Customer Reviews

The Parliament of Man: The Past, Present, and Future of the United Nations

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Analyzing almost sixty years of United Nations history is, to say the least, an ambitious undertaking. Kennedy has tackled the challenge admirably producing a substantive and very readable account of the "evolution of the many UNs since 1945". His previous participation in the review and reform process of the UN system adds to his qualifications. This study is an excellent entry for anybody interested in learning more about this unique institution, its origins, growth and progress into one of the most complex international organizations.

Kennedy anchors his analysis firmly in the Charter of the United Nations, negotiated toward the end of World War II by the "Big Three" (US, Britain and USSR). He often refers back to these early days to remind the reader of the historical context of the UN and the challenges that ensued from these beginnings. The reader is reminded that only 50 states signed the Charter back in 1945, while the UN today has 191 members. Following chapter 1, which provides an overview of the origins of the UN, Kennedy groups the historical analysis by the major themes, reflecting the core responsibilities of the UN bodies, such as security, peace and war; the social and economic spheres; international human rights and finally global governance, democratization and civil society. It is in this context that Kennedy refers to the "many UNs. In the final part the author summarizes current trends in the reform debates of the UN and includes recommendations for future development.

Taking the theme approach engages the reader more easily in the historical perspective on the UN. Kennedy provides many examples of successes and failures in the areas of peacekeeping (or making) and in the social, economic and human rights spheres. He does not shy away from criticism. In particular, he deems the (end-of-war) structure of the Security Council with its veto system too rigid and explains why. During the long years of the Cold War, it often prevented urgent actions to be taken in response to crises. With the Security Council continuing as the primary decision making body of the UN, Kennedy sides with those proposing change that promote an expansion of the Council and restrictive rules in the use of veto. As concerns the Social and Economic Council (ECOSOC) he laments the lack of clarity in its mandate and the resulting weaknesses. The problems here have been compounded, he argues, by the parallel independent development of the Bretton Woods institutions (World Bank and IMF). It is somewhat surprising hat he accords them a rather prominent place in this context. By necessity of scope, generalizations are made about these institutions' impact on developing countries that could be challenged, for example as regards "structural adjustment programs".

An obvious disadvantage of the thematic approach is a certain level of duplication in some cases or omissions in others. The confusing array of committees, commissions etc. dealing with gender and women's issues is raised without questioning the reasons. In the section on international human rights where gender should be treated as an integral part, the linkages are not made. Kennedy treats the increasing involvement of civil society at the UN as a positive development, yet his analysis is less satisfactory. He highlights the contributions of a few international NGOs rather than on the ever-stronger civil society networks, in particular those emerging in the South. Furthermore, while referring to this aspect of UN work as "messy", Kennedy omits a major initiative in the UN to streamline the work with civil society organizations through the establishment of networks and "major groups" representation.

Kennedy clearly places himself on the side of those reformers who want to strengthen the UN system with an emphasis on progressing step by step in the different areas of its complex structure. Enhancing the operations of the major UN bodies in the social, economic and human rights fields, expanding the Security Council, establishing closer coordination with the Bretton Woods institutions and the UN and related intergovernmental agencies, etc. will have a positive impact on the whole organization and lead to a future that can benefit the peoples of the world. He is realist enough to appreciate the challenges ahead in this direction given the current global power structures. [Friederike Knabe]

In 1945, in San Francisco, when the UN Charter was written, the victors of the Second World War were looking to create an international body that would guarantee global security and prevent another conflagration like the one they had just experienced. The lines from the Tennyson poem "Locksley Hall:" "Till the war-drum throbbed no longer, and the battle flags were furl'd / In the Parliament of Man, Federation of the World" were carried by President Truman in his back pocket when he gave his famous address calling for a United Nations.

Paul Kennedy, Yale historian and author of "The Rise and Fall of Great Powers," reminds us that the internal contradictions that exist at the UN today were present at creation, so to speak. The UN was essentially created by the victors of World War II. The General Assembly, which at the time was made up of 49 members, reflected the internationalism of this venture, each member was allowed one vote regardless of size or power. The Security Council, on the other hand, made up of the five permanent members ( the US, China, Britain, France, and the Soviet Union) were the only members allowed the veto reflecting the realism of the founders.

