The UN, US and EU
I am going to talk about over the next few days—UN nullification, US unilateralism, and EU ambitions. Today it shall be this:
US-EU Differences concerning International Law and the UN.
In his essay in Foreign Affairs, Michael J. Glennon gives reasons why he thinks the UN Security Council failed during the Iraq crisis—and ultimately why it was doomed to failure from the start.
From the beginning it is important to note that Glennon ascribes certain things to US behaviour in the lead up to the Iraq war that some may not agree with. This is mainly demonstrated through his reading of George Bush's September 12th speech to the UN Security Council.
"The beginning of the end of the international security system had actually come slightly earlier, on September 12, 2002, when President George W. Bush, to the surprise of many, brought his case against Iraq to the General Assembly and challenged the UN to take action against Baghdad for failing to disarm. "We will work with the UN Security Council for the necessary resolutions," Bush said. But he warned that he would act alone if the UN failed to cooperate.
Washington's threat was reaffirmed a month later by Congress, when it gave Bush the authority to use force against Iraq without getting approval from the UN first. The American message seemed clear: as a senior administration official put it at the time, "we don't need the Security Council."
The highlighted word is stressed by myself—I believe it to be true that Bush's speech to the UN was little more than threats, but it is a bone of contention for many.
Glennon now digs deeper into the issues at the heart of what he believes led to the demise of the UN as a force in global politics.
"It was the rise in American unipolarity—not the Iraq crisis—that, along with cultural clashes and different attitudes toward the use of force, gradually eroded the council's credibility."
I do completely agree with Glennon on this. No matter what the UN did in the face of US pressure to bring down Saddam, it would have been rendered impotent in the eyes of the world. Glennon now attempts to demonstrate the two major reasons why the Security Council is no longer relevant. The first is changes in power politics, the second is cultural differences.
The Shift in Power Politics
Since the end of the Cold War three major powers have sought to change the international balance in world affairs. France, China and Russia have each sought a 'multipolar' world. President Jacques Chirac noted some years ago:
"any community with only one dominant power is always a dangerous one and provokes reactions".
In a treaty signed in July 2001 Russia and China expressed a joint committment to a "multipolar world". A unipolar world would not be tolerated it was said. Germany too supports France, China and Russia. Former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt noted that Germany and France
"share a common interest in not delivering ourselves into the hegemony of our mightly ally, the United States".
But in the face of the opposition of these countries, the United States has remained steadfast in its determination to pursue its interests, security or otherwise, without much consideration for the opinions of these nations. Indeed the National Security Strategy paper, released in September 2002 makes quite clear US intentions. As Glennon points out:
"Its national security strategy...left no doubt about its plans to ensure no other nation could rival its military strength"
The second tier to the Strategy was the doctrine of preemption. As Glennon notes, and let there be no doubt—the doctrine of preemption:
"flatly contradicts the precepts of the UN charter. Article 51 of the charter permits the use of force only in self-defence and only 'if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.'"
Meanwhile the United States has declared that:
"to forestall or prevent...hostile acts by our adversaries the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively"
This is the shift that has taken place in power politics in the last few years. Increasingly the US seeks a unipolar world in which it is the pre-emminent power. This is happening while other major players seek multipolarity, or multilateralism. The second shift that Glennon believes has taken place is that of cultural schism.
The Cultural Schism
Glennon argues that the cultural split at the UN is one that is deeper and it separates the US from other nations on the Security Council. This has been demonstrated by numerous Security Council votes. It is also demonstrated in other ways. One of the most recent was a declaration opposing the use of force against Iraq, signed in Kuala Lumpur by 114 nations, 55% of the planet's population, that's almost two thirds of the UN's membership.
Glennon points out:
"Cultural divisions converning the use of force do not merely separate the West from the rest. Increasingly, they also separate the United States from the rest of the West. On one key subject in particular, European and American attittudes diverge and are moving further apart by the day. This subject is the role of law in international relations."
The crucial split has occured over the question: Who should make the rules: namely, should it be the states themselves, or supranational institutions?
Americans largely reject the idea of supranationalism. Can anyone imagine a situation whereby an international regime would impose limits on US military spending or the size of the US budget deficit? It borders on the impossible. The author of 'The End of History' Francis Fukuyama noted:
"Americans tend not to see any source of democratic legitimacy higher than the nation-state"
Europe, on the other hand, sees democratic legitimacy flowing from the will of the international community. Europeans have a less of problem submitting to international impingements on their sovereignty. It is this major disagreement that has led to differences over US unipolarity and international wishes for a global consensus.
Some questions arise from this first part of this series. How will international relations be forged in the future? From where will legitimacy come? How will US-EU relations change without a UN? How will conflict be prevented in the future?
This series of articles continues tomorrow.
2:14:29 PM 
|
