Home › Features › Comments › Reining in the U.N.: Mistaking the Instrument for the Actor

Reining in the U.N.: Mistaking the Instrument for the Actor

By Ernest W. Lefever
Summer 1993
Article Summary and Author Biography

The United Nations is only an instrument of sovereign states occasionally useful in specific crises. When used hastily or inappropriately, it risks internationalizing and prolonging local conflicts.

Print Email
Login or Register to leave a comment.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.

The United Nations is not and cannot be a political actor in a world of sovereign states. Despite the successful Persian Gulf War coalition, the humanitarian effort in Somalia and repeated calls for strengthening U.N. peacekeeping capability, the Security Council is no substitute for alliances, ad hoc Great Power coalitions or unilateral U.S. foreign policy initiatives. The United Nations on occasion may be a useful instrument to serve the parallel interests of the United States and other major powers in addressing specific crises. But this consequential difference between actor and instrument has been frequently confused, especially since the Cold War's end.

One should not be surprised if U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali considers the United Nations, indeed the position of secretary general itself, as an international actor with the power to make and maintain peace in troubled regions. Even critics of the United Nations often accept that U.N.-authorized troops may have an "international legitimacy" that allied or unilateral military actions do not. But both this modest claim and the more extravagant ones of the secretary general call for critical comment.

THE WRECKAGE OF WILSONIANISM

Both views must be seen against the backdrop of a persistent Wilsonian idealism that has been rejuvenated in the wake of the Security Council-blessed Gulf War. President Woodrow Wilson helped to usher in the idea of a League of Nations that sought to sanitize and order world politics. At the dawn of the United Nations in 1943, Secretary of State Cordell Hull predicted that "there will no longer be any need for spheres of influence, for alliances, for balance of power ... by which in the unhappy past the nations strove to safeguard their security or to promote their interests."

But the long weekend between Versailles and Pearl Harbor was quickly littered with the whitened bones of failed expectations. The World Court was powerless to resolve disputes, and the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact to outlaw war did no better. The League could not stop Mussolini or Hitler or prevent Japan from rearming. The symbols and machinery of international cooperation were tragically irrelevant as the world was racked by tyranny, aggression and civil conflict. The juggernaut of war rolled on.

This is a premium article

You must be a logged in Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you wish to continue reading this article please subscribe , or activate your online account to get full online access.

Buy PDF

Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.

Related

Review Essay, Mar/Apr 2000
Paving the Road to Hell: The Failure of U.N. Peacekeeping
Max Boot

William Shawcross shows how U.N. peacekeeping has failed but does not draw the obvious conclusion: the world's hot spots need U.S. intervention, and plenty of it.

Read
Essay, Jul 1964
Scandinavia's Peace-Keeping Forces for U.N.
Per Haekkerup

It is a major aim of the Danish Government and the Danish people to do everything within their power to strengthen the United Nations. Small countries have a vital stake in supporting the development of the United Nations so that it becomes an effective instrument of the international rule of law. Obviously, this is not an aim that can be achieved at once. But by helping to preserve and strengthen the United Nations as an effective instrument for peace in the current international situation, we can help in the longer run to bring about conditions which foster gradual progress toward the distant but all-important goal.

Read
Essay, Spring 1991
The U.N. in a New World Order
Bruce Russett and James S. Sutterlin

The UN's need for means of military enforcement was foreseen by the Charter, and the post-Cold War international scene is likely, as the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait showed, to require such means to be available. However, the lack of a standing force means that enforcement has always had to be improvised. However, in cases involving major commitment, such as the Gulf war, such an approach "is not likely to be viable unless the vital interests of one or more major military powers is at risk", a limitation which detracts from the global security missions of the UN. A more promising alternative is to create a system for the provision of forces under contract between member states and the UN. A discussion of the contractual and operational command issues involved in such a proposal.

Read