The Developing and Deepening Conflict
Host: Farhad Saba

The Role of the United Nations and Other Alliances

(Farhad Saba) I just looked at the headlines of more than 30 newspapers in Farsi that are based in Iran and are on the web. It is very clear that the government controlled press is very much concerned with the "imperialistic" intentions of the US in the area. Further, headlines try to persuade people that in case of "foreign intervention" the Iranian armed forces should be considered as their protector – I thought this was an interesting pronouncement by the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces!

A disturbing parallel to Iraq, however, is that while the French have provided Iraq with nuclear technology since 1975, the Russians are providing such technology to Iran. Some headlines reported the reassurance of Russian government officials that they would continue to provide nuclear technology to Iran. The behavior of Russia and France in the UN is interesting in the sense that the Russians know that as soon as "The Developing Conflict" is over, the attention of the US would turn toward Iran and provision of nuclear technology by Russia to Iran.

(Participant) One of the more interesting--and depressing--paradoxes of this war is that because such a large number of US citizens, and our friends around the world, were adamantly opposed to the invasion of Iraq, many of them now have mixed feelings about the unexpected troubles that the US and British military are experiencing.  Everyone is supportive of those we put in harm's way, but some small minority are even hoping that Saddam will win. Many who have no doubt about what they want the outcome to be, a total victory by the coalition forces, are also feeling some guilty pleasure at the turn of events that is now embarrassing the administration. I cannot think of a war, even Vietnam, when such strongly mixed feelings existed.

(Farhad Saba) Donald: Every month I see a major chunk of my paycheck go to federal income tax. I don’t necessarily enjoy this, and think with less military and security expenditure, I might be able to keep a few more dollars and spend it on what I need at home. I’d love the UN take over some of the badly needed functions that the US is carrying out right now.

But we all have witnessed the inability of the United Nations to speak from a position of authority in addressing major international issues in the last 20 years or so. The UN usually is silent on such issues.

At the operational level, several years ago, I had a chance to observe development projects run by the UN, too. They were the most inefficient international agency by any standard. Roughly translating, the joke was that the time it takes for the Americans to build a high school in Iran, is only enough for the UN to come up with alternative ideas for one.

Structurally, the UN is problematic too. The Security Council, and the power to veto by certain countries, must be revisited. Membership in the council should be based on achievement of certain levels of political and economic development from now on, and not based on post-WW II realities.

We also need another layer between the general assembly and the Security Council. All countries could be a member of the general assembly, but they should achieve certain standards of political and economic freedom before they could be accepted in the level above of the general assembly.

Resolutions passed by the Security Council should be binding for everyone, and the general assembly should have a much more limited role and power. All countries can strive to elevate their status and gain access to the Security Council, but membership should not be automatic. Countries slipping in their political, or economic freedom should loose their membership in the Security Council, or in the layer between the general assembly and the Council.

This is a long way of saying that membership in the UN should come with certain credentials, like the World Trade Organization. Outlaw countries should be expelled from the UN with severe sanctions attached to such expulsion.

With such a structure and membership based on merits, one can expect the UN to become a meaningful organization. Otherwise, you will find representative from Saddam’s Iraq chairing the UN commission on disarmament, and Libya chairing the commission on human rights!

(Participant) Fred, you have advanced some important criteria for revamping the UN. I like all of the suggestions. One big problem is getting the US to take leadership in that process, because right from the start there has been strong resistance to our participation. The current administration has low regard for it, and might not step up to the plate in making the reforms you outline.

(Participant) Some significant number of the countries in the UN are operating under false colors so to speak. They aren't playing the game of making the world better. They're playing other games--mostly ones which advantage themselves.

Dick, you say "Remember, revolutions don't come when things are miserable, but only when there are rising expectations, which happen only when things do get better." Well, that may sometimes be the case, but not always. Revolution (radical or deep rooted change) often happens simply as a natural function of the life process.

(Participant) Fred: both Dick and I agree with your criteria for revamping the UN. The only possible difference in what you are suggesting and what Dick and I are for is whether direct application of our military end economic strength is best applied unilaterally by us alone, or as part of a revamped international organization much like the one you describe.

Neither route is an easy one, nor are the chances of success high either way. I believe ( and I'll let Dick cast his vote) that the money and effort we have spent and are talking about spending in the future would be better spent on a multi-national effort than in doing it alone.

