What Does The UN Block?

For even more coverage of the Daalder/Kagan op-ed see Mark Leon Goldberg, who points out that in the post-Cold War era the UN Security Coucil actually authorizes the deployment of troops fairly frequently. It's refused to do so twice, and one of those times was Iraq, so by any reasonable criteria adopting a "listen to the UN" rule wouldn't have been superior to what was actually done in the world. One might add that a far larger problem than inability to secure UN approval for worthwhile missions is the unwillingness of member states to contribute sufficient resources to authorized missions.

Last, one should note that the Daalder/Kagan alternative of using force when our "democratic partners in Europe and Asia" agree and, indeed, "even when some of our democratic friends disagree" arguably means that Iraq fits the test. We didn't get much meaningful help from any country other than the UK, but the formal coalition was quite broad and included Albania, Australia, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, and Turkey among European or Asian democracies.

In other words, if you think the main lesson of Iraq is that we need to pretend we've learned important lessons while adhering to the same basic doctrines, then this is a great proposal.

Comments

How is it that Bush got away with pledging to go back the UN for an up-or-down vote, no matter what, and then didn't? Never heard of that again...

Posted by Gore/Edwards 08 | August 6, 2007 6:37 PM

What democracy are they talking about in America? There was zero democracy involved in entering Iraq and there sure as hell there isn't any democracy involved in us staying.

And why the sudden reverence for European democracy? Yea, right, I'm sure visions of European democracy sets all the Kegen's hearts aflutter. . I wonder how much they got paid for his stinker. Well that comes late for this Daalder guy I suppose as the way these things go is that the payoff come later. It's a sort of ad and his phone is probably ringing tonight.

Posted by repier | August 6, 2007 6:57 PM

Iraq has to be the test, right? What Kagan wants is to construct an international coalition that would have said "Yes" to Iraq, even though everyone else knows "No" was the right answer. He's one of those stabbed-in-the-backers who probably blames the UN's failure to support us for the current mess in Iraq.

To be honest, I'm really not sure why it matters-the package the neocons are trying to sell is pretty light on giving a shit what the rest of the world thinks. What they would like is for the US to dominate the mechanisms that dictate what people mean when they talk about international consensus, but it seems unlikely this could happen even in the rosiest scenario. Having seen that even the US has finite resources at it's disposal for pursuing global hegemony, perhaps Kagan is also hoping that a new league of democracies will put the resources of other nations at our disposal. I'm not against a council of democracies, precisely because I don't see how more international institutions can do anything but impede the imperial tendencies of the policymakers in this country. Kagan lives in the past, and basically thinks that if we could just tweak a few systems and get a do over, pursuing a neoconservative agenda would go as smoothly in reality as in theory. Like so many "big thinkers," when the world fails to operate according to his predictions, he assumes that it's the world, rather than his own theoretical apparatus, that is at fault.

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 6, 2007 8:00 PM

So you're going back to an absolute veto for the security council over the use of force? I thought you at least allowed an exception for when force was authorized by a regional organization, a la Kosovo?

Making security council authorization a sine qua non seems destined to produce at least as great a danger to our interests and the global good as simply ignoring it entirely. It was only an accident that Saddam invaded Kuwait when the Soviet Union was in such desparate straits and so eager for Western help that they were unwilling to protect their former client with the veto. If this veto had been imposed, can anyone seriously claim this fact alone would have made military action to expel Iraq from Kuwait wrong or illegitmate?

The problem with a mere procedural requirement for the use of force is that it has no content, either moral or stategic. It depends solely on the shifting and contingent desires and outlooks of the five nations who happen to have security council vetoes.

Posted by rd | August 6, 2007 8:40 PM

The purpose of the UN is to counterbalance the world's superpowers. Everything else is just fluff to keep the nations of the world something to care about to keep them involved. Of course, the US is the only superpower these days, so the UN is a weapon whose only real target these days is America, so I can see why neocons hate it.

Posted by Anthony | August 6, 2007 11:08 PM

In other words, if you think the main lesson of Iraq is that we need to pretend we've learned important lessons while adhering to the same basic doctrines, then this is a great proposal.

Posted by Monty | August 6, 2007 11:31 PM

I think the real question is how the neocons will handle their pending irrelevancy?

Cheetos, Dr. Pepper and all night Risk games aboard the AEI lifeboat...followed by an urgent group written letter to President Hillary?

Posted by alphie | August 6, 2007 11:50 PM

"It's refused to do so twice, and one of those times was Iraq, so by any reasonable criteria adopting a "listen to the UN" rule wouldn't have been superior to what was actually done in the world."

Adopting a "listen to the UN" rule would have kept us out of Iraq, right? There's got to be a reasonable criterion in there somewhere...

Posted by Eric | August 7, 2007 1:31 AM

http://www.ips-dc.org/COERCED.pdf

what was that about broad support again?

Posted by jonathan | August 7, 2007 8:35 AM

Let's talk turkey.

"He who pays the bill calls the tune."

This is as true in military policy as anything else.

And he who pays the bill is not Congress; it is not the taxpayer; it is not the Executive; it is most certainly not the Europeans.

It is China.

Let me speak plainly. If you think for one minute that we can run around the world invading countries and shooting smart bombs without the consent of the Chinese, then I have a quit claim deed for the Brooklyn Bridge that I am willing to sell you for a remarkably reasonable price.

And - unless you have some plan to maintain our current military without trade or government deficit and without relying on outsourced equipment from abroad - I suggest you face up the fact that what role the United States military shall play is not its decision.

Posted by Duncan Kinder | August 7, 2007 11:33 AM