Review of “Investing in a New Multilateralism: A Smart Power Approach to the United Nations”

This Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) report on the United Nation (UN)-United States (U.S.) relationship utilizes the notion of “Smart Power.” CSIS has recently developed and promoted smart power as an alternative to traditional notion of “hard power” or the notion of “soft power” developed by Joseph Nye. CSIS defined smart power as, “an approach that underscores the necessity of a strong military, but also invests heavily in alliances, partnership, and institutions of all levels to expand American influence and establish legitimacy of American action.” I think the fundamental underlining of this definition advocates that the U.S. must act in ways that expand its influence and legitimacy. This report argues that the U.S. should increase its level of participation with UN operations because it will “expand American influence and establish legitimacy of American action.”

She develops some very convincing arguments for why the newly elected Obama administration should utilize the multilateral process of the UN. She notes that the UN, more than any other international institution, remains pungent in the international system because of the legal authority established by the UN charter. The UN Charter has promoted a set of norms that shape policy of many nations throughout the world. Because the UN charter was been signed and ratified by almost all nations, heads of state are inevitable intertwined with the UN system. Therefore, as the Obama administration attempts to reestablish the U.S. standing in the world, improving relations with the UN would be a “smart” policy decision.

Another argument she lays out is in my opinion true but not original. She states that there are transnational threats—such as health and climate change—that threaten peace and security in the 21st Century. These threats not only should be a focus of U.S. foreign policy makers but have been a priority for the UN. Therefore, joint efforts by the U.S. and the UN will not only be a more effective system for combating these threats but will also enhance American influence.

There are some arguments that Johanna Mendelson Forman develops that shays a little too much on the side of an idealistic liberal institutionalist. I believe that the failures of the UN to take decisive action during the genocides in Rwanda and in Darfur should have permanently disenfranchised the UN as the foremost international peacekeeping institution. However, she argues that when diplomacy fails during a time of international crisis there should be an expanded role for the UN. I would argue that the UN Security Council, as it exists today, cannot reach a consensus on how expansive the UN’s role should be during a crisis. If the UN has not yet developed a coherent strategy for countering genocide or an aggressive dictatorship how could they now? Even if the U.S. played an even larger role in peacekeeping missions, for the UN to end an unlawful war there will still need to be consensus within the UN Security Council (UNSC). As members of the UNSC become fully immersed in the global economy a conflict of interest could lead to deaths of thousands and the degradation of a hopeful international institution.

She speaks to reform, but how can the UNSC really be reformed? Perhaps, there could be a vote in the General Assembly (UNGA) that establishes new non-veto permanent members of the UNSC but if there is no consensus among the veto members of the UNSC no action would be taken. The UNGA could vote to include more veto members of the UNSC but that would only make the process of developing a consensus even more challenging. Current members of the UNSC would surely not give up their veto right because it welds too much power. Therefore, what is there to be done? This is the question that I wish a UN scholar really attempts to tackle instead of resting on the laurels of a UNSC consensus in future on all international crises. I am not a believer of John Bolton’s goal of dismantling the UN. But, I caution arguing for a expanded UN role in peacekeeping when the likelihood of a consensus and then swift action has no historical precedent or future practicality.


To access the article please use this link:
http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/090128_mendelsonforman_un_smartpower_web.pdf