UN Ruminations

Some of us who did not share Eleanor Roosevelt’s enthusiasm at the birth of the United Nations 32 years ago consoled ourselves with the thought that, though this ungainly infant was not likely to fulfill the roseate hopes of its 51 parents, it would also not be able to do much damage. A glance back at the original statement of those hopes confirms the accuracy of the first half of our judgment: “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war . . . ; to reaffirm faith … in the dignity and worth of the human reason . . . ; to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties can be maintained . . . ; to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors . . .” (Preamble of the UN Charter). However, we seem to have been wrong in the second half. As it has grown older, the UN, while proving itself impotent to do good, has displayed an expanding capacity for doing harm.

Our early view that it would do neither was based on the seeming contradiction between the UN’s form and substance. It was not to be merely another “league” of nations—a conceivable arrangement that has functioned on a limited scale from time to time, though its most recent and grandiose example was a flop—but a “united” “nations” organization: an amalgam, that is, of the One and the Many. As “united,” it was to be a single global entity. As “nations”—which were the existing political realities—it was many entities, since a nation is by definition a distinct and separate entity. What seemed to follow was that in practice the UN would be a sort of continuing conference devoted primarily to twaddle and occasionally serving as a convenient meeting-ground for negotiating international deals. Given that expectation, it could be assumed that, as customary, the major nations, possessing dominant power, would be calling the tunes. This estimate seemed borne out by the control function assigned in the original interpretation of the Charter to the Security Council with its permanent, veto-wielding seats for the major nations.

JB

About the Author

James Burnham

Some of us who did not share Eleanor Roosevelt’s enthusiasm at the birth of the United Nations 32 years ago consoled ourselves with the thought that, though this ungainly infant was not likely to fulfill the roseate hopes of its 51 parents, it would also not be able to do much damage. A glance back at the original statement of those hopes confirms the accuracy of the first half of our judgment: “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war . . . ; to reaffirm faith … in the dignity and worth of the human reason . . . ; to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties can be maintained . . . ; to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors . . .” (Preamble of the UN Charter). However, we seem to have been wrong in the second half. As it has grown older, the UN, while proving itself impotent to do good, has displayed an expanding capacity for doing harm.

Our early view that it would do neither was based on the seeming contradiction between the UN’s form and substance. It was not to be merely another “league” of nations—a conceivable arrangement that has functioned on a limited scale from time to time, though its most recent and grandiose example was a flop—but a “united” “nations” organization: an amalgam, that is, of the One and the Many. As “united,” it was to be a single global entity. As “nations”—which were the existing political realities—it was many entities, since a nation is by definition a distinct and separate entity. What seemed to follow was that in practice the UN would be a sort of continuing conference devoted primarily to twaddle and occasionally serving as a convenient meeting-ground for negotiating international deals. Given that expectation, it could be assumed that, as customary, the major nations, possessing dominant power, would be calling the tunes. This estimate seemed borne out by the control function assigned in the original interpretation of the Charter to the Security Council with its permanent, veto-wielding seats for the major nations.