Authority, power, responsibility, the US and the UN

By

Stuart Yates

The Iraq issue has demonstrated once again that the world political order is run according to the principle that might is right. The country - in our time this is the United States - which has the most military and economic power wields the political power. This principle assumes that force (military or economic) is the normal and acceptable way of resolving conflict and establishing and maintaining an economic system. It is based on questionable ethics and also raises questions concerning the consequences of force being such a routine tool.

So we almost take for granted that aid to Turkey is withdrawn when Turkey declines to allow American troops on her soil. We hardly stop to think at the sight of Jordan having to aid a war against her Arab neighbour for fear of her economy being weakened by retaliatory economic action. The daily crushing, literally, of Palestinian people and homes by Israeli tanks hardly gets a mention in the media. The dismissive comments such as "tin pot" regime relating to Guinea pass without censure: "tin pot" refers to a country without significant military and economic power. Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac parade on the world's stage. Why? Not necessarily because they have authority, but because they have power: relatively large economies and relatively large military forces including nuclear weapons. Not to mention chemical and biological weapons.

The world order is thus based on a parental reward and punishment basis. Do as we (the West) say or we will knock you senseless (as with Iraq). Do as we say or we will stop your pocket money (as with Turkey and many others). Do as we say and we will give you treats (e.g. build a chain of fast food restaurants in your country). What you must not do is argue. You are children and must do as you are told. It is not even a good parental model, being based on control rather than nurturing and encouraging development. [A passing thought. 'Teenage' Japan, the only single country likely to rival the US economically, has been in the economic doldrums for years. I wonder what is going on behind the scenes, maybe the equivalent of being grounded.]

You may say 'It has always been this way' and indeed it has, but the creation of the United Nations was intended to change this, to create a world order in which brute force was not the only way of establishing and maintaining some sort of half-decent civilised behaviour between nations. Unfortunately the structure and the processes of the UN have not been robust enough to prevent it being weakened and thwarted by the major powers and the US in particular. The US, which has dragged its feet even in paying its UN dues, the US, which has used the veto in the Security Council 76 times (in comparison with France's 18 times). Only the USSR has used the veto more than the US. So the superpowers are the ones which most often thwart the putative democratic processes of the UN. Interestingly however, China has only used the veto 5 times. It is ironic that the US, interfering all over the world in the name of 'democracy', is not willing to abide by a form of democratic process at the UN.

I do not want to live in an American colony. Yet this is how it seems with American bases scattered around the UK. There was some rationale about this during the Cold War, but now? Why should American bases continue to exist here? Why indeed should American bases exist in places like Hungary? Part of the answer of course is to serve American power in the context of the US wishing to dominate all 'strategic' areas of the world, which is pretty much everywhere. The other part of the answer is that other countries are not willing to invest in their own defence. Europe as a whole does not take responsibility for the security of its citizens, lazily depending upon the US, ignoring the fact that this makes Europe an American colony. It does not give me a warm glow to see American B-52 bombers on the tarmac at Fairford. It reminds me of brute American power, it reminds me of Vietnam, it reminds me of the catastrophic results that can follow from the unilateral wielding of such brute power.

Economic power is another way in which the US exerts its dominance over the rest of the world. We know how aid is provided and withheld in such a cynical way. What is less obvious is how money flows from the rest of the world to the US. I used to work for a large American corporation, who were good employers. The UK subsidiary handled all the revenue streams from the whole of Europe back to the States. One man in charge of using this money on a short term basis, for example at weekends or bank holidays, created more revenue than some of the main product lines. It may take the form of computerised transactions rather than the gold bullion of Elizabethan times but it is real money nonetheless. Successive UK governments have trumpeted their success in attracting 'inward investment' but have kept very quiet about where the profits go. Again there is a lack of responsibility, insufficient native investment in industry, little retention of profits within the UK.

The US has wielded its power, economic and military, but other Western governments have failed to take responsibility for their own economies and military requirements (to be fair, France has tried and is still trying). The result is the colonisation of the Western world.

Where the West fails utterly is in the area of authority. Authority is to do with respect and responsibility. The person who has authority may or may not have power over others, but if so, that power is wielded lightly and wisely, if at all. We recognise authority and its absence quite easily. Thus Nelson Mandela has authority, George W Bush only has power. Those of us who have worked for several bosses can easily divide them into those who had authority and those who just wielded the power that went with their position. People without authority tend to blame others and not accept their own responsibility, hence the frequent blaming of Saddam Hussein by people such as Jack Straw. I believe Tony Blair tries to exercise authority to a degree, but certainly not in his dealings with his own Party and Parliament. Margaret Thatcher had authority, like her or not, but curiously lost it when not in power. The reverse is usually true: power corrupts a person's natural authority. We listen to people with authority because we want to; we listen to those who merely have power because we have to.

What of the UN? How might the UN become the world authority which holds supreme responsibility for conflict resolution, fairness in trade, aid, wealth, education etc? Even if we leave the existing structures intact, the way in which the Security Council (effectively the executive arm of the UN) is composed could be changed to represent the world more fairly:

   The Council (let's call it so) could be composed of representatives from the geographic areas of the world rather than those nations with power. So a seven person Council could be formed by representatives from: the Americas, Australasia, Western Europe, the Middle East, the far East, Africa and Eastern Europe/Asia/Indian sub-continent. The head of each delegation would thus not represent just one country and could be elected democratically (with a strict cap on election costs) by the peoples of the region for a fixed term. The remaining members of each delegation would be in the nature of a regional civil service. There are of course other ways of dividing up the world other than the present way of permanent members who are there because their countries were the first to have nuclear weapons. Equally, delegates could be substituted for regional representatives, with world elections to select the (say) seven delegates.

  The head of each delegation would need to be impervious, as far as possible, to pressure from individual nations. Thus, the salary would need to be high, the sanctions against any form of corruption punitive, a route forward with the UN available when not re-elected when the head of any delegation has incurred the wrath of his/her country - which will happen with genuinely independent delegates. Delegates could be elder statesmen (they would, alas, be almost exclusively men) but could also be people pre-eminent in their field - business or the arts for example. Their main attribute would be in possessing the authority which encourages people to vote for them and trust them when elected.

  The Council would draw its power from member nations, all of which would accept the supremacy of its decisions. In the case of military action not being possible against a particular nation not being possible (a last resort in any case), then economic sanctions would be employed on a mandatory basis.

  There are some other interesting issues such as how the main UN body might act as a chamber of first resort, passing up recommendations to the Council and how the main UN Council might better represent the peoples of the world: it raises issues of gender and age as well as ethnicity.

  The above may appear idealistic and unworkable, but we need a person or persons of vision to formulate some new way forward for the UN so that the UN can act fairly and independently for the benefit of the world as a whole. I wrote last year about Iraq being the saviour of the world: that halting the US-led rush to war in her determination to dominate the world might lead to a better world order. Iraq, through the most awful means, might still serve that role. The world may say "Never again" to the US wielding its power unilaterally.

If the US truly wants to be regarded as the greatest civilisation/nation the world has ever seen, then it can donate a very precious gift to the world. That is to put its power at the disposal of a democratic and representative UN, for that power to be used for the sake of the whole world. Otherwise history will dismiss the US as just another empire, much like the Roman Empire.

March 2003