Forever

I liked Francis Fukuyama's review of Samantha Power's new book very much, but something at the end of it reminded me of a complaint I frequently have with commentary on the future of international institutions:

In the end, the book does not make a persuasive case that the United Nations will ever be able to evolve into an organization that can deploy adequate amounts of hard power or take sides in contentious political disputes. Its weaknesses as a bureaucracy and its political constraints make it very unlikely that the United States and other powerful countries will ever delegate to it direct control over their soldiers or trust it with large sums of money.

I'm not sure people truly grasp the force of a claim that involves the statement that something won't "ever" happen. Human civilization might go on for a very long time. Think of a person sitting around in 1808 speculating on what might or might not "ever" come to pass in the world. It wouldn't have even occurred to him to predict that Germany and France could never reconcile because there would have been no such country as Germany. Things would need to be very different from how they are now for major countries to be putting soldiers under the direct control of UN authorities, but if you consider how much things have changed from 1938 to 2008, it doesn't seem at all implausible that things might, indeed, be very different in 2078.

When I was in the Netherlands, a leading Dutch pundit argued to me that the Netherlands would never put its soldiers under the command of a German officer. I told him this exact scenario in fact already exists. He insisted I was wrong, but fortunately Bert Koenders, Minister for Development and Cooperation, was on hand to back me up. Things change, stuff happens, people will be surprised.

Comments

It might be better to say: intellectuals have been arguing for hundreds of years in favour of an international organization that can deploy adequate amounts of hard power or take sides in contentious political disputes. But it's never shown up and there's little reason to expect it to.

Posted by otto | February 17, 2008 1:21 PM

Shoot, the United States might even one day become a Fascist State. Things change, stuff happens, people will be surprised.
Buzz

Posted by Buzz | February 17, 2008 1:24 PM

Hmmm... History not your strong suit. It is true that there was no single, unified German nation state in 1808. Having said that, there was actually rather a lot of conflict between German states and France at around that time, conflict that was highly instrumental in forming a pan-German national consciousness. I trust you heard of this guy Napoleon?

The person in 1808, assuming her to be a historically knowledgeable person, would have been perfectly aware of the Fact that the French state had, by that time, expanded into ethnically German territories, through wars of conquest, for hundreds of years. Our fictional person would therefore have been perfectly aware as well that a German nation state, should it ever come into existence, would inevitably end up in conflict with France.

Now to be sure, there's been change. But let's not forget how it came about. The reason there's no longer a rivalry between those two countries is that Germany was destroyed completely as a nation, but unfortunately only after having committed the worst crimes in human history first.

So frankly, I'd could Fukuyama some slack here. His perspective seems, how shall I say, realist?

Posted by gr | February 17, 2008 1:30 PM

Nono, Matt's argument doesn't hold up, because for Fukuyama, you see, history has already ended...

Posted by T | February 17, 2008 1:37 PM

No, no, Matt is wrong, everything is pretty much the way it always will be, even our economic systems and forms of government. The ways things were in the recollections of our conservative citizens is the way things must be and remain forever, period.

Except of course for when we've all been replaced by perfectly functional androids, then things might change. Maybe. But surely they will also be programmed to follow the unchallengeable wisdom of the Free Market and of late 19th century / early 20th century American democracy, which is the best things could ever be in any universe along any timestream.

Posted by El Cid | February 17, 2008 1:55 PM

I rather liked James Mann's review in the Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/07/AR2008020702747.html

Posted by David | February 17, 2008 2:01 PM

The notion that the United Nations is never going to work is one of the favorite themes of the Right. They can't stand the idea that nations can pool their collective resources and intelligence and good will for the greater benefit of all. They fear that organizations like the UN limit our ability to act unilaterally in the realm of foreign policy. They want America to be free to police the world as it sees fit. How's that been working out?

Posted by the pope | February 17, 2008 2:04 PM

Bill Kristol won't be right, about anything, ever.

Posted by dogfacegeorge | February 17, 2008 2:05 PM

I think Fukuyama misunderstands the power of the U.N. It isn't an organization that should be evaluated by its capacity to "get things done."

The U.N. should be evaluated by its capacity to stop things from getting done. Where action in the world would make things worse, the U.N. provides a forum where such action can be avoided.

For instance:
In the cold war, the U.S. implied that we would support any uprising against the Soviets. The Hungarians rose up in 1956 ... What was the U.S. to do?! Any direct military engagement would have been catastrophic... The U.N. provided a forum for world condemnation, which helped vent the need to take military action.

Similarly, the U.N. *could* have provided the alternative to our invasion of Iraq in 2003. And had U.S. leaders dealt with the U.N. in good faith, it would have.

