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.
Last week, Viola Zhou published a marvelous deep dive into the culture clash between Taiwanese boss mentality and American labor practices at the Taiwan Semiconductor (TSMC) plant in Arizona in Rest of World. “The American engineers complained of rigid, counterproductive hierarchies at the company,” while the Taiwanese said American workers aren’t dedicated. The article is a delight, but what it is depicting is the clash between a work culture that offers employee autonomy and at least nods at work-life balance, and one that runs on hierarchical discipline enforced by chickenshit. And it runs on chickenshit because chickenshit is a cultural
By far the most jarring of the new appointments for the incoming administration is that of Tseng Wen-tsan (鄭文燦) to head the Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF). That is a huge demotion for one of the most powerful figures in the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). Tseng has one of the most impressive resumes in the party. He was very active during the Wild Lily Movement and his generation is now the one taking power. He has served in many of the requisite government, party and elected positions to build out a solid political profile. Elected as mayor of Taoyuan as part of the
Moritz Mieg, 22, lay face down in the rubble, the ground shaking violently beneath him. Boulders crashed down around him, some stones hitting his back. “I just hoped that it would be one big hit and over, because I did not want to be hit nearly to death and then have to slowly die,” the student from Germany tells Taipei Times. MORNING WALK Early on April 3, Mieg set out on a scenic hike through Taroko Gorge in Hualien County (花蓮). It was a fine day for it. Little did he know that the complex intersection of tectonic plates Taiwan sits
When picturing Tainan, what typically comes to mind is charming alleyways, Japanese architecture and world-class cuisine. But look beyond the fray, through stained glass windows and sliding bookcases, and there exists a thriving speakeasy subculture, where innovative mixologists ply their trade, serving exquisite concoctions and unique flavor profiles to rival any city in Taiwan. Speakeasies hail from the prohibition era of 1920s America. When alcohol was outlawed, people took their business to hidden establishments; requiring patrons to use hushed tones — speak easy — to conceal their illegal activities. Nowadays legal, speakeasy bars are simply hidden bars, often found behind bookcases