Rostow, Nicholas

English

University of Tulsa College of Law

Tulsa Journal of Comparative and International LawVolume 2 | Issue 2 Article 33-1-1995United Nations at Fifty, TheNicholas RostowFollow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tjcilPart of the Law CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Journal of Comparativeand International Law by an authorized administrator of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact daniel-bell@utulsa.edu.Recommended CitationNicholas Rostow, United Nations at Fifty, The, 2 Tulsa J. Comp. & Int'l L. 181 (1994).Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tjcil/vol2/iss2/3THE UNITED NATIONS AT FIFTYNicholas Rostow*Our first order of business is to congratulate the United Nations on reachingits fiftieth birthday. In fact, since the United Nations came into being in 1942as the alliance against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, we are celebrating thefiftieth anniversary of the U.N. Charter. Its predecessor lived only twenty-sixyears and, in reality, fewer than that.The purpose is not just celebratory, rather, it is to examine the role of theUnited Nations in its first fifty years and the prospects for its second fifty. TheU.N. Charter itself provides our theme: international peace and security as thenecessary condition for social progress.IJust as the Cold War defined most of our lives, so it defined the UnitedNations' first fifty years. For us, the Cold War dictated our assumptions aboutinternational politics, America's role in the world, and America's interests.Because of the Cold War, we established for the first time in our history apeacetime network of defensive alliances, maintained an enormous standing,peacetime military establishment, and developed extraordinary intelligencecapabilities. Cold War threats influenced internal affairs as well - thedevelopment and maintenance of what has been called, exaggeratedly, thenational security state. Even at the height of the controversies over Korea andVietnam, most Americans shared a conviction about who wore the white hatsand who wore the black hats in the international arena and the need forinternational leadership by the United States. Now, Cold War assumptions andperspectives have dissipated. Today, we are searching for new understandingand new certainty concerning international affairs.During this same period, the United Nations was giving meaning to itsCharter through practice. The frequent generalization that the Cold War* Associate Professor of Law, University of Tulsa College of Law. Professor Rostow also serves asthe Executive Director of the Massachusetts Office of International Trade and Investment. This speech waspresented on November 4, 1994 at the Annual U.N. Day Banquet of the United Nations Association of EasternOklahoma.TULSA J. COMP. & INT'L L.paralyzed the United Nations and prevented it from fulfilling its potential is toosweeping. From the Berlin airlift to the war in Afghanistan, of course, the U.N.Security Council too often was too divided to discharge its primary responsibilityfor the maintenance of international peace and security. Yet this fact did notmean the United Nations was inactive.The United Nations' first decade saw the development of internationalcooperation in peacekeeping and nation-building from Korea to the Middle Eastto the Congo. The actions were neither cost-free nor non-controversial and ofteninvolved substantial violence. In spite of the costs, the United Nations as aninstitution played a significant role.During the Cold War, the United Nations also undertook or oversawsubstantial international humanitarian efforts. U.N. agencies were created toalleviate the suffering of those driven from pillar to post by war and othercalamities of the twentieth century, and to encourage international cooperationin areas as diverse as public health, environmental protection, and the safeguard-ing of artifacts and natural formations. Secretary General Hammarskjold madehis office an independent voice, which most of his successors have used to theworld's advantage. One result has been a United Nations that has facilitated thedevelopment of a truly global process, in which international law is createdthrough the efforts of all the actors in the world arena - states, individuals,corporations, non-governmental and intergovernmental organizations.At the same time - indeed throughout the Cold War - the United Nationsremained what it could not escape being: a political institution to which certainpowers and responsibilities had been delegated under the U.N. Charter. TheUnited Nations Organization is superimposed upon a functioning internationalsystem of independent or nominally independent states. These states haveacquired habits of action, frames of reference, and conceptions of nationalinterest and international right and wrong over centuries of bitter experience. In1945, these states did not intend to make a world government out of the UnitedNations, and so far at least, the United Nations has not become