Nothing Wrong With Losing

Fred Kaplan is, as usual, very good in his latest. I wanted, however, to highlight something he says that expresses a very common sentiment that I think ought to be called into question: "Meaningful, multilateral sanctions seem a dead end at this point, in any case; to continue to push for them, when crucial governments are set against them, only makes the United States and the United Nations look more foolish."

I know I'm tilting against the overwhelming consensus here, but I think it'd actually be good to see the United States make a serious proposal for multilateral something-or-other that we'd like to see happen, to get some support for the proposal on the Security Council, to put it to a vote, lose the vote, and then complain about the loss but accept it as legitimate. It seems to me that this is how the Security Council ought to work -- not unlike a legislature, where people regularly introduce proposals that they know are going to be defeated. Obviously, Bush isn't one to care about this sort of thing, but I think establishing a trend in that direction would be of enormous benefit to the UN over time.

Comments

Reminds me of Bush's March 2003 call "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote." and "It's time for people to show their cards, let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." But then he didn't call for the vote when he saw the vote would fail. And then he invaded anyways. And nobody seemed to notice.

Might is Right. Ultimatelly the UN doesn't matter.

Posted by miguel | September 6, 2006 3:17 PM

Uhh, haven't there been a few futile resolutions about Israel, and a whole host of others? Aren't you really saying you want the US to take a fall to show the game ain't rigged?

Posted by bob mcmanus | September 6, 2006 3:30 PM

Seems to me that there are two reasons in a normal legistlature to introduce a doomed proposal as Matt is suggesting. First, to embarrass the opposition by forcing them to vote for an unpopular (you think) position, which you can use against them at the next election; second, to demonstrate to your own constituents that you are trying to do the job they sent you to the legislature to do.

The first reason doesn't make any sense in the Security Council. Are the citizens of China likely to pressure their own government if it doesn't vote how they want? I'd imagine they have more pressing concerns with their government than how it acts at the UN. As for the second, it's mostly for smaller, weaker parties that otherwise wouldn't have any accomplishments in office at all. The US forcing votes it knows will lose at the UN would be like the Republican leadership bringing up a bill that they can't even get full support for in their own caucus; and yes, that would make them look silly and weak.

I think a better analogy for the Security Council is the cabinet in a parliamentary system -- the members have their own agendas and conflicts, but at the end of the day they are responsible for leading and getting things done. A cabinet full of squabblers and malcontents would face a vote of no confidence pretty quickly - and that's why parties compromise on their full agenda in order to stay in the government. There's nothing wrong with making proposals and having a debate, but embarrassing votes don't do anything but show how divided the "leadership" is.

Posted by five toed sloth | September 6, 2006 6:49 PM

I know I'm tilting against the overwhelming consensus here, but I think it'd actually be good to see the United States make a serious proposal for multilateral something-or-other that we'd like to see happen, to get some support for the proposal on the Security Council, to put it to a vote, lose the vote, and then complain about the loss but accept it as legitimate.

I think you need a sentence or two on what this would have meant for the Kossovo intervention here. Should the US and other NATO members have accepted the UNSC veto and done nothing? State your position.

Posted by otto | September 6, 2006 6:51 PM

The UN Security Council will have enhanced legitimacy the more it's unable to do anything?

I'm sure the Sudanese will be pleased.

Posted by Gregory Scoblete | September 7, 2006 6:06 PM