Cogito Ergo Non Serviam
UN General Assembly Opens, Why?
The UN General Assembly opens today, and the traffic on the east side of Manhattan is a disaster. It's a disaster this time every year. In exchange for the inconvenience, though, what does New York, and the rest of the planet, actually get? The UN has never functioned as it was meant to do, operating since 1945 rather haphazardly and in an ad hoc fashion. With the Trump administration proclaiming America First, and meaning America Alone, the purpose of the UN deserves consideration. This journal takes the view that the UN, or something like it, is useful if it operates as a diplomatic hub and if no one expects very much of it.
The UN was based on the belief that the five permanent members of the Security Council (those with a veto) would work together to maintain stability. The belief that they all wanted a peaceful and stable world might have been justified in those heady days at the end of the Second World War, but by the time the Cold War had begun, it was clear that the UN would not be a tool for maintaining global peace. Instead, it would be a forum for political rivalries. The thought that Stalin was going to play nice was, in hindsight, colossal foolishness.
The other belief that has gone by the wayside thanks to history happening was that the UN General Assembly would be small enough to operate as a body capable of some unity. The original UN consisted of 51 members. Today, there are 54 countries in Africa alone. The UNGA has expanded roughly fourfold, and as a result, it has no real cohesion.
The UN, clearly, does not function as it was intended, and it never has. Given its general ineffectiveness in sorting out global problems, one may well argue that the UN has no real business operating at all. Its subsidiary bodies like the World Health Organization can continue their work without the UN itself.
So, is there a purpose in having a UN at all? In the age of video conferences, email and satellite phones, most intergovernmental operations can be done remotely. Diplomacy is no longer the purview of a few people at a cocktail party or in a conference room in some aging capital city. Is there a reason for the UN to exist in a world like this?
There are times in global politics where the personal touch still matters. One thinks of the Camp David Accords that brought peace (of a sort) to Egypt and Israel. It is impossible to imagine that deal being made by email and video conferences. President Carter saved the talks from collapsing with personally signed photos for Menahem Begin's grandchildren. Leaders are human after all (despite appearances in many cases).
There must be a place for that to happen. It is entirely possible that the exchanges can happen between parties in neutral places. The US and USSR negotiated strategic arms limitations in Geneva. Israel and the Palestinians got close to peace with the talks in Oslo. One does not need a central site for such talks.
Yet, there is a certain convenience in having ambassadors from all lands (lands that don't always get along) rubbing elbows in the dining room and their staffs meeting for drinks after work. Low level discussions, creative exchanges about hypothetical deals are highly useful in nations finding common ground. Trust is vital in global politics and the UN creates opportunities for trust.
In the end, it is up to the nations of the world to take advantage of those opportunities. Had Stalin been a better person, the UN might work as designed. But that has always been the case with human institutions. Used wisely, they have value. Used foolishly, they do not. The UN is as valuable or as useless as the member nations choose for it to be. This journal believes, historical evidence notwithstanding, they may find utility in its continued existence.
© Copyright 2018 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Ubuntu Linux.
|
|
|
|
