What’s wrong with the U.N.?

No, that’s not a trick question.

As those masochists who hang out here long enough to be known as “my readers” may recall, I’m not a rabid anti-U.N. type (I leave that to Bill and others with a greater taste for powder-blue blood than I).

But I’m also not a terribly big fan, either. My belief is that the United Nations is a genuinely useful institution in ways pragmatic and cynical (i.e., serving U.S. interests) and enlightened (serving the interests of humanity as a whole). And no, they’re not the same thing, although I might argue that U.S. interests overlap with human interests more often than any other nation’s --- but that’s a post for another time.

So what’s wrong with it? The layers of useless bureaucracy? The seeming inability to do anything constructive without U.S. assistance? The latent (and not-so-latent) anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism?

These are all symptoms, but they’re not the problem. No, the problem with the United Nations is that second word: nations.

Supporters of the U.N. worship the ideal of “international consensus” and “international law”, speaking of these concepts in hushed and reverent tones. The core belief is a simple one: the actions of any single nation are by definition less proper and less moral than actions that arise from a consensus among nations.

This seems reasonable on its face to most enlightened types who’ve come to think democracy is a good idea over the centuries. One man, one vote; one country, one vote, right? The ideals of democracy are the heart and soul of free societies the world over; by applying them to the international stage, we create a framework for ensuring that tyranny between nations does not occur, just as democracy defends against tyranny between men. Therefore: international consensus is by definition a good and moral thing, to be sought after wherever possible.

Right?

Wrong.

There’s a crucial piece missing in this formulation, and in the reality of the United Nations: that the nations in question must all be free, democratic societies. Otherwise, all moral bets are off.

U.N.-philes use the idea of international consensus as a synonym for morality; for justice. But in our present world, it just isn’t so. Ask any “peace” protester opposing our coming action against Saddam whether having a Security Council member state vote in favor of a course of action makes it a moral thing: betcha they say “yes”.

Well, what if the member state is Syria? What then? Do you truly sleep better at night knowing that particularly tyranny blesses your actions?

The U.N. is a grand shell game. It looks like democracy; it acts like democracy. It has all the trappings of democracy; votes and debate and all those wonderful, wonderful procedures. But at its very heart, the votes come from member governments, and many of those aren’t democracies at all. And there, the system breaks down.

The power of democracy flows uphill --- from the people to their chosen government, and from that government to bodies like the United Nations. But for far too many citizens of the world, they are cut off at the very first step.

It would be possible to establish an international body that does not suffer from this flaw, of course. The basic requirement would be simple: to join the club, a nation must be a democracy, with truly free and fair elections, and in particular, membership must be requested directly by the people of that nation through a referendum (no EU-style communities of elites here).

Personally, I’d throw in a basic requirement for a nation to possess a Bill of Rights – style guarantee of basic freedoms also, recognizing full well that this would be a contentious discussion. But a necessary one in my view; the tyranny of the majority can be as nasty as that of individual dictators.

We’d need a name, of course. I’d go for something with “humanity” in it, I think: Council of Humanity, perhaps.

If you had such an institution, then I’d say you’ve got a sound basis to suggest that decisions blessed by it are undertaken with a greater moral standing than those pursued by individual nations.

But the important thing to remember is that the U.N. doesn’t meet this standard, and it doesn’t give that blessing. The United Nations is used by lazy minds as a proxy for global democracy; but the proxy is a false one, and failure to recognize that central fact of its existence leads far too many to paint a halo around the power-blue helmets that simply isn’t there.

Perhaps someday, history will see this as a logical evolution: the League of Nations providing a first, failed attempt at international relations through means other than war. The United Nations then succeeding on some levels to at least provide structures and institutions through which nations could deal with each other peacefully.

And finally, the Council of Humanity, this mythical body I propose, establishing a true community of humanity across the planet; a true global democracy.