Essentially the UN is no more than what the great powers want it to be. It is disingenuous for the American right to attack the UN for being weak and ineffectual when they need it because it was designed to be so. In the case of Rwanda and Bosnia, the UN stood by helplessly while thousands were massacred; this was because no great power stepped forward in time to stop these atrocities. Likewise, if a great power decides to act unilaterally such as the US in Iraq or China in Tibet, there is nothing the UN can do. In the politcal and military realm the UN is primarily a tool for the great powers.

Any reform of the UN Charter, such as creating a standing army or increasing the number of permanent members of the Security Council, must be approved by all five of the existing permanent members. Over the years there have been endless commissions, reports, and proposals calling for structural reform at the UN, but none have succeeded in persuading the current five to change the status quo. One must concede that if the current five cannot agree on reform, it would be even more difficult for a larger group.

Kennedy points out that "there are in practice many UN's." Most citizens of great power countries think of the UN only in it's peacekeeping and peace-enforcing capacity - a capacity in which in does not have much power. Most of the developing world is more interested in the UN's "soft power," dealing with human rights, poverty alleviation, refugees, and public health. In these areas, UN efforts have met with some success. These people working through the UN and other NGO's have been instrumental in creating an international civil society, which have greatly contributed to global security and well-being.

Only a few years ago during the invasion of Iraq, American conservatives declared the UN useless and irrelevant. Recently, however, with the crisis in Lebanon and the nuclear stand-off with Iran, one great power after another is going to the UN with another resolution. Inspite of all it's shortcomings, it is still the only global forum for conflict resolution and burden-sharing.

In the last part of this book, Kennedy asks whether the UN can remake itself to reflect the realities of the 21st century. The answer lies in how much power the great powers are willing to relinquish. Globalization is rapidly creating a world that is more multilayered and interconnected. Will the UN be able to keep pace with these changes or will the world pass it by? Kennedy is an optimist.

There's probably no better qualified writer for a history of the UN and assessment of its prospects. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers was an important and influential book, and the formation of the UN around the alliance of the victorious Allies really was the last collaboration among them. As the driver of the Great Powers School of geopolitical thinking, Kennedy was the right author for an analysis of the UN. Having a strong interest in the UN, I looked for a good history of analysis a few years back, and discovered the last one, by an LA Times reporter, was a decade old and out of print. It was wonderful to learn that a seminal historian would tackle the subject.

But at a time when most organizations are undergoing serious scrutiny for their roles in failing to capture the peace dividend, or serious lapses of intelligence and execution, in Kennedy's book the UN hardly gets any tough analysis. It is truly inexplicable that Srebrenica not get reviewed, or even Oil-for-Food Scandal.

The book not only overlooks what's important, it's boring. Yes, instead of looking at the organization from the ground up, he peers at it through a stack of paper. He wades through the verbiage of its self-definition, then bogs down in all its silly acronyms.

Here's what he should have written about: The UN is as DOA as the League of Nations unless it can rebalance membership in the Permanent Security Council to reflect the latent military clout of the current world. At heart, all the UN is an alliance between nations that were victorious 60-years ago. It will lose all purchase unless it can reflect probable military realities. Either it will change, or disappear. Hey, that would be a bad thing.

Reading the acknowledgements after the long boring platitudinous slog, I realized the problem. The UN commissioned Kennedy to write about the UN's situation. That explains how boring and polite this book is, purged of all drama. And that's duplicitous on Kennedy's part - especially if he got paid for his analysis, and then used the same material for a supposedly unbiased book.

Rewrite it with some teeth!

There is not much new in this book for those who follow the UN, but it is a balanced assessment. His reform recommendations err on the conservative side, although he does show how the US Congress imposes limits on the organization and then blames it for not doing more. The book is intended for a general readership rather than scholars or those with an in-depth knowledge of the UN.

As a reporter who has covered the UN, I read this book around the time I first came here. It is helpful for understanding the basic layout of the organization, its history and purpose, which are things that I was completely in the dark on before I came here and rather suspect most of my countrymen are ill-informed on as well. The chapter on the history of the Security Council is extremely helpful in getting a basic understanding of the UN's role in major foreign affairs in the past 60 years. However, this book is often dry and rambly in its later stages, and just doesn't have that much to say about, say, NGOs and civil society. By contrast, I found James Traub's "The Best Intentions," on the twilight of the Kofi Annan years here, to be a more engaging, if slightly less objectively detached, treatise of the United Nations.