one. SecretaryGeneral Boutros-Ghali meant to refer to this reality when he wrote in his 1992Agenda for Peace that the "foundation-stone" for the work of maintaininginternational peace and security - peacekeeping, peacemaking, andpeacebuilding - is the independent state.In building peace, the United Nations in some respects is more than the sumof its parts. More than just a silent bureaucrat, the Secretary General enjoys aBully Pulpit. Mr. Boutros-Ghali has not hesitated to be a catalyst for interna-tional action. His voice was extremely important in mobilizing the internationalcommunity into action with respect to Somalia's starving millions in 1992.In addition, as Secretary General Hammarskjold showed long ago, theUnited Nations Secretariat can play a helpful, mediating role in internal as wellas international conflict. In Cambodia, El Salvador, and numerous othercountries, Secretary General Boutros-Ghali has built on that example, sometimesirritating world capitals in the process. These efforts are evidence that theUnited Nations as an institution is acting on the first priority of the U.N. Charter,to maintain international peace and security through effective measures ofcollective security.(Vol. 2:181THE UNITED NATIONS AT FIFTYHowever much initiative the Secretary General undertakes, he neverthelessmust act with the acquiescence, or at the behest, of individual states. U.N.institutions - notably, the Security Council, the General Assembly, and theInternational Court of Justice - occasionally exhibit capacities more frequentlyassociated with governments than with intergovernmental organizations. But,they have not replaced individual Member initiative and action, particularly withrespect to matters of war and peace. Given some positions adopted over theyears by majorities of the General Assembly, this reality is hardly surprising.In light of this fact, the United Nations is also less than the sum of its parts.The most important provision of the U.N. Charter prohibits the internationalthreat or use of force. The Charter envisions two mechanisms for enforcing thisprohibition. One contemplates Security Council action, including the use ofmilitary forces. In this scheme, the Security Council is the world's policeman.The second involves actions by states exercising what the Charter calls theinherent right of individual or collective self-defense against an armed attack.Both sides of the Iron Curtain argued that their actions complied with thisprovision of the U.N. Charter. Only twice have military actions occurredexplicitly in a U.N. framework: the Korean and Persian Gulf Wars. While theywere undeniably U.N. operations in a U.N. context, they were not the kind ofaction explicitly mentioned in the Charter. Rather, they were exercises of theright of collective self-defense in a U.N. context.The politico-military, economic, and cultural Cold War frequentlynecessitated action outside the United Nations. Due to the Cold War, U.N.Members did not share more than nominal adherence to common principles oreven a nominally common confidence that they could rely on others, particularlya global institution of universal or near-universal membership, to protect theirsecurity interests. Individual states were loathe to give up rights of self-defense,including the right to judge when and if a threat or armed attack existed,especially in times of substantial advances in military technologies.The end of the Cold War has raised expectations for the United Nations'role with respect to the maintenance of peace. It has also brought greateruniformity of perspective to the international community. As a result, actionsthat might have been taken before the end of the Cold War in the name ofcollective self-defense now are taken in the name of collective security and U.N.enforcement, even though U.N. armies do not exist. Almost three hundredSecurity Council resolutions passed since the demise of the USSR in 1991 reflectshared purposes. In the preceding forty-six years, the Council had passed only678 resolutions. American ascendancy does not account for this productivity.Rather, of supreme importance is the ostensible development of a commonSecurity Council viewpoint of its duties with respect to the maintenance ofinternational peace and security.Elevated expectations generate greater than warranted disappointments whenthey are not realized. The post-Cold War United Nations has produced its shareof disappointments already. The Somalia operation did not prove to be sosuccessful as was expected; indeed, it was widely regarded as a failure.Widespread pessimism greeted the Haiti operation as well. U.N. operations inthe former Yugoslavia are calamitous. The United Nations remains doggedly1995]TULSA J. COMP. & INT'L L.neutral even when such neutrality assists those who contravene U.N. Charterprinciples and commit aggression.As we look ahead to the United Nations' second fifty years, caution is abecoming posture. The rapid and profound changes of the last few years cameunexpectedly, even to those who had