Is the United Nations Nothing More Than an Arena for Inter-state Power Politics?

The long lasting debate over the essence of International Organizations has led Barnett and Finnemore to question whether IOs “… really do what their creators intend them to do” [1]. In order to answer this question, the reasons of the creation of IOs should be analyzed. At this point, two of the most comprehensive theories, focusing on the issue, give us prospective view. Realism explains the need for IOs as a result of power politics in international arena. The importance of IOs lays in their ability to balance the power among states. The emergence of one of the most significant IOs, based on balance of power, can be traced back to 1815 with the creation of Concert of Europe through which “peace and security were maintained by careful management of the balance of power, so that when one country threatened to overwhelm the others, the remaining countries would band together in diplomatic and military alliances” [2]. On the other hand, Liberalism stresses on the importance of economic cooperation between states as means of arriving at international peace and security through creating interdependence among states. Economic interdependence leads to the need of political cooperation making it too expensive, thus disadvantageous, for states to fight each other. As a result, IOs create suitable platform for cooperation, both economic and political, assembling states for negotiations. Cooperation enables states to further their state interests by providing international security and economic collaboration. Created in 1951, “the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was a six-nation international organization serving to unify Western Europe during the Cold War and create the foundation for the modern-day developments of the European Union” [3]. EU, established in 1993, is seen as the successful case of economic and political interdependence, securing peace and security in the region for over 17 years. While holding similar views to the need of IOs, neo-liberalism and neo-realism disagree on the degree of cooperation possible. The base of disagreement lays on different views over absolute and relative gains. Neo-liberals claim that as cooperation is to the advantage of all contracting parties, the notion of absolute gains will lead all the actors to “…look at the total effect of a decision on the state or organization and act accordingly”, engaging in cooperation. From an economical perspective, non-zero sum game proposes that through comparative advantage all the parties “…engaged in peaceful relations and trade can expand their wealth”, thus, strengthening the tendency of states for cooperation [4]. On the other hand, neo-realists, while supporting the creation of IOs, stress on the concern over relative gains leading them to question whether other parties gain more because of the view of zero-sum game when an economical development of one state is to the expense of the other one, which limits states‟ propensity towards cooperation. [5] Furthermore, “fears of cheating will scuttle international institutional arrangements or hobble their effectiveness” [1]. The example of „Prisoner‟s Dilemma‟ can explain both perspectives very effectively.

The table shows the possible advantage of cooperation, as a supportive example to liberalist view and the reasons of non-cooperation, explaining realist concerns over cooperation, among states. Although cooperation rewards both parties, they end up with lose-lose outcome out of the fear of being on a disadvantaged side, in case of one-sided choice to cooperate, that is, to remain silent, because there is no guarantee that the other side will cooperate too. This lack of trust leads to the anarchy and chaos among states, undermining cooperation to a great degree [6]. One other perspective that deserves to be mentioned is sociological institutional approach, derived by Barnett and Finnemore based on Weberian arguments, which criticizes other theories for their ignoring the important question of whether IOs serve the intended aim. While realists and liberals see the IOs as instruments of states as they derive power from them, Barnett and Finnemore argue that “… the rational legal authority that IOs embody gives them power independent of states that created them and channels that power in particular directions”. It is claimed that bureaucracies make rules, define “shared international tasks, create and define new categories of actors” and “create new interests for actors”. This autonomous tendency leads to IOs‟ inefficiency and self-defeat as this bureaucratic model “…make[s] them unresponsive to their environment, obsessed with their own rules at the expense of primary missions”. [1] As the general understanding of IOs has been discussed so far, it is time to start focusing on UN analysis.

As a legal representative of international law, both the concept of international law and thus the relevance of the UN have been of a big debate over the last years. International law was seen by the realists as means of implementing power politics and legitimizing authorities of the Great Powers. While Great Powers seem reluctant to abide by the rules and regulations seeing them overly constraining, international law is left “helpless in this situation – unable to constrain a powerful state on its own, it is assumed to depend for its effectiveness on a balance of power” [7]. Deriving from these arguments realists have arrived at some conclusions about the functioning of the UN. First, they claim that the UN is largely irrelevant because the Great Powers “determine world political outcomes”, including international laws and rules and not the UN. Second, realists “tend to see the UN as a tool of the strong that serves their interests” and legitimize their authorities in the world politics. [8] This leaves the UN very inefficient in the case when its goals diverge from the priorities of the strong states constituting it.

The best example is the 2003 Iraqi invasion case as one of the biggest failures in UN history. The Iraqi case showed explicitly how UN was unable to constrain the actions of US – the strong state, which entered Iraqi territory without the UN authorization and no sanctions were imposed.

The Afghanistan war case further showed that the US does not need the UN authorization when its interests are at a stake. Legitimizing its intervention by Article 51 of UN Charter, a right of self-defense, the US has led violent campaigns again Afghanistan and the Taliban government that was seen as the supporter of the terrorism, however, there are explicitly lacking grounds for such a justifications of US actions in the Charter [9].

