Christian Realism and the United Nations
Joseph Loconte
The myth of a morally empowered United Nations, which continues to thrive on both sides of the Atlantic, is becoming absurdly difficult to sustain. The spectacle of U.N. paralysis in the face of international aggression, ethnic cleansing, and genocide—as the brutality and economic meltdown in Zimbabwe illustrates—demands a better response than the tranquilizing diplo-speak of “multilateralism.”
A recent editorial in The Spectator (London) puts the problem this way:
“There is a huge misconception in this country and elsewhere that the U.N. is a Holy See for the modern era: the moral conscience of mankind, designed to guarantee basic freedoms for the peoples of the world. This is historically illiterate. The founding aim of the U.N. was to avoid great power conflict—which is why five nations have a veto over its actions, and the organisation has, to repeat the old joke, the engine of a lawnmower and the brakes of a Rolls-Royce.”
The editorial makes the case for a League of Democracies, acting to confront lawless regimes and prevent crimes against humanity. The idea, being proposed by Republican presidential candidate John McCain, has critics on the left and the right. Yet many argue that an effective alliance of democratic states could lay the foundation for a “realist multilateralism” to overcome the inertia of the United Nations. Until that happens, argues The Spectator, democratic nations should apply diplomatic pressure in line with their democratic values: They must persuade African states “to see this issue through the prism of democracy and human rights.” Here’s how The Spectator suggests that they might begin:
“For now, the best that can be done for Zimbabwe is to make African nations face up to their responsibilities and the consequences of inaction. A private message should be delivered by all democratic donor nations to every sub-Saharan Africa nation that their attitude towards Zimbabwe will be taken as a test of their commitment to good governance. If they flunk it, then the donors would conclude that development aid, as opposed to humanitarian aid, is pointless as Africa is incapable of policing the necessary standards of good governance. Such an ultimatum might just force southern Africa—and South Africa in particular—to recognize that Zimbabwe deserves to be part of Africa’s future rather than the bloodied captive of its past.”
We might call this example of Christian realism: a mixture of political prudence with moral idealism, grounded in the God-given dignity of the individual. If such realism cannot be found at the U.N. Security Council, then it’s time to look for it elsewhere.
Fodder, Leadership, Society, War and Peace, Wed 09 Jul 2008