(Participant) What I'd like to see would be a US policy, pursued as vigorously as the present administration has pursued its war on terrorism and deposition of the Saddam Hussein regime, to build (or rebuild) a system of international institutions of governance that is both effective and truly multicentric. Fred is absolutely right about the inadequacies of the UN--I know people who have worked within its structures, which are great destroyers of idealism--but I don't think we can afford, or the future can afford, for us to walk away from it or, as we seem to be doing at the moment, around it.

(Participant) Agreed, Don. But as this scenario unfolds, we may see why the US will be reluctant to go the multilateral route, and discover in the process what the true motivation for the war was and is. Oil is only part of it. One key to our understanding will be to see how Israel fares in this scenario. The retired general to be proconsul, Jay Garner, is closely tied to Israel, having headed the company that developed a major missile system for them, Paul Wolfowitz, the chief architect of this war, with close ties to the Likud, will be influencing the scenario from Washington, and we have just destroyed one of Israel's hated enemies, and strong supporter of the Palestinians. We now have our sights on other nations that are supporters of the Palestinians. With all that pro-Israel structure lined up against it, it will be a miracle to see a genuine and just Palestinian state developed, but precisely because it is so loaded, Bush is the only person who could pull it off.

(Participant) Kip, rising expectations are part of the "natural function of the life process", and I didn't make up the finding about the cause of revolutions. It was studied first by Crane Brinton of Harvard decades ago, examining the French, Russian, and US revolutions. Since then others such as Hannah Arendt have weighed in on the subject. To my paradoxical mind, it is one of the most important findings in all history and social science. The beginning of the concept of rising expectations. Revolutions are not random events in the "life process."

Your attitude of resigned acceptance of the violent component of our makeup has plenty of support when we realize that the 20th century, after the Enlightenment, after the development of democracies, after the League of Nations and the UN, was by far the most violent in history. But it fails to recognize the fact that we can do something to reduce or increase it. We have just seen how the administration could build a war fever against an enemy that had nothing to do with the 9/11 calamity. My reading at the time was that the people would have been completely satisfied to go after the perpetrators, but that didn't suit the Bush and Co. agenda, and they systematically developed in the American public a willingness to go to war, overcoming a true reluctance. I don't think for a minute that it represented any "natural" motivation, except in that everything humans do is natural. It could just as easily, perhaps more easily, been led in a less violent direction.

Even if overcoming violence is a lost cause, it is very much a lost cause worth fighting for.

(Participant) If the US were to take the lead in strengthening the UN, it would be an exercise in frustration, doomed to failure from the outset.

Anything of that sort led by the US would be seen by other nations as self-serving. We might succeed by quiet, diplomatic, and financial support--but not by taking the lead.

Maurice Strong has described the illness and the cures for the UN. His ideas should be followed, with others in the lead. He is, of course, Canadian--which helps.

(Participant) Dick, I was going to pursue the case about revolution, but realized it's pointless. However, in marshalling my thoughts I also realized that it sounds (to me) like you believe that people act--for the most part--consciously, with intent. I don't think they do. I think most human behavior is simply the rollout of a behavior chain. Not all of it, but most of it. Some of the behavior chains are genetic, some are the result of conditioned response, some are the result of a past decision or strategy, a few are in the testing stage, and once in a while there is an actual conscious, pure response to the moment.

(Farhad Saba) So, where do we go from here?

It seems that we all would like to see an effective UN, or a similar international organization taking a more active role in shaping relations among nations.

However, the feeling that I get is that we believe there is no desire on the part of the current US administration to pursue such an agenda. How can we shape the US public opinion to have a higher regard for international organizations? How can we persuade them that the more other countries take responsibility for their own life as economically productive, and politically healthy entities we get to do less for them?

(Participant) I don't know the answer to your question, Fred. I do know that on top of the knee-jerk negative reaction of conservatives to our participation in the UN, there is considerable concern among experienced and intelligent liberals about how the UN is structured and functions. Ray mentions Maurice Strong's concerns. A little over a year ago I had dinner with the late Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan and he asked me what my associates thought should happen with respect to the developing war plans, and I answered that as far as I could tell, most favored working through the UN. He scoffed at that, and said something like, "Well, I guess we could buy up the place." (That was before we actually tried to do that.) His disdain for the UN surprised me, since he had once been US Ambassador to the UN. If it were structured more along the lines that you proposed, Fred, we might get more support for it. Trying to overcome the US resistance that was already there, before our recent show of blatant disregard for it, was difficult enough. Now it may be too late. Bush has certainly heard enough advice about the importance of sound international relations, but that is not the advice and those are not the advisors he is following.