Despite all the examples for malfunctioning of the UN, it has proved itself to be the international lawmaker, going through several transformations throughout the centuries. The redefinition of the powers of the UN‟s political organs has given it more weigh in international law making. The General Assembly‟s power of convening “treaty negotiations capable of producing some of the most ambitious multilateral treaties multilateral treaties the world has ever seen”. Moreover, its power to create administrative tribunal for settling the disputes, the reputation of its „recommendations‟ which are taking into account by state judiciaries and are bases for international treaties and agreements [8]. The most powerful body in this sense is the Security Council which has a right of imposing sanctions in cases of violations, can take actions not out of the scope of Chapters VI and VII, can create subsidiary bodies “capable of taking legally binding action on states or individuals”. Being an “enforcer of UN privileges and immunities” the Secretary-General generates new law playing a role of mediator or arbitrator. Moreover, the UN has been a signatory to the new sets of rules governing warfare, or human rights conventions. The ever growing importance of the UN in generating binding legal norms does create international law, a fact in opposition to the realist claims that it‟s the consent of states that create international obligations [8].

Created in 1945, the UN basically aimed at achieving international peace and security by providing platform for dialogues and stopping wars between countries [10]. It has developed various institutions, provisions and regulations to achieve that aim. One of them is outlined in the Art.2/3 stating that “all the members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered” [8]. Art. 33 of the UN Charter underlines certain methods to be employed while settling disputes; “the parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of peace and security, shall, first of all seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort or regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice” [8]. The peaceful settlement of border war between Ethiopia and Eritrea, which lasted over years, is a proud example of the principle and the efficiency of UN and its policies [15]. However, the long-lasting efforts of the UN in settling the dispute between Israel and Palestine have not given any progressive results, not being able to bring the Israeli government into compliance with advised solutions [16].

However, the provisions aimed at securing international peace have led to growing debate over their practicability over the recent years. The principle of nonintervention, as a mean of arriving at peaceful relations among states, is outlined in Art.2/4: “all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations” [12]. The only exception to the prohibition of the use of force is the right of self-defense written in Art.51. The problematic issue here is that the principle of self-defense has become an issue of debate after the US invasion of Iraq on the basis of „anticipatory self-defense‟. The “Bush Doctrine” justified an attack on Iraq basing the claims on the assumption that Iraq posed a threat to the security of US and seek for authorization of pre-emptive attacks, meaning that the use of force is justified even if there has not been an actual attack but the evidence of future threats [11]. The Art. 51 states; “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security” [12]. The important point to be mentioned lays in the phrase “…if an armed attack occurs…” questioning the legitimacy of US intervention in Iraq on the grounds of preventing future aggressions.

Recently, the internal crises, such as civil wars, humanitarian crises, have been seen as threats to international security, undermining stability and peace. As a result, the importances of promotion of democracies, and respect for human rights have come to the agenda and humanitarian intervention have faced growing acceptance in international arena. Nevertheless, the emerging importance of humanitarian intervention has brought growing debates of its legitimacy due to two main reasons. First of all, humanitarian intervention falls contrary to the principle of nonintervention, undermining state sovereignty. Before 1990s the principle of nonintervention was seen superior to the preservation of human rights because of highly instable international affairs, where the war was the next door should the sovereignty of one state be undermined by the other. However, after the end of the Cold War, an increase in humanitarian emergencies, having direct effect on international peace, creating clashes between different nations, together with the diminished fears over undermining international peace by increasing defense of human rights brought the issue to the UN agenda. The dilemma was solved by Brahimi report that stated “…that political neutrality has often degenerated into military timidity and the duty to protect civilians” [8].

Second, there is growing criticism over efficiency and legitimacy of humanitarian interventions. The Srebrenica and Rwanda tragedies show the inefficiency of humanitarian intervention resulting in more harm than good. The hesitation of UN peace keeping forces to intervene in these cases resulted in huge casualties and the reluctance of the states to commit all the resources needed for settling the disputes led to the UN inefficiency in the regions of crises [13]. Operation Restore Hope in Somalia brought into daylight the ugly truth about actual aims of “humanitarian” intervention. While the first phase of the intervention was for humanitarian reasons, the development of the conflict proved different. “The moment the UN and the United States went to war against General Aidid, the international forces ceased to have any humanitarian role. And from the beginning, the soldiers did not behave like humanitarian workers. There were innumerable cases of misconduct, including torture, rape, and summary killing. Violations by Canadian Special Forces were but the tip of the iceberg” [14].

At this point it is necessary to examine the role of the UN in contemporary international relations.

