WHO ELECTED KOFI ANNAN?

Mickey Kaus asks "Would an invasion by the U.N. have been less resented by Iraqis? I'd say clearly yes. It's a higher-order power. And nobody's resented like the U.S. is resented." I respect Kaus, although I find his dithering schtick incredibly annoying. (I don't think that not being able to make up your mind is quite the selling point for a professional opinionater that he thinks it is.) But what could he possible mean by calling the UN a higher order power?

From the context, he seems to be saying that the UN is, or is seen to be, superior to the US government. A US/Iraq conflict is a conflict of equals -- if I'm not reading too much into a casual comment -- but the voice of the UN is the voice of moral authority. I just don't understand this point of view, which is fairly common in the leftish commentariat these days. The whole point of the UN is that, with the exception of the five permanent members of the Security Council, all de jure regimes are equal. In fact, the Syrian ambassador reminded the UN just today that Iraq is still a full member, entitled to the respect due all UN members. As has been remarked many times, the UN is a gentleman's club for dictators, giving them at least the forms of respect, a podium before the world and some say in world affairs. It is not at all democratic because it does not particularly value democracy over other governments, other than in the empty words that mark the homage vice pays to virtue.

The UN is a tool of foreign policy; our's, France's and even Iraq's. It is a wrench for use on nuts of a particular size. The nut of regime change was simply too big for it, but you don't stop changing the tire because one of your wrenches refuses to help. In fact, it was pretty clear from the start that the UN was not the right tool to use. It was designed so as not to interfere in the internal affairs of its members. Many of the members, and a few of the permanent members, have a strong interest in maintaining that noninterference directive (Chechnia, anyone? Tibet?). Those members will make sure that the UN never makes a practice of regime change. Would the Iraqis prefer to be invaded by the UN? I think the question is moot, but in a few weeks we'll be able to ask them, no thanks to the UN.

The UN structure was developed in a much different world, one just coming out of WWII and entering the Cold War. The UN was designed for that world and does not fit very well into the modern world. It is not a higher order power; it is not a power at all. It is a somewhat obsolete tool that the President thought might still have some use left in it. But if we conclude it has finally become useless, we should not hesitate to abandon it. Posted by David Cohen at March 25, 2003 8:59 PM