 2005, with safe temporal distance from his service to the Bush administration). One could almost look on this as the leading powers making a semi-formal alliance to preserve the existing world order, politico-economically speaking.
As for the sovereignty debate, one could say that the European Union was way ahead of the curve with its version of sovereignty-pooling. Whatever its shortcomings, some interesting and viable entity has been emerging on the continent. Moreover, one could see some of the new member-states actually viewing “Europe” and its sovereignty-pooling project as a way of actually safeguarding the nation-state. Here I’m thinking of the Baltic states: they stand a much better chance of remaining recognizable nation-states inside of that supranational body than outside, where geopolitics have traditionally been rather rocky.
What think you?
IJ added these pithy words on 21 Jul 07 at 3:30 pmThe Opportunity: America’s Moment to Alter History’s Course was discussed at the CFR in 2005. There is much about multilateralism.
Concerns about economics (human nature) were to the fore, as they were 60 years ago. Haass, president of the CFR in the US, thought in 2005 that America had a brief window of opportunity to integrate the world’s approaches to deal with “the dark side of globalization, the spread of weapons of mass destruction, of nuclear weapons, terrorism, genocide, protectionism, global climate change, you name it. . .” It seems that removing economic protectionism was a priority; because when Fareed Zakaria asked Haass later in the discussion what he would attend to first if he had the necessary power, the immediate response was a new global trade round. But the fate of the economic safeguards put in place after WW2 is a cautionary tale.
IJ added these pithy words on 22 Jul 07 at 9:15 pmNo alternatives are offered to the present political arrangements. As it stands, the political guardians of the global economy – the IMF and the World Bank – are selectively multilateral.
The Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) of the IMF is really the closest a UN agency comes to an effective external audit.
IEO report stirs the waters
>The Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) report on exchange rate surveillance was completed early to feed into the discussions on revising the surveillance framework. Released in May [2007], it found that in the evaluation period from 1999 to 2005 “the IMF was simply not as effective as it needs to be in both its analysis and advice, and in its dialogue with member countries.”? . . . One of the clear subtexts of the report and subsequent discussions was the accusation that surveillance was not even-handed simply because the IMF has no ability to influence the exchange rate policy decisions of advanced economies. . . “Such an evolution is corrosive, breeds cynicism amongst the staff as well as the members, and builds on perceptions of a lack of even-handedness.”
The IEO’s top line recommendation was for a clarification of the rules of the game for the IMF and its member countries. . .
SPEAK / ADD YOUR COMMENT
Comments are moderated.