(Participant) Kip, not to belabor the points we are discussing (even though I think they are critical in shaping our responses to the developing conflict) but you should know that as a psychologist, I certainly believe in unconscious motivation. My concern is the attitude of cynicism and resignation that cannot help but result from a deterministic view of human nature. That attitude then becomes the basis for self-fulfilling prophecy.

The problem is that cynics, pessimists and determinists--those with a jaundiced view of human nature--tend to look smarter and wiser than optimists, regardless of the circumstances.

(Participant) Starting with item 18, there has been (in my prejudiced perception) a slow but steady interest in a better and more efficient international organization. I would like to suggest that we try to focus on that least bad/impossible goal with Fred as our facilitator.

IF THIS IDEA IS NOT OF INTEREST, I TRULY SUGGEST THAT YOU SKIP WHAT FOLLOWS. FOR THOSE WHO DO WADE THROUGH IT, MY APOLOGIES IF I HAVE MISREPRESENTED YOUR INTENDED MEANING IN MY ATTEMPT TO BE "BRIEF"!

What follows is an over-long review of subsequent interventions supporting why I am suggesting this.

Fred #18: With the end of the war in sight, we should be very concerned about how an interim government is put in place, and how a new government is installed in Iraq.

Dick # 19: Perhaps do this with the help of the UN.

Fred # 20: Iraq can't do it alone, and the US is not ideal.

Don # 24: My own list of US weaknesses

Ray # 26: His vision of what the US might be able to do

Fred: # 27: A list of reasons why underdeveloped nations like Iraq are almost hopless candidates for a viable society.

Don # 29: I argue that seeking to reform the UN, or even redesigning a new international organization, while seemingly impossible, is among the least impossible ideas.

Fred # 32: The following excerpt is verbatim:
"Structurally, the UN is problematic too. The Security Council, and the power to veto by certain countries, must be revisited. Membership in the council should be based on achievement of certain levels of political and economic development from now on, and not based on post WW II realities.

"We also need another layer between the general assembly and the Security Council. All countries could be a member of the general assembly, but they should achieve certain standards of political and economic freedom before they could be accepted in the level above of the general assembly.

"Resolutions passed by the Security Council should be binding for everyone, and the general assembly should have a much more limited role and power. All countries can strive to elevate their status and gain access to the Security Council, but membership should not be automatic. Countries slipping in their political, or economic freedom should loose their membership in the Security Council, or in the layer between the general assembly and the Council.

"This is a long way of saying that membership in the UN should come with certain credentials, like the World Trade Organization. Outlaw countries should be expelled from the UN with severe sanctions attached to such expulsion.

"With such a structure and membership based on merits, one can expect the UN become a meaningful organization. Otherwise, you will find representative from Saddam’s Iraq chairing the UN commission on disarmament, and Libya chairing the commission on human rights!"

FROM HERE THE IDEA OF DOING SOMETHING ABOUT DEVELOPING A NEW INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION BEGINS TO TAKE ROOT. I WON'T TRY TO SELECT OR EDITORIALIZE IT, BUT WILL END WITH A GREAT QUOTE:

#40: Ray: We cannot lead. We can only inspire.

#43: Fred: where from here?

MY SUGGESTION OF "WHERE" IS A CONTINUING DISCUSSION FOCUSED ON THE PROS AND CONS OF DIFFERENT INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND WAYS OF MOVING TOWARDS THE SUGGESTIONS THAT WE DEVELOP WITH FRED'S FACILITATION. I HAVE THESE REASONS:
* IT IS A TOPIC I BELIEVE MIGHT BECOME NEWSWORTHY
* IT MIGHT DRAW IN MORE ILF MEMBERS
* AS A LONG SHOT, WE MIGHT COME UP WITH SOME IDEAS THAT THOSE OF YOU WITH TALENT AND RECOGNITION COULD USE FOR OP-ED TOPICS.

(Participant) Dick, somehow we're talking apples and oranges. I don't consider myself a cynic, pessimist or determinist. It seems to me that you think we can get somewhere substantial simply by changing people's minds. I think we only get somewhere when people have goals and desires that are important enough to them as individuals to overcome their existing behavioral inclinations.

(Participant) In the few interstices provided by my compulsion to follow the war, and now the almost-post-war, on PBS, cable TV, and editorial comments in the Washington Post and the New York Times, I have tried to follow the conversation here on "The Deepening Conflict."

Most of the commentators here seem, like most Americans, to regard "the UN" as something apart from the United States. What the UN does or fails to do is of course the product of what its members, especially its most important members, want to be done, or want to prevent it from doing.