Posted by jackifus | February 17, 2008 2:06 PM

I think Fukuyama misunderstands the power of the U.N. It isn't an organization that should be evaluated by its capacity to "get things done."

The U.N. should be evaluated by its capacity to stop things from getting done. Where action in the world would make things worse, the U.N. provides a forum where such action can be avoided.

For instance:
In the cold war, the U.S. implied that we would support any uprising against the Soviets. The Hungarians rose up in 1956 ... What was the U.S. to do?! Any direct military engagement would have been catastrophic... The U.N. provided a forum for world condemnation, which helped vent the need to take military action.

Similarly, the U.N. *could* have provided the alternative to our invasion of Iraq in 2003. And had U.S. leaders dealt with the U.N. in good faith, it would have.

I see the U.N. as a form of cathartic ritual theater... that is actually quite effective.

Posted by jackifus | February 17, 2008 2:10 PM

Human civilization might go on for a very long time.

Feh. I give us a hundred more years - tops.

Posted by McKingford | February 17, 2008 2:11 PM

"They can't stand the idea that nations can pool their collective resources and intelligence and good will for the greater benefit of all."

More to the point, they're bemused by the notion that a neighborhood watch which includes the local crack house and both the Crips and the Bloods is going to do anything about reducing crime.

The UN was a good try, but is fatally compromised by it's founding composition. One look at who ends up on the Human Rights commission would tell you that.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | February 17, 2008 2:23 PM

I say this: Fuck that Dutch pundit for the condescending jackass he/she was.

Posted by kyle | February 17, 2008 2:27 PM

"Bert Koenders":

Matt, you have better names to drop in .

"As Dad said to Marlon Brando...."

Posted by John Emerson | February 17, 2008 2:32 PM

Yes, things change a lot over time, etc. This argument could be used to defeat almost any policy that locks us into a long-term commitment. Like, say, universal health care. Who knows how health care could innovate and change over the next 100 years, and if we'd still want the government to be paying for it then.
It's also unclear if you have any policy arguments for why the UN could be effective beyond saying 'things change'.

Posted by jamie | February 17, 2008 2:34 PM

At some point there has to be some thought put into what the endgame will be like if the oil really does start to run out.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | February 17, 2008 2:37 PM

"Matt, you have better names to drop in your own family.

As Dad said to Marlon Brando....""

Posted by John Emerson | February 17, 2008 2:39 PM

Oh, Matt, you just don't understand the way these things work.
There is always an out, which is the same as the out used constantly by religion --- redefine the meanings of words.

So, in this case, if the UN ever does take up substantial amounts of real-world power, Fukuyama simply claims that, ipso facto, it is no longer the UN that he was discussing. It might have the same name, but it is a very different organization.

Feel free to repeat this with whatever insane piece of religious nonsense you like, whether it's that the earth is/is not flat, or that abortion is/is not bad, or that gays are/are not evil, or that people should/should not eat mixed milk+meat dishes, or that Islam is a religion of constant jihad.

Posted by Maynard Handley | February 17, 2008 2:56 PM

"More to the point, they're bemused by the notion that a neighborhood watch which includes the local crack house and both the Crips and the Bloods is going to do anything about reducing crime."

And leave it to brett bellmore to analogize the situation to that of those iniquitous niggers. I do wonder what it's like to have in your head at all times a thoroughly racialized sense of perception. The way things must seem...

Posted by Mark | February 17, 2008 3:11 PM

Bill Kristol won't be right, about anything, ever.
Posted by dogfacegeorge

Bill Kristol is saying Obama will be the nominee. He has also cast aspersions on Hillary's character. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Over the eons homo sapiens haven't changed. The more things change...the more twisted and mutated they become.

Posted by Trevor | February 17, 2008 3:36 PM

Some things change, but some things remain remarkably consistent. The idea that all the world's nations can get together under one roof and accomplish anything significant is neither new, nor any more plausible than it ever was.

The League of Nations did more harm than good because it had no enforcement mechanism for its most important Resolutions. The Security Council was supposed to remedy that fatal flaw, but has failed to do so.

After the vote on Korea, meaningful action was blocked by one or the other of the two dominant blocs. When the Cold War ended, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait provided the opportunity to forge a new consensus on the enforcement of commonly agreed upon international norms. This opportunity was frittered away by the twelve years of indecision, "one more chance", and a sanctions regime that was both genocidal and ineffective in terms of its purpose. The final blow was the announcement by the likes of Koffi Annan and Jacques Chirac that it is "illegal" for members of the Security Council to enforce its most important Resolutions--full circle with the League.