analyzed the Soviet Union and concludedit could not survive forever. The past provides insight, but no sure guide. Whocan be confident, for example, that the nuclear peace will be kept for anotherfifty years? Despite uncertainty, it is possible to evaluate some of the currentproposals for changing the United Nations and estimate the likelihood of theirbecoming reality.Probably the easiest to address is the question of Security Councilmembership. The United States supports granting Permanent Member status toGermany and Japan. The logic of power eventually will override the shadowsof history.This change, however, will not be achieved quickly. Existing PermanentMembers fear such a change might lead to a complete overhaul of the SecurityCouncil, including loss of their status. For a number of years, the non-alignedhave chafed at the Permanent Members' veto and argued that Security CouncilMembership should reflect the demography of the United Nations. If theseissues are commingled with the question of Japan and Germany (or a Europeanseat if European integration advances in the foreign policy area), then Tokyo andBonn (or Berlin) had best be patient. In any event, it is unlikely that the existingPermanent Five will relinquish their power voluntarily.The second great issue concerns a potential U.N. armed force andintelligence service - in short, infrastructure to support Mr. Boutros-Ghali'sagenda and to implement the Charter's visions. Almost fifty years after adoptionof the U.N. Charter, no country has executed a special agreement with theSecurity Council to make available armed forces at the Council's call. Whileone may argue that more time is needed to evaluate U.N. capabilities in themilitary area and all the questions concerning the role of national militarycontingents in Security Council operations, enough time has passed and enoughcrises have been confronted since the end of the Cold War to see that confidencein a U.N. shield is not high. Perhaps if the Yugoslav situation had been handledotherwise, states would not be so reluctant to trust the United Nations to guardtheir security. Already, the solidarity among the great powers of the immediatepost-Cold War period cannot be counted on. In addition, U.N. management isnot yet so developed as to fill countries with confidence that military operationswill be properly conducted. Finally, there is the absence of internationalprecedent. Lack of government interest suggests comfort with conductingnecessary operations as exercises in collective self-defense under the aegis of, butnot dependent on, the United Nations. States thus far have not been willing togive up or limit their right of self-defense beyond what the U.N. Charter andcustomary law already provide. In addition, different perspectives on suchinternational crises as Rwanda and Haiti suggest that the world has yet to acceptthat peace is indivisible.[Vol. 2:181THE UNITED NATIONS AT YFITYAs we look to the next fifty years, we can be sure of few signposts. Worldgovernment will likely not emerge. In the mid-1790s, Emmanuel Kant wrotethat states do not want to give up the freedom world government would require.Accordingly, the best he could foresee was "a union of nations which maintainsitself, prevents wars, and steadily expands." This was the animating idea of theLeague of Nations and it is the animating idea of the United Nations. Thoughwar often has brought new wealth to new quarters, a sure peace is the bestenvironment for pursuing the Charter's goal of improved living standards inlarger freedom.CONCLUSIONThe absence of Cold War certainties offers opportunities as well aschallenges. The opportunities are easy to state, but difficult to seize: they are thesame that existed in 1919, when the international landscape similarly wastransformed almost beyond recognition. The world confronts opportunities tostrengthen the institutions of peace and extend the rule of law in internationalaffairs.On an occasion such as this, it would be appropriate to close by quotingJohn Donne, reminding us all that no one is an island entire of itself. TheUnited Nations is based upon that insight. In the turbulent world of today, it isequally, if not more appropriate, to end by recalling what we have accomplishedin bringing the Cold War to a successful end and the cost of that accomplish-ment. In doing so, we shall remind ourselves that the outcome was notpreordained and the consequences of a different outcome likely would have beenmost unpleasant. Thus, we need to heed the cautionary theme of the last volumeof Winston Churchill's history of the Second World War: "How the GreatDemocracies Triumphed, and So Were Able to Resume the Follies Which HadSo Nearly Cost Them Their Life." We need to recognize and accept thatmaintaining peace and freedom requires unceasing effort and vigilance.1995]

United Nations at Fifty, The

https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1165&context=tjcil

United Nations at Fifty, The

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Tulsa College of Law