The case of Turkish flotilla raid by Israeli government leads to the questioning of the efficiency UN decisions in international relations. Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador to Washington, said on the U.S. TV program “Fox News Sunday” that “We are rejecting an international commission”, the proposal of UN on international investigation to be carried into the deadly raid on Gaza bound aid-ship, claiming it to be the right of the Israeli government to carry their own investigation. [17] Moreover, despite the fact that the Israeli government violated the international Law of the Sea, attacking the flotilla on international waters, no sanctions were imposed on it, although 15 council members “had called for condemnation of the attack by Israeli forces “in the strongest terms” and “an independent international investigation.” [18] The apparent support from the US towards Israel can be seen as a reason of Israeli government‟s “courageous” stance against the international world and the UN, proving once more the attitudes of the Great Powers to be decisive, undermining the notion of justice and the intended aim for UN creation. However, the recent case with imposing sanctions on Iranian government as a result of Iranian nuclear program, shows that UN still to be a relevant actor controlling an balancing instable cases in international arena.

It seems as some of the past experiences of failure in terms of humanitarian interventions have taught some lessons to the UN on the recent case of Kyrgyzstan humanitarian crises. Whereas the past cases, such as Rwanda, were major failures because of the late response by the UN or unwillingness to provide required resources by the states, this time the reaction of the UN to humanitarian crises in Kyrgyzstan was immediate and it seems the UN is not going to be greedy this time. According to news “the UN called for $71 million to assist hundreds of thousands of people affected by ethnic conflict in Kyrgyzstan, and a similar appeal aimed at helping the refugees in Uzbekistan is expected to be launched later” [19]. Whether this big attention is a reason of Great Powers‟ pursuing their interests in the region or not, the taken action is a positive step for the goodwill of mankind.

As human being is not perfect, nothing created by them can be expected to be perfect. The UN being comprised of the states, which are the creations of humans, is not perfect in any sense. There have been many failures, and without any doubt there will be even more. However, it would be unfair to take into granted all the contributions the UN made to international peace and security by focusing on the mistakes and failures and regard the UN to be merely an arena for power politics. Even if so, it is better to engage in power politics under the UN ceiling than engaging in wars. Thus, no matter what the UN actually represents, it sure has a positive effect on international peace and for improving the UN functioning in international relations the failures should be taken as precedents for reformed actions and more effort should be made on the issue on state basis.

Rashad HASANOV

1. Barnett, Michael N. and Martha Finnemore, „The Politics, Power, and Pathologies of International Organizations‟, International Organization vol.53, no. 4 (Autumn 1999), 699-732.

2. Concert of Europe. In Encyclopedia Encyc online. Retrieved from http://encyc.org/wiki/Concert_of_Europe

3. European Coal and Steel Community. In Encyclopedia Wikipedia online. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Coal_and_Steel_Community

4. Absolute gain (international relations). In Encyclopedia Wikipedia online. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_gain_(international_relations)

5. Relative gain (international relations). In Encyclopedia Wikipedia online. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_gain_(international_relations)

6. Scott B., Andrew L., Richard D., Jack D., Matthew P., Christian R.S. and Jacqui T.. (3rd Eds.). (2005). Theories of International Relations. New York, NY: PALGRAVE MACMILLAN.

7. Nico Krisch, “International Law in Times of Hegemony: Unequal Power and the Shaping of the International Legal Order”, The European Journal of International Law Vol.16, no.3 (2005), 369-408

8. Weiss, Thomas G., and Sam Daws (eds.), The Oxford Handbook on the United Nations (Oxford: OUP, 2007).

9. War in Afghanistan (2001–present), Legal basis for war. In Encyclopedia Wikipedia online. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001-present)

10. United Nations, Security Council. In Encyclopedia Wikipedia online. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations

11. Anthony Dworkin (2002, August 20). Crimes of War. Iraq and the “Bush Doctrine” of Pre-Emptive Self-Defence. Retrieved from http://www.crimesofwar.org/expert/bush-intro.html

12. Charter of the United Nations, CHAPTER I: PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES, Article 2/4 Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml12

13. Thelma Ekiyor and Mary Ellen O’Connell, “The Responsibility to Protect (R2P): A way forward – or rather part of the problem?” Foreign Voices No.1 February 2008.

14. Alex de Waal, Harvard International Review, No Such Thing as Humanitarian Intervention. Retrieved from http://hir.harvard.edu/index.php?page=article&id=1482&p=2

15. Kofi Annan and Amara Essy. UN Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission, Securing a Lasting Peace Between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/NewLinks/eebcarbitration/oped.htm

16. Reuters (2007, June 14). Haaretz, Ex-diplomat: UN failed in Middle East, subservient to U.S., Israel. Retrieved from http://www.haaretz.com/news/ex-diplomat-un-failed-in-middle-east-subservient-to-u-s-israel-1.223183

17. Jeffrey Heller (2010, June 6). Reuters, Israel rejects international inquiry into lethal raid. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65005R20100606

18. (2010, June 1). CBS News, U.N. Calls for Probe into Israeli Aid Ship Raid. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/01/world/main6536693.shtml

19. (2010, June 23). India Blooms News Service, Kyrgyz: Despite security constraints, aid flows in. Retrieved from http://www.indiablooms.com/ForeignDetailsPage/foreignDetails230610a.php