During the almost five years, long ago in 1961-65, I was privileged (in the JFK and early LBJ administrations) to be "Mr. UN policy" in the US government, my "mantra" was the UN's "capacity to act." The discussion in this conference seems to focus almost entirely on the UN as as a committee or parliament, not as an action agency.

How could the UN--as an action agency--help us out of the cul-de-sac our impressively successful military invasion of Iraq has now put us in?

I think there is a way. It's based on my experience, still vivid after more than half a century, in being part of the transition from dictatorship to conquest to democracy in Italy (1944-46). In this process the UN, as an action agency, played a definitive role.

It's too late tonight to try to tell this story and suggest what parts of it are instructive for 2003 and beyond. But I will try to do this tomorrow (Saturday, April 11th)--while trying to keep up with the war/postwar in real time.

(Participant) While waiting for Harlan, let me slip in some remarks that will soon be way out of date. I start with Dick's #44 and move on from there. Speaking of "knee-jerk reactions" . . .

We have NOT ignored the UN. We have decided, in the case of one major issue, to disagree with the UN.

Any effort by the US--whether led by the US or with us as a major, influential participant--to reform the UN will end in disaster. We are already seen as trying to run the world, why reinforce that perception?

We should participate quietly, we should listen, we should speak when asked, we should pay our bills; but let others reform the UN.

If we make thoughtful, wise decisions, acting through the UN when potential results justify doing so, and acting on our own when they do not, we will gradually regain the respect we once had. Meanwhile, "back at the ranch", if the structure of the UN is improved, then we will find ourselves working inside more and outside less.

The USA/UN relationship isn't black and white, and the UN is often not capable of doing what needs to be done. We should NEVER ignore the UN--and, so far as I'm aware, we never have. Let's choose our words more carefully!

P.S. Within the constraints suggests above, I favor the discussion proposed by Don.

(Participant) Ray: I agree entirely with you that we should not take the lead, but should help when asked to do so, with regard to reforming the UN or any other world body. But I don't think that this need preclude our discussion here about what improvements there might be in the UN or a modified updating of it.

(Farhad Saba)

Iraq War Opponents Stress Importance the United Nations
From: Deutsche Welle

The leaders of Germany, France and Russia laid out the results of their two-day summit in St. Petersburg to discuss the issue of postwar Iraq on Saturday and tried to shake off the impression that their meeting was a reaction to the US-British summit in Belfast earlier in the week.

The three statesmen did not back off from their insistence that the United Nations should be the guiding force in reconstructing Iraq, but their tones were muted.

Their views "practically coincided" in the conviction to uphold the role of the UN Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said. He called for modernization of the United Nations and said that proper consultation could prevent future conflicts.

"We understand the world is changing rapidly. It is clear the system of international law must change and be refined to meet the needs of that rapidly changing world," Putin said. "It is important that [the United Nations has] the instruments available to resolve the problems of world security," he said.

As US and British forces struggled to quell looting in Iraqi cities, French President Chirac said at a conference on international law attended by the three leaders on Friday, "No long term international order can be based on the logic of force." He emphasized that force should only be employed as a last resort and only with the sanction of the United Nations.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder too, highlighted the importance of the UN He said it remained "the sole world body based on universal values and legal principles."

"We should use the experience the UN has acquired in other areas in rebuilding a democratic Iraq," Schröder said, after receiving an honorary doctorate from St. Petersburg's law faculty on Friday.

(Participant) How things can change in a single lifetime! When I was in the "UN policy business," I didn't dream of a world in which the leaders of Russia, France and Germany would get together to try to persuade a reluctant US to be more positive about working through the United Nations!

I have been trying to think through the postwar planning of Iraq, while wondering why--when the US military success was so probable (and so confidently predicted by Bush & Co.)--the "coalition" didn't have its "civil affairs" plans on a fast track in parallel with its military planning.

My views on this complexity, earlier promised for Saturday emission, should be written before the weekend turns into next week. Hold the phone, but not your breath.

(Participant) Ray, you paint a very civilized picture of "our" decision to disagree with the UN. Why do I remember it so differently? Oops, there goes my knee again.

Don and I had a good conversation online and on the phone today. We think that we are headed now very much in the right direction, and that it would be entirely proper for us in the ILF to imagine and design a potentially better model for the UN, or another international organization that might work better. Fred has made a great start at that, and perhaps we can flesh those plans out.