Currently the World Body functions as a meeting place for, mostly, the representatives, cronies, and family members of tin-horn dictators from around the world, from which they can launch shopping trips using their national treasuries as credit cards while their population starves. In between, they pass useless resolutions against Israel and the US. Someone explain how this is going to change even if the charade is allowed to continue for another century or so.

Posted by Robert Powell | February 17, 2008 3:48 PM

I enjoy this blog, BUT "that pundit's statement doesn't hold water if the whole world changes, which sooner or later it does" is a breathtakingly stupid point to make.

Posted by Sanjay | February 17, 2008 4:14 PM

The notion that the United Nations is never going to work is one of the favorite themes of the Right. They can't stand the idea that nations can pool their collective resources and intelligence and good will for the greater benefit of all. They fear that organizations like the UN limit our ability to act unilaterally in the realm of foreign policy. They want America to be free to police the world as it sees fit. How's that been working out?

Pretty well, I'd say. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, America mostly is free to police the world as it sees fit.

Posted by Mixner | February 17, 2008 5:00 PM

I'd say if there's no longer a rivalry between the two, the reason is the coal and steel community, which evolved into the common market, and the EU.

In fact, if I was making Matt's argument, I would have thought the EU would be the best examplar of both effective supranational organization, and how dramatically things can change in 50 years (let alone 200).

Posted by Doh | February 17, 2008 5:33 PM

Pretty well, I'd say. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, America mostly is free to police the world as it sees fit.

Yeah, like a 4 year old is free to throw his toys around in a hissy fit. Telling that you're happy just having the power to police the world without giving much thought to the actual results of the policing.

I would have thought the EU would be the best examplar of both effective supranational organization, and how dramatically things can change in 50 years (let alone 200).

Very much so and in even less than 50 years: consider how astonished people who have witnessed the world wars in Europe must have been when they looked back in e.g. 1972.

Posted by novakant | February 17, 2008 6:59 PM

What's Fukuyama talking about? History ended in 1989, remember?

Posted by asdf | February 17, 2008 7:45 PM

Never say never again.

Posted by Reality Man | February 17, 2008 9:18 PM

I think jackifus made a very good point. The UN doesn't exist to get things done, but to prevent things from being done - specifically, aggressive war.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | February 17, 2008 11:03 PM

History may have ended in 1989 or 1990, but Fukuyama never said that history could not start again in the future. It all depends on how you define "end" - maybe in Francis' world it means "take a break for a while". It couldn't be that he used the word "end" because he knew that saying something controversial would sell more books.

Posted by cgaros | February 18, 2008 12:06 AM

I think Fukuyama's position is better. He wants to see evidence to support the idea that the UN could at some point work in ways that it has not in the past worked and is not now working. Lacking that evidence, he does not promise such and such will never happens; he simply points out that the case has not been adequately made that it will likely happen.

This seems to be a better analysis of the UN than: Yes, the UN could do these things, because "Things change, stuff happens, people will be surprised". Just because French person in 1808 or some Dutch person would be surprised at some historical event does not mean that Fukuyama will be surprised in the way that UN enthusiasts hope he will be surprised. I am missing something here?

Posted by Colatina | February 18, 2008 1:02 AM

"Human civilization might go on for a very long time."

It won't.

You've got maybe another 40+ years, 90+ at the absolute outside.

"but if you consider how much things have changed from 1938 to 2008, it doesn't seem at all implausible that things might, indeed, be very different in 2078."

Yeah. but when I say what I just did say, you don't believe it.

Even though the direct line of technological development clearly shows what will happen.

An example:

Machines 'to match man by 2029'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7248875.stm

And that's only twenty years from now. I think Kurzweil may be optimistic, but not by decades.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 18, 2008 4:41 AM

To understand what Fukuyama means by "the end of history" you need to read Hegel.

Posted by novakant | February 18, 2008 5:08 AM

novakant,

isn't that "the end of History"?

Posted by heedless | February 18, 2008 6:16 AM

"And leave it to brett bellmore to analogize the situation to that of those iniquitous niggers. I do wonder what it's like to have in your head at all times a thoroughly racialized sense of perception. The way things must seem..."

I wonder what it's like to be so thoroughly racialized in your sense of perception that if somebody mentions street gangs, you think of blacks instead of criminals.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | February 18, 2008 7:34 AM

"To understand what Fukuyama means by "the end of history" you need to read Hegel."

You mean Kojeve. Fukuyama's Hegel is a kind of Platonized-Marxist filteration of Hegel. I really like Fukuyama but the link between his End of History thesis and what Hegel actually wrote ia about as weak as the link between that thesis and current reality.

Posted by Colatina | February 18, 2008 2:04 PM