 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
| In a world dominated by one superpower, what should the role of a
collective security organization like the UN be?
|
|
 |
 |
Ian Johnstone,
Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy
The UN is a collective security organization, but with two important qualifications: no state is deprived of the right of self-defense and enforcement action can only be taken with the concurrence of the five permanent members of the Security Council. As such, it embodies both the spirit of multilateralism and hard-headed pragmatism about the role and interests of the great powers. The balance of global power may have changed with the end of the Cold War, but the balance between the ideal of collective security and the reality of power has not. Thus the UN can still play roles it always played: a place where states go to coordinate policy and seek agreement on new threats like terrorism, an instrument for managing peacekeeping and humanitarian missions, an honest broker between parties to a conflict. The UN has also played an important normative role in the past, which may be even more important in a world dominated by one superpower. The Charter itself embodies a set of shared values, and new norms relating to the use of force, human rights and democracy have been elaborated and spread through the work of the UN. Scholars have noted the "collective legitimation" function of international organizations: actions viewed with suspicion if undertaken unilaterally become more acceptable when endorsed collectively. One need not equate legitimacy with multilateralism to appreciate this "laundering" function. The simple truth is that power exercised on the basis of shared norms is typically more effective than power alone.
James S. Robbin's Rebuttal:
It is true that the UN Charter enshrines certain values, but whether they are shared or expressed by all its members is another matter entirely.
With respect to the spread of human rights and democracy, the UN continues to have a good record of intentions, but a mixed record of results. However, the UN now faces a moment of historical opportunity, to work in partnership with a superpower that is one of the exemplars of the value-set the organization represents, as well as a principal author of the Charter and other key documents related to human rights. The United States has shown a willingness to seek collective legitimation while retaining the right to unilateral self-defense when necessary. The results, while sometimes contentious, have so far been positive.
|
James S. Robbins,
NATIONAL REVIEW Contributing Editor
In many respects, the preponderance of the United States's power and influence globally makes things easier for the UN by decreasing the potential for the types of security threats the UN was formed to defeat. Twentieth-century style global interstate conflict is unlikely today and will be for as long as the United States maintains its current status as the sole superpower. Given the conditions of globalization under the umbrella of US power, and the shifting forms of international security threats, notions of collective security and the role of the UN must evolve in order to remain relevant. The UN was founded to ensure the security of states from threats by other states, but current challenges come from non-state actors such as global terrorist networks, and transnational phenomena such as international organized crime, the narcotics trade, smuggling, piracy, and weapons proliferation, particularly weapons of mass destruction. The UN should be better equipped to assist states in combating these problems, and particularly in working with the United States to pursue the necessary international legal and political reforms required to facilitate comprehensive international action by law enforcement agencies and combined military forces.
Ian Johnstone's Rebuttal:
I fully agree that the UN needs to be better equipped to assist in combating new security threats, and I hope the US takes that to heart. But security threats like terrorism are not so new for many countries and, meanwhile, none of the old threats have disappeared. The UN can and has adapted, but its focus on new challenges should not be at the expense of "old-fashioned" problems like internal conflicts, massive human rights abuses, abject poverty and environmental degradation.
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