I personally think that in the process we should identify the specific ways in which it now doesn't work to everyone's advantage, and what the causes for that might be.

(Participant) The Sunday edition of the New York Times, on page 50 of the Magazine, has an article by James Traub,THE NEXT RESOLUTION, which is pertain to our upcoming discussion. Its subtitle is IF YOU THINK THE UNITED NATIONS IS IRRELEBANT NOW IN IRAQ, WAIT AND SEE WHAT HAWKISH POLICY MAKERS ARE PLANNING FOR ANY SEQUEL.
I assume that all of those interested either have it, can get it, or can read it by going into http://www.newyorktimes.com

(Participant) There's so much interesting news and commentary these days--including shifts of stance and opinion by "leaders" in many countries (of which Rafsanjani's comment above is a prime example)--that it's not easy to formulate a comment in this space that has a chance to be relevant and durable. But here goes, anyway:

First some autobiography, for which I won't apologize because I think it might be currently relevant. Many years ago (1944-47) I was Executive Director of the Economic Section of the Allied Control Commission (ACC), the military government of Italy, then assistant chief of mission for UNRRA (the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration) in Italy.

During that time, up close and personal, I was part of Allied (US and UK) "civil affairs" operations in a country that was being "conquered" or "liberated" during the final year of World War II—and then part of the huge postwar economic reconstruction program which later came to be celebrated as "il miracolo economico Italiano," the Italian economic miracle.

The "conquest" came rapidly to be regarded by Italians as a "liberation"--despite the enormous destruction and loss of lives--for three main reasons. One was that our air forces, despite the lack of precision that is now possible, managed (on purpose) to avoid damage to most of the treasured sites in Italy. Another was that the military operation included a large and well-staffed "G5" (civil affairs) component; the Allied Control Commission in Rome was its operational arm. And a third was clarity of purpose: Roosevelt and Churchill had gotten together early (over a hot dog barbecue at Hyde Park, so the story goes) and decided that the Allied aim in Italy was to "give Italy back to the Italians" just as soon as possible. (Things weren't nearly that clear in either Germany or Japan.)

We not only imported "three ships a day" into Italy's war-damaged ports, with everything from food and medicine to port equipment and fertilizer and machine tools. We also encouraged and helped a new democratic government to be formed. It was an unlikely coalition of six partisan ("partigiani") parties; when they couldn't decide where to hold their first Cabinet meeting (it couldn't be held on any party's turf), we invited them to meet in the huge living room which was part of the suite at the Grand Hotel in which my boss, the ACC Vice President, and I lived. We observed, but of course didn't participate in, that first meeting of Italy's postwar government. It didn't seem to occur to anyone to object to our living room as an imperialist venue.

As soon as the war in Europe was over (in 1945), the Allies (meaning the Americans and the British) decided that UNRRA should take responsibility for the rehabilitation of Italy's economy. I was hired by UNRRA to do essentially what I had been doing for the Allied Commission (a massive "foreign aid" enterprise designed to make Italy once again a functioning agricultural and industrial economy). We naturally hired for the purpose the best of the Allied Commission staff members, and (with varied inputs from many UN members) got the "miracolo economico Italiano" well under way more than a year before the Marshall Plan [in which I was also later involved] came on the scene.

I have written all this down (for my first time ever) as background for comments I want to make about the precarious "civil affairs" situation in Iraq just now.
This is already so long that my currently relevant thoughts will be in a separate comment to follow.

(Participant) Evolution or revolution?

I am very impressed with Harlan's personal and up-close experiences in post-war international development. The decisive victory of the Allies, I venture to guess, was a primary factor in the economic success of Europe in the 1950's and afterward. I am also willing to go on a limb and say that the economic supremacy of the United State, at the time, had a lot to do with the amazing redevelopment of Europe.

As I am listening to the endless march of experts on various television networks, there is unanimous agreement that the UN must play an active role in post-ward Iraq. They say, almost with no variation, that the US and UK stand almost no chance of success if they go it alone.

On the other hand, we have discussed the problems with UN inefficiency. I just did a quick search in Google, and realized that many observers, including UN officials, have been aware of a need for a UN reform for some time, and have discussed it for many years.

In particular, a 78-page paper published by Yale University on the history of UN reform from the 50’s and onward was very revealing. Reforming the United Nations: Lessons from a History in Progress I started reading quickly until page 7 when I came across the following passage:

Amendments to the present Charter shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations when they have been adopted by a vote of two thirds of the members of the General Assembly and ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the Security Council.

