UN Becoming

Matthew Yglesias responds to some criticism of his views by Justin Logan in his blog. Matt's original position was staked out in an American Prospect article, but basically Matt's states that John Bolton's nomination as Ambassador to the UN is awful because Bolton's "history suggests his only interest is in delegitimize the very concept of international institutions, not making them work better." Logan's response is that rather than international institutions (in Matt's world NATO and the EU) keeping the Western peace for the last half of the 20th century, "it was always the presence of a bifurcated world dominated by two superpower blocs that precluded wars between western European powers. "

Matt and Justin are both wrong - and right. Matt use of NATO and the EU as examples in comparison to the UN is flat out wrong. Justin's position that 7,000 nukes kept the peace is also wrong - trade guns for butter and the outcome (essentially a Mexican stand off) would have been the same.

The problem with the UN is not that it is an international institution, but the way it is comprised. Less then 1/2 of the UN countries are free (and democratic). Thus, these country's positions are not shaped by what benefits that country, but what benefits that particular dictator/strongman/thug. NATO and the EU worked because like minded countries engaged in a common endeavor with a common goal. (I appreciate even that rewrites the occasionally very rocky NATO history. And remember, no France.)

The UN would run the world like an Old West poker game - every one knows the rules, but cheating is rampant. The question before the US seems to always be: do I draw my gun and shoot the cheater even though I am out of this hand? Further, since the UN is one country one vote, the ONLY power these nations wield is the power to obstruct. Does Matt really think the UN Commission on human rights - with Libya and Sudan - has ANY interest in the "good of the world"? I don't think so.

Bolton's position on international law and institutions is a realist's position: the structure of the UN is such that very few constructive outcomes are possible. In the world of 2005, the US is the only "superpower" able to project sufficient power to stop a dictator or humanitarian disaster. No one else can. Period. In fact, excepting Russia, Great Britain, Israel and China, no nation has the ability to battle a large, well armed local militia. That, unfortunately, is real. (I would note that even Russia has had a huge amount of trouble within its borders with local "militia.") Does Bolton think reform is possible? I doubt it, but I also do not believe that his positions are uniformly adverse to international institutions. To quote from Matt: Bolton believes that "it is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law even when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so because, over the long term, the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are those who want to constrict the United States." That sound to me like a structural criticism, not a philosophical one.

As for Justin pooh-poohing NATO as a deterrent, he must be in his 20s. The common front presented to the Soviet-bloc by the Western Europe allies to fight a war was huge. Let's not forget how Eastern Europe came to be satellite states: a war weary West did not have the stomach to intervene when countries were usurped by the USSR. They certainly had the guns, but the guns were useless without the common purpose that developed - and led to NATO. NATO probably seems like a quaint, old-school organization, but in the late-50's, my father operated an anti-tank gun looking over the Fulda Gap. I assure you, NATO was in a serious business.

On a bit of a side note, I would also draw some parallels between the Lebanese demonstrators and the Hungarians of 1956. The key difference: the other side believes that the West (US and France) will step in if things get out of hand. Without a derringer, the card player is standing up to the cheat, because he knows that there is another at the table with a really big gun who wants the rules followed.