h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The United Nations functions as a democratic confederacy. That is, it has no power in and of itself, but brokers agreements among member states for the benefit of the whole. Any power it has to enforce these agreements comes from voluntary contributions of political or military force by those member nations.

The United States experimented with confederacy three times. Its first form of government was the unofficial Second Continental Congress. It was later legitimized into the Articles of Confederation. And finally, when the anti-federalist South seceded, they formed themselves into the Confederate States of America.

The first two confederacies were an abject failure. They failed to raise armies, raise taxes, or regulate commerce effectively, and the Revolution nearly failed because of it. The Confederacy was more effective, but had difficulties of its own (for instance, the railroads in the South were extremely problematic for lack of a uniform track width), and would no doubt have failed completely but for the unified purpose of the member states.

It is for these reasons that the US developed a strong federalist government with the power to override the states. And because it is seen as the logical progression of such things, rednecks are caching weapons in the hills and watching for the black helicopters of the One World Government... a federalist incarnation of the UN, which they see as the next step in the logical progression.





The United Nations succeeded in bringing action against Iraq in 1991 because of a unity of purpose among its member states. It then went on to pass a collection of resolutions for long-term handling of Iraq. For twelve years it failed to enforce them entirely.

1) The no-fly zones were patrolled by US and UK aircraft. Iraq did challenge the patrol craft from time to time, against the UN resolutions, and the patrol craft responded. This may be the only success of the sanctions.

2) The trade embargoes were enforced by US and UK ships operating in the Persian Gulf. However, trade was still being conducted through Syria.

3) All UN member states were forbidden to deal military supplies to Iraq. Through Syria, French and Russian supplies arrived in Iraq.

4) UN weapons inspectors were supposed to verify the destruction of all Iraqi WMD. Full compliance without any resistance was specified. Those inspections were thwarted for the entire 12 year period.

Non-compliance with item 4 was continually reported to the UN, and resolutions continued to be made. The UN made a very clear signal that it expected to be obeyed in the matter. And when Iraq continued its policy of qualified compliance, the UN did...

Nothing. Partisan politics stopped official action.

So when the US and UK decided to take action independent of the UN, based on the resolutions already on record, the UN did...

Nothing.

Are we finally beginning to see the weakness of a confederate government? Is this the only example? Is the UN losing its legitimacy? Is a federalist world government possible, or desirable? Will the European Union face this same dilemma? What credibility would the UN have if the US withdrew from it?

The UN is a talking shop. It's a lumbering, beaurocratic compromise at best. While it's principles are honourable, the talking usually leads to a compromise of inaction and more talking.

I can't help feeling that we'd be better served by some kind of World Court instead. But the details of this are sketchy in my mind at best.

As for the credibility of the UN if the US withdrew - I'm sure it would damage the UN. But I suspect it may damage the US slightly more.

I think a world government is possible and desirable - but it is a VERY long way off. There are people in Europe trying to make the EU into just such a thing, but it is unpopular in many countries, particularly Britain (which is a very xenophobic country indeed). Also, there are legitimate concerns about how democratic the EU is.

I don't think the US withdrawing from the UN would do it any actual harm at all, although it would probably make it seem less important. Since the US seems reluctant to pay its UN dues as it is, and since it will only commit troops when it wanted to anyway, and since it is one of the countries with veto power and hence can't be criticised by the UN, I don't see what difference not having it in the UN would make.

Is the EU following a confederate blueprint?

The US has been the primary source of military power in those few events recently when the UN actually enforced something. Who would take up that burden without the US?

The obvious choice would be the UK. Would they use it without US guidance and participation? It's a lot easier to stand up to a bully when you've got five huge cousins watching your back.

As for the US committing forces when it wants to... that's the nature of a confederacy. How is it different for any other country?

Well, the design of the EU seems to be a bit schizophrenic in this respect. Probably a result of its slow evolution by political wrangling. In some respects there is a great deal of central authority - the European Court of Human Rights supposedly is a higher court than any European national one - in other respects it is only a very loose union.

One interesting thing is the possibility, I haven't been following it too closely so I don't know if it is yet a reality or if it is still being discussed, of a European military whose forces are not answerable to any individual nation but only to the union.

"The US has been the primary source of military power in those few events recently when the UN actually enforced something. Who would take up that burden without the US?"

There has been talk in recent years of a "European Rapid Reaction Force", a loosely-tied "army" comprising of the forces of EU states. Given that EU countries have world-class modern armies and (collectively) a huge number of troops this would be a formidable force. However, it is unlikely the Major European powers (Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Poland) would agree on everything and this may supper it.

Having said that, there was a very successful European-led NATO operation in Macedonia recently, so the idea certainly has a future.

Immediately following the episode in the UN, the US began initiating new members into NATO and meetings were held to discuss NATO's role in the world. I think they recognizing that NATO could become the enforcement tool that the UN lacks.

However, NATO suffers from the same shortcomings that the UN does. Worse, actually... commitment of NATO forces requires unanimous vote. And the French are members, and they can be counted on to vote against anything, unless it's their own borders that are threatened.

Discussion of revising the NATO charter to fix that is in progress.

Would the France that 'can be counted on to vote against anything unless their own borders are threatened' be the same country that is the only one to have sent troops to the Congo to attempt to stop the genocide going on there?

I think that the death-knell for the UN may have been the US' blatant disregard for it over the last 12 months. It is to be hoped that the Geneva Convention doesn't go the same way. The problem is that as the world's only superpower, the US no longer feels the need for a UN and is ignoring it (except when the US feels the UN can give it a 'legitimacy').

This may be fundamental to the idea of a confederacy - the partners have to be roughly equal, without one dominant member. During the Cold War years, the UN seemed to work reasonably well.

Gif

What did the UN accomplish during the Cold War?

With both the USSR and the US on opposite sides of every issue, and both holding veto power, I don't recall that the UN managed to do very much at all.

Dogster - reluctant, yes, but last I heard the US was up to date with its payments.

Blatherskite - I guess it didn't achieve much, the occasional peacekeeping mission (only don't ask me to name one!) and possibly arguably contributed to the lack of a nuclear war. The point I was making was that with two (or more) roughly equal partners, it did at least survive itself - with one dominant member, it seems impossible for it to survive.

The danger (or 'a' danger) now is that if the US does withdraw from the UN, the UN could effectively become an anti-US alliance, since there will be no-one promoting the US point of view.

Gif

"What did the UN accomplish during the Cold War?"

More to the point, what has the UN achieved full stop?

The UN is supposed to enter conflict situations and diffuse them. What it usually does is simply create food convoys and give UN troops no other powers than to "escort" them. The convoys are often looted (see Somalia).

I recently read a book about the Bosnian conflict in which the author (an Englishman, and certainly not a right-wing anti-UN isolationist) was damning of the UN mission in Bosnia for it's refusal to take any action (although he praised the UN troops in Bosnia, particularly the Swedes, for their bravery and determination to try and do the right thing with the limited power the UN had given them).

When an organisation doesn't work you have to eventually admit that that organisation must be radically overhauled or become irrelevant.

The question is: How many years will it take the UN to debate it's "radical overhauling" and file it in triplicate before it slides into this irrelevance?