This brought me to a dead halt. I am sure all of us have been involved with task forces, boards, commissions, meetings, and similar bodies dealing with bringing reform to various institutions, and how many times we have thought why bother with reform at all? There is no hope in reforming this institution. Why not start something new from scratch?

I certainly felt like that in Iran when I was tasked with bringing reform to the education system of the country. My deep and carefully-held-secret sense of hopelessness was immense as I held endless meetings with the officials of the Ministry of Education, some of whom, by the way, were Islamic clerics and hold responsible positions in the current government.

So, my question to the group is this: Is it possible to reform the UN, or should we start with a new institution altogether?

(Participant) I'm less dismayed by the paragraph from the UN charter than you, Fred, perhaps because I'm less surprised by it. I don't see it as an insurmountable barrier to your ideas.

Harlan, I knew the rough outline of your involvement in rebuilding postwar Italy, but it is so relevant to our current situation that surely you must keep writing about it. We look forward to the next installment.

(Participant) If you can accept my premise that what we did in postwar Italy worked out pretty well, then it may be interesting to compare what we did then with what we're doing now.

My analysis (above) suggested three reasons for a "conquest" to be taken (by those conquered) as a "liberation." Two of those tests were passed in "Operation Iraqi Freedom." There was evidently a conscious and successful effort to avoid destroying what should be preserved--religious sites, mosques, and antique artifacts--though we failed to protect the antiquities in the Baghdad museum from looters. And President Bush went out of his way to make the point that postwar Iraq was to be governed by Iraqis.

The trouble was that there wasn't a "civil affairs" function built into the invading forces. Yes, a retired general had been designated to organize postwar governance, but he and his staff remained in Kuwait, perhaps on the assumption that "civil affairs" doesn't start until the war has been won. If that was the assumption, it was wrong. What was needed were trained personnel, moving along with the armed forces, to cope with all the predictable puzzles that were bound to be puzzling to the fighters.

The first of these was, predictably, law and order. Reporters in Baghdad and other cities have quoted soldiers and Marines as saying plaintively, "Do I look like a policeman?" There should already have been troops trained in police work, to get to work right away recruiting local police and meanwhile making sure that looters would not be safe but sorry.

[To revert to my use of Italy as a metaphor: When the German troops retreated from Florence, among the first Allied people to enter the city were members of my "economic" staff responsible for putting up "off limits" signs on the many outdoor frescoes and other artifacts that might have tempted American troops--and enterprising Italians--to take souvenirs.]

Also "embedded" in the US and UK armed forces should have been people explicitly responsible for ensuring adequate supplies of water, fuel, food, and other "civilian" essentials--and able to find or invent the methods to distribute them equitably. That would have required people (not necessarily uniformed military) who had BOTH experience with operations of this kind AND could communicate with Iraqis in Arabic. That would have required some intensive training of "civil affairs" people which evidently wasn't done or even contemplated ahead of time.

For this kind of work, UN agencies (such as the High Commissioner for Refugees and UNICEF, the Children's Fund) could have been--and may yet be--enormously helpful. Moreover, there is an army of trained and motivated people --in nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in the US, UK, and elsewhere--who can move quickly and efficiently to take on humanitarian tasks that might seem baffling to military planners. As a board member of one humanitarian NGO, I have a sense of how primitive the planning was for mobilizing the American organizations that could already have been there on the ground--if the planners had thought of them as part of their postwar arsenal.

Some of the lacunae I've pointed to may yet be filled by the people in the US and UK governments responsible for postwar Iraq. I hope so.

(Participant) >> So, my question to the group is this: Is it possible to reform the UN, or should we start with a new institution altogether? <<

1. My vote is to try the reform path first, for two reasons:
2. It seems to me that the process required is within reasonable means of accomplishment; and,
3. So many good minds have already addressed what ought to be done. That is, we don't have to start over in thinking about this.

(Participant) I don't want to extend this soliloquy much longer, but rereading today what I wrote last night, I think I didn't sufficiently emphasize the role of an activist UN.

UNRRA may still hold the record for the largest operational task undertaken by the world community. (One example: UNRRA rebuilt the dikes that put China's Yellow River back into its old bed in 1946-47. O.J. Todd, the engineer in charge of that project, told me it was the earth-moving equivalent of building the Panama Canal, thus tied for second in world history behind the Great Wall of China.)

