the end and beginning of the new multi-lateralism

dear guy,

i was reflecting on our conversation the other day about iraq and how you believed war could be allowable only because you believe in the united nations. you suggested that war was acceptable because it was coalition decisions such as this one that were the raison d'etre and ultimate balance of power the united nations was intended for. i've given the argument a lot of thought, but, at the end of it all i have to say i think i'm afraid of the set of options the united nations faces and about what the future of this "balance of power" looks like.

i have to admit i used to have a very optimistic outlook for the united nations. it was moving towards a concept i was fascinated with in my undergraduate days: "the new multi-lateralism". it looked as if the new century's trajectory for the united nations included a committment to "human security", most evident through the creation of the international criminal court; a passionate dialogue with non-governmental organizations and third parties, notable through the continuing discussions around the united nations international declaration of human rights and its significant side-treatise; and a willingness to pursue both "soft" and "hard" diplomacy, notable through dialogue surrounding human rights abuses and ethnic conflict. it appears now that the united nations and the new multilateralism is doomed to fail.

the united states has contended that the un has been snookered by iraq for the past twelve years by evading weapons inspectors. they have maintained that these weapons inspections have been unable to locate the weapons of mass destruction the us believes iraq has. the united states is also arguing that regardless of weaponry of mass destruction, iraq is in need of "regime change" as the current administration is inhumane, unelected and dangerous.

for the first point, the security council has put intense focus and pressure on the united nations weapons inspection force and the atomic energy committee. significant resources have been diverted to blix and el baradei to provide them with the staff, technology and money to be able to carry out their work. they have received limited cooperation from the repressive regime of iraq (not surprising) but have had recent "success" in pursuing disarmament. the problem for the united states is that they have given up hope in the entire inspections process and are attempting to convince their security council colleagues of the futility of this exercise.

for the second point, the united states is attempting to envelope their frustration into work on the previous. a new resolution to replace 1441 would not only end weapons inspections but would also allow the us to pursue a war where "regime change" is ultimately a goal. unlatching the possibility for a new politics in the middle east and a us gateway into security for both us oil and friends in israel, a successful war in iraq would bring us foreign policy to bounteous fruition. herein lies the problem with this being the united nations.

the problem with the us's agenda and the united nations is probably best expressed in a recent comment made by colin powell. "If the United Nations does not act, there is still a legal basis and moral basis and legitimacy to the United States and other nations acting,". this is the end of the "collective security" raison d'etre of the un.

there is essentially two roads diverging currently for the un security council and both of them highlight its widening faults. on the one hand, the un could pass a new resolution which would effectively endorse a war in iraq. while this seems highly unlikely (with ivory coast warkhawk/friend of mugabe turned "dove" chiraq nearly guaranteeing a veto), it would not come about by the will of the security council. it would come about grudgingly in the hopes of saving the security council. in some contexts we call these kinds of decisions "made under duress" or "unwilling agreements" and they paint a nasty future for the face of collective security. on the other hand, the united nations could turn down a new resolution imposing timelines and nearly guaranteeing war. the us will go to war anyway. this effectively destroys the notion of "collective security", erodes the balance of power and suggests that there is no longer a global consensus on how to deal with conflict.

the new multilateralism so widely lauded at the beginning of this century is then dead. there is no human security in the face of unilateral decision-making. there is no consultation when "collective security" is one country pursuing their foreign policy obejectives come hell or high water. the united nations security council was created in a hope that we could avoid nasty global conflict by placing some state decision-making power into the collective with the hopes that consensus would emerge, that dialogue could be utilized and that the fears of mutual consequence from war could be a framework for joint decision-making. the crises of iraq has shattered these hopes for the un. regardless of whether war in iraq is justified, regardless of whether regime change is crucial, this war has already ended a hope that multi-laterialism and collective security would be the building blocks of the new millennium for the united nations.