The UN has traversed some rough waters over the last half-decade. It has dealt with unrelenting abuse from American right-wingers; the unilateralism of its largest donor, the US; an abortive internal reform movement; sexual and financial scandals; restlessness among Third World nations; a chronic lack of resources; the incurable poverty of some 2 billion inhabitants of Earth; and other ills. Given this distressing record, what could possibly be its value today? Now comes a retelling of the UN story to remind us why it remains a necessary organization.
Paul Kennedy, Yale's eminent historian, author of the acclaimed work The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, has compiled an artful study of the UN from its birth to the present day that helps to set the record straight.
Kennedy's reach is considerable. In an authoritative style he examines the evolution of the variegated missions of the organization over the last 60 years, including its charter, the Security Council, the secretary-general, peacekeeping and war making, as well as the body's economic and social roles, its involvement in human rights, proposals for reform and its future.
Kennedy reminds us that the organization had its beginnings with two presidents of the US, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman. As World War II was winding down, these two men sought to invent a security body based not on “coalitions of the willing” but on the credo of “collective security” to guarantee peace around the planet. Learning from the failures of the League of Nations, but equally concerned with national sovereignty, they admixed idealism and realism in drafting the UN Charter.
In San Francisco in the spring of 1945, together with leaders from 49 other nations, the Americans established a General Assembly where every state has an equal vote: a tip toward idealism. They also set up a Security Council, whose edicts on war and peace are obligatory for all members and on which sit five permanent members, the nations considered the most powerful in 1945 (the US, China, Russia, Britain and France), as the sole holders of the veto: a reflection of realism.
But as the postwar years unfolded, the UN's central task, to stymie aggression, quickly withered as a consequence of the Cold War stalemate between the US and the Soviet Union on the Security Council. Still, as Kennedy points out, “there are in practice many United Nations.” And in fact, during this period, many others did come to the fore.
There was, for example, the UN of the secretaries-general, who soon achieved fame for settling disputes as neutral mediators. There was the UN of peacekeeping, often a messy and expensive process, but one that has since proven indispensable to world security and has broadened to encompass nation building, election monitoring and constitution writing. There was the UN of poverty alleviation — still a responsibility. There was the UN of “soft power,” dealing with women, children, the environment, health, refugees, human rights, culture and law. And subsequently, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, there was the re-emergence of the Security Council. All these mini-United Nations have had mixed records, as Kennedy admits. But his point is, consider the alternative.
There are some weaknesses in Kennedy's argument. The very title of his book, The Parliament of Man — a line borrowed from a poem by Tennyson, Locksley Hall — gives a false impression of the organization. As a metaphor for worldwide community, it may be apt. But the UN is neither a legislature nor a world government nor even a democratic organization, which Kennedy concedes. It is a collection of states, some with freely elected rulers, some authoritarian, who appoint
representatives to decide what the UN can or cannot do. It is simply a mirror of its members.
Another downside of Kennedy's work is that his text sometimes reads as if it were lifted from The World Almanac. His pages of litanies of UN activities are dry, despite his best efforts to breathe color and pizzazz into them, and he barely mentions the organization's recent derelictions.
Still, his assemblage of data is extraordinary. What becomes clear is that the UN does indeed cover the daily life of the planet. Practically every human problem that one can imagine has been addressed by this oft-beleaguered body. Thus, while its doings may not lend themselves to dramatic narrative, what it accomplishes as an organization is dramatic. But how does one get the message out to people — especially to a sometimes hostile US Congress — that the UN is useful?
Kennedy's closing chapter and his afterword explain what makes it so. He illuminates a myriad of proposals for change and presents his own eloquent brief for the UN's existence. He views the organization as an uninterrupted town meeting of the world that lays down the rules for how we can live with one another on our small planet.
At one point Kennedy cites Truman's “brilliant” address in San Francisco as a remarkable defense of the UN. In this speech Truman summed up the challenge for Americans, reminding those who distrusted global involvement: “If any nation would keep security for itself, it must be ready and willing to share security with all. That is the price which each nation will have to pay for world peace. Unless we are willing to pay that price, no organization for world peace can accomplish its purpose. And what a reasonable price that is.”
Stephen Schlesinger is the former director of the World Policy Institute and author of Act of Creation about the founding of the UN.
A few weeks ago I found myself at a Family Mart talking with the morning shift worker there, who has become my coffee guy. Both of us were in a funk over the “unseasonable” warm weather, a state of mind known as “solastalgia” — distress produced by environmental change. In fact, the weather was not that out of the ordinary in boiling Central Taiwan, and likely cooler than the temperatures we will experience in the near-future. According to the Taiwan Adaptation Platform, between 1957 and 2006, summer lengthened by 27.8 days, while winter shrunk by 29.7 days. Winter is not
Taiwan’s post-World War II architecture, “practical, cheap and temporary,” not to mention “rather forgettable.” This was a characterization recently given by Taiwan-based historian John Ross on his Formosa Files podcast. Yet the 1960s and 1970s were, in fact, the period of Taiwan’s foundational building boom, which, to a great extent, defined the look of Taiwan’s cities, determining the way denizens live today. During this period, functionalist concrete blocks and Chinese nostalgia gave way to new interpretations of modernism, large planned communities and high-rise skyscrapers. It is currently the subject of a new exhibition at the Taipei Fine Arts Museum, Modern
March 25 to March 31 A 56-year-old Wu Li Yu-ke (吳李玉哥) was straightening out her artist son’s piles of drawings when she inadvertently flipped one over, revealing the blank backside of the paper. Absent-mindedly, she picked up a pencil and recalled how she used to sketch embroidery designs for her clothing business. Without clients and budget or labor constraints to worry about, Wu Li drew freely whatever image came to her mind. With much more free time now that her son had found a job, she found herself missing her home village in China, where she
In recent years, Slovakia has been seen as a highly democratic and Western-oriented Central European country. This image was reinforced by the election of the country’s first female president in 2019, efforts to provide extensive assistance to Ukraine and the strengthening of relations with Taiwan, all of which strengthened Slovakia’s position within the European Union. However, the latest developments in the country suggest that the situation is changing rapidly. As such, the presidential elections to be held on March 23 will be an indicator of whether Slovakia remains in the Western sphere of influence or moves eastward, notably towards Russia and