Kennedy's problems start with the title. It's great to quote from Tennyson, but the UN is hardly The Parliament of Man. It is a Parliament of governments, some of which legitimately represent their citizens because they are elected and some of which jail without trial, torture and/or kill their citizens. A second problem -- his numerous fiat-like assertions arbitrarily and falsely preempt debate. "However, to any reasonable person nowadays, it is outrageous that a 5 of the 191 sovereign states that make up the United Nations have special powers and privileges." He may be correct, probably is, but to seek to control the terms of debate with such a sweeping statement is the authorial equivalent of "have you stopped beating your wife?" Third, his views on the Security Council vs. General Assembly role in the organization are essentially black and white. The Security Council is generally lambasted as a cause of the UN's immobility and ineffectiveness. The General Assembly's half-century of weak performance pretty much gets off with the lightest of wrist slaps or is blamed on the limitations placed on it by the UN Charter. Whenever Kennedy is critical of something or someone inside or outside the UN, the person or institution is often modified by the word "conservative", again as if to pin most of the UN's problems on conservatives. Certainly there is some validity to that charge, but it's another example of an author pushing his views so hard that it undercuts what Parliament should and could have been, an even-handed contribution to the debate about how to begin reforming the UN so that the only game in town for global community action can be more effective in that action.

Today (February 7, 2008), 1,700 Blue helmets sit at the edge of the abyss in East Africa. The UN peacekeepers between Eritrea and Ethiopia are currently struggling without fuel and Eritrea will not allow it to refuel. It shows the powerlessness of the UN organization and its Utopian dreams of world peace. Yet, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has no plans to withdraw the troops because according to one UN official, "Abandoning our positions would sanctify a resumption of the conflict." Thus it shows the resolve of the organization and the good it does ameliorating conflict.

The UN is probably both the most hated and the most beloved international organization. It is both the image of why we cannot work together because of realist interests and why the world can do great things - such as the drive to eradicate small pox. In his Parliament of Man, Paul Kennedy describes the good, the bad and the ugly of the UN as it turns 60 years old. Kennedy also attempts to find a way forward for the world organization, which he feels if it didn't exist we'd have to invent it or parts of it.

The possible ugliness is palpable. To many critics in the conservative US, and elsewhere, the UN is seen as a dangerous attempt at world government. The various organs argue for human rights and for collective action on issues that would contradict the sovereignty of nations. The Security Council resolutions are binding and therefore must be observed by all within the organization. The Secretary General is often seen by such people as an aspirant world President. The questions of national sovereignty vis-a- vis such a universal organ is something appears to be in need of resolution constantly.

Even when there is not the question of national sovereignty at stake, the UN has its detractors. It seems ridiculous that Libya should head the Human Rights committee. Peacekeeping missions are often weak and only in position to be targets from either side of the dispute. Further, the dream of a Parliament of Man is lacking when the General Assembly cannot have binding resolutions. Some therefore, dismiss the UN's utopian dream as impossible.

Yet is it really the UN's dream? The actions of subgroups of the UN, such as UNICEF, is highly lauded. There is no one who does not see the good much of the UN does. The UNESCO group on defending cultural and natural "heritage sites" is something most people believe should happen so we can pass our history to our grandchildren. All too often there is, like in Eritrea, only a thin blue line between peace and chaos. Moreover, the UN offers a forum for debate and expression of views that can be found nowhere else.

Kennedy spells out this good, bad and ugly. He poses the case for reform, by analyzing both sides, the UN should do more people and the do less people. He finds that it should be tweaked while revolutionary change is impossible and perhaps unwarranted. Kennedy brings to this book the fantastic writing and clear analysis that he brought to his other works. All too often we dismiss international organizations and many attack their usefulness both from the right and the left; but what is that the computer tech tells Charlie in The West Wing: "if they're shooting at you, you know you're doing something right."

While very informative and in-depth, this book on the UN is most of all... boring and terribly difficult to get through. Even the economics section (which SHOULD be somewhat interesting) was putting me to sleep. Will be my first and last Kennedy book