UNRRA was built from scratch, hired thousands of "international civil servants," spent several billion dollars back when a billion was a lot of money, worked effectively in complex societies such as China, Yugoslavia, Italy, and the Ukraine, and closed down in orderly fashion after less than four years. This gigantic effort was made possible by large inputs of people, imagination, and funds from several dozen countries--not just the US, though we were naturally the biggest contributor.

My point is that if its wealthiest members want to use the UN for an operational purpose, it is available to be used--as it has frequently been put to work in peacekeeping and peacemaking as well as economic and social development.

It is often valuable to the US to spread the risks, share the burdens, and avoid the downside of unilateral action. It's not usually a question of "reforming" the UN, but forming something new, giving it a mandate rooted in the Charter, and staffing it with people from the countries willing to help.

Just now, with Kofi Annan as executive agent, we have an especially favorable prospect for using the UN as an aspect of our foreign policy. (Not since Dag Hammarskold have we had so skillful and astute a Secretary General.) Where the obstacles are too great, we have other instruments, such as NATO, for internationalizing what we want to accomplish--which is usually what a good many other countries want too, or at least they'll help form a consensus to help use American power in international ways.

But of course we have to want to build the international community's capacity to act internationally. That's what seems to be missing just now. Its absence may turn out to be very expensive--in American lives, American dollars, and increasingly in American influence too.

(Participant) It seems to me that the UN has bogged down over and over again on the Arab/Israeli issue. Is there another issue that has so divided and immobilized it? How can what we design meet that problem? Am I wrong in trying to figure out what the problems with it are now, so we can come up with a design to meet those weaknesses?

(Farhad Saba) I am not sure what will follow is in direct response to Richard’s question, but there is a dimension to the UN that has been successful. I am referring here to non-governmental organizations, which have mushroomed in the past few years, generally in response to inefficiencies of national governments in under developed but semi free countries. Non-government organizations have grown from 176 in 1909 to more than 23,000 in 1998. I have seen current numbers according to various accounts exceeding 26,000.

What has made these organizations successful is their fierce independence from government authorities. Also, they have benefited form micro financing (micro loans). So, they could very well be the base for the third tier of UN members in between the General Assembly, and the Security Council.

(Participant) This will not be fun or politically proper, but I think it would be productive to ask ourselves: was the war a success or are we worse off than we would have been had we followed the "mandate" of the UN re choosing surveillance rather than war?

There are many ways to address this question, but if I tried I would just repeat my prejudices which are scattered among my previous messages. But I would be interested in hearing the views of those of you who have had far more experience in these matters than I.

(Participant) It is EXCEEDINGLY difficult to compare actual events with what MIGHT have happened had we done something different. I'm not sure that the potential result justifies the effort.

(Participant) Ray: In most cases, I agree that "what might" talk is not often useful. But in this case I think it is critical and imperative that we do just that.

There is already talk of other wars, of what should be our policy with regard to the UN, and uncertainty about how to help Iraq form a government. Most of these decisions have to be weighed alongside the "visions" announced by the administration before the shooting started and being repeated again today. Perhaps the plans of the Bush administration are wise and practical. If a consensus of ILF believes they are, these views should be heard and explained.

This time I think that groups like ILF had better be heard. If we don't we are just a chat group having fun. When you and I first met in WBSI, we were virtually alone among our members. Today, if we want, we could reach many people with just a few clicks on our computers. I am willing to remain just a chat group--I find it stimulating. But if ever there was a time to share the kind of wisdom and experience that ILF could muster, this is it.

(Farhad Saba) I would like to refocus our attention to the UN, and how we can influence its reform. We agree that we need the UN as a global body, but it has certain shortcomings that need to be addressed.

I appreciate it if you share your thoughts and ideas on this subject, so that we can come up with some practical solutions.

(Participant) In our discussion of UN reform, should we try to figure out a way that the UN could be shaped to be attractive to the Bush administration? Personally, I think that is a lost cause, because of the fundamental rejection by the right wing of any global involvements. That position may not hold forever, as the right comes to see that we cannot survive without such interdependencies, but it could hold for a very long time. It is deeply ingrained in their philosophy.

We should probably continue to focus on how the UN can serve all of its 185 members more effectively, and not be stymied by Bush's antagonism.

(Participant) Fred: I do have some thoughts on the UN role. They don't fit very well under your suggested title: "reforming" the UN. The UN problem mostly has to do with the way its key members act; the issues of its structure and its personnel are dependent variables.

When we've adequately celebrated Easter in our household--the religious implications are full of meaning for current events, as the fundaments of other organized religions are--I'll try to formulate here a way of thinking about the United Nations in 2003.

