Why the U.N.?

Some of my readers have questioned in comments below why the U.S. is in the UN. I'd like to just write a quick primer to educate the masses.

What is the UN? Contrary to conservative rumor, the UN does not exist as a political body on its own. Liberals like to believe that corporations exist and are trying to bilk the "little guy" out of his hard-earned cash; the truth is, economically, there is no such thing as a corporations. Likewise, science fiction addicts imagine that computers will try to take over the world when they get "smart" enough. The UN is similar to a corporation or a computer: it does not wield power on its own. Rather, it organizes and enhances the power of those who use it - the states of the world. One of the biggest (and least noticed) effects of the UN is that it adds to the power of states, and thus relatively weakens non-state entities (e.g., ethnic groups, MNC's). Conservatives think that the UN is somehow going to infringe on U.S. sovereignty against our will. It is true that ever-extending international law infringes more and more on the sovereignty of the U.S. (and every other nation) every year. However, this is either consensual or by the extension of international legal norms, both of which could occur without the UN.

Why do we need the UN? The primary purpose of the UN is to prevent World War III. World War I occured because of a system of alliances - coalitions of the willing - that were based on mutual interest and common enmity, not on a commitment to peace. The League of Nations failed to prevent World War II twenty years later because the most important nations in the world were not included in the League and for that reason and others, the League failed to enforce its ambitious demands. The UN was formed as a reaction to these two failures. By acting not only outside the UN parameters, but with open contempt for the rest of the world (remember, it's not contempt for the UN, it's contempt for Germany, South Africa, China, Argentina, Canada, Japan, Morocco, and about 150 others). While comparisons of Bush and Hitler are ridiculous at best, the Iraq war has borne a certain amount of similarity to the beginning of World War II - the United States has acted almost unilaterally in taking land for reasons that make sense to us and no one else. The crisis of legitimacy of the UN - brought on equally by Franco-Russian unwillingness to enforce resolutions and American willingness to disregard the body altogether - is not dissimilar from the crisis of legitimacy that crumbled the League of Nations as World War II drew close.

I'm not suggesting that we are facing a war of mass destruction. I am suggesting that we are facing a chaotic breakdown of the international system as we know it, likely characterized by the collapse of weak, pro-US governments and the resurgence of pissy non-state entities. Without a unified front to address challenges, our carefully wrought sphere of influence - the largest and deepest in history - could take some serious hits. Rather, it could take further serious hits - we've already done the equivalent of emptying both barrels of a shotgun into our proverbial feet.

Parker suggests that we ditch the UN and move to an embassy-by-embassy approach to international cooperation, much like the system we had right before World War I. However, I can't blame him - as a rocket scientist, low-scale world war for a generation would guarantee him a job for life.