(Farhad Saba) On Corruption

In a recent message Harlan said he will post a new message about the UN, but instead of concentrating on its structure, he would talk about the behavior of its members. His message provided me with a reality check that no matter how our institutions are structured, people’s behaviors in them will override such structures in important ways.

One of the ugly aspects of bringing any reform to a world body is corruption. It is, I am afraid, a significant part of life in the Middle East. Visitors from Iran tell me that without bribery nothing moves in Tehran. A recent NBC report indicated how money from the Oil for Food program in Iraq was spent on purchasing laser show equipment, DVD players, large screen TVs etc. to the tune of 2 billion US $ by Saddam’s government.

I am concerned about how the UN in general, and the US military in particular will deal with this problem in Iraq. It is hard for me to describe the nature of the problem or overestimate its dimensions. It is a contagious and dangerous disease that is spread openly in the Middle East, and eventually will affect the relations of the US with the rest of the world.

(Participant) In regard to the UN, we really can't separate the issues of structural change and behavior of members. One of the reasons structural change will be difficult is that any efforts along those lines are sure to run into all kinds of road blocks set up by different nations and interests with different agendas. That doesn't mean no effort should be made, however. Personally I'm inclined to think that, while working out a major overhaul may well be a useful exercise, anything that happens is likely to be incremental--a series of steps, rather than the equivalent of a global constitutional convention--and we might do better to focus on what should come first. And keep it in mind that any proposal is going to have to march through a lot of international politics.

(Participant) Walt, I think you are absolutely right. Perhaps a first step might be to discuss what the role of the UN should be--realistically rather than idealistically. Taking into account the limitations of human behavior and national agendas, what kinds of activities would the UN most likely succeed at? I don't see it as an effective political body for example. Its recent track record of ineffectiveness in Human Rights hardly leads one to expect it to accomplish much in relieving human suffering at the hands of various member nations.

(Participant) Fred's comment about corruption is important. I wonder, in an abstract sort of way, how it is possible to eliminate corruption from an institution once it becomes pervasive.

The difference between corruption as practiced widely in the Middle East and as practiced in the USA is important, too. I can imagine how it might be reduced here to a modest level, by changes in the election laws. I can't imagine how to deal with it in the Middle East.

(Participant) In the context of our current conversation (the UN) I ask "what is its goal"? Well, that depends upon whom I ask doesn't it? The goal of the UN from the point of view of Libya is different than from the USA's perspective. Isn't it? I am suggesting that absent some kind of consensus of goal it isn't likely that there is "a strategy." So where does that leave us? To my mind it leaves us "coping". Well, that's fine unless you want to actually accomplish something (e.g. rebuilding Iraq). So, what does any country do if it wants to accomplish something and the UN balks?

How much control of its free will is any country going to surrender to a body if that body isn't clearly free of private agendas? As a goal I might ask "how much should we surrender"? What is the proper balance? Surrender too much and we lose significantly. Surrender too little and we gain nothing. So, in what arenas can we rely upon the UN as a body to act just reasonably effectively and fairly in an unbiased manner? Will the UN as a body act in such a manner in rebuilding Iraq? Or is it possible that, for whatever faults the USA might bring to the equation, it will ultimately do an overall better job (with respect to effective, fair and unbiased)? Perhaps it doesn't matter if the job is done well, as long as everybody gets to participate. That might be OK with me but the Iraqis might have a different take on it.

(Farhad Saba) Kip: In the grand scheme of things it seems to me that the UN is at least three organizations wrapped into one. One of way of looking at its reform is breaking it up into three organizations with legislative, executive, and judicial powers. These would have equal power and would be able to check and balance each other. Right now, the UN has no oversight, and is not accountable to anyone.

(Participant) I attended a research seminar yesterday presented by two Berkeley grad students in political science who are studying the various international courts that seek to provide justice for war criminals. While they spent most of their time describing other aspects of their studies, one of their findings seems to be that so far the negatives of those courts (contributing to political instability, even assassinations) seem to outweigh the effectiveness. Moreover, as such courts have matured over the last century, it would appear that war criminals have become more sophisticated, because wars have become far more horrific and bloody in the past century than any previous century.

(Participant) Fred, that's an interesting possibility of reform. I've always seen the UN as sort of a perpetual meeting place where countries could at least be assured of the opportunity to discuss issues of importance to themselves. Does it have any power other than what members grant it as participants? Do you think it should have any other powers? I can't seem to see a clearly mandated objective.

Previous Page          Next Page

top