Abstract:
By examining the theory of contractualism and examine the paradox of authority, one can better understand the shortcomings of the United Nations with regards to Somalia and Rwanda.
The United Nations is a world governing body that has in many ways failed to accomplish its mandate. This failure is especially evident when one looks at the ongoing wars that are forever ravishing the globe. In the paper I will apply the theory of social contractualism (Hobbs, 1651) to the failures of the United Nations with regards to global peace. Special focus will be applied to the paradox of authority that arises out of the inherently flawed structure of contractualism. My argument is that the failures of the United Nations have arisen out of a lack of accountability stemming from this fatal flaw in contractualism.
Before one can understand how the paradox of authority transcribes to the failures of the United Nations, one needs to first understand contractualism in its original context. According to Hobbes, people living in a state of anarchy would inevitably come together to form a state. The idea behind this being that individuals would surrender a small portion of their natural rights in return for the security of the rest of their rights. (Hobbs, 1651). This means that people would surrender their natural right to resort to violence and in return would have their other rights protected; for example their right to life. This agreement between people effectively ends anarchy and the state begins. This agreement is called the social contract. Unfortunately contractualism creates new problems.
One of these problems is the enforcement of the social contract. To have a contract, it needs to be binding. This means that an authority needs to exist within a state to make sure people adhere to the social contract. This authority is the government of a state. The government exercises its rule of law to enforce the contractualism. One can imagine this as the government being able to exercise the natural right of violence that society gave up in order to come together to form the state. The government is able to enforce the social contract among its people, but who enforces the government social contract between it and it’s electorate? This is where the paradox of authority begins. It begins within the state.
Another problem that arises out contractualism is the anarchic state system. This is where there is no longer anarchy among individuals, but rather anarchy among nations. This situation is far more dangerous that the “state of nature” (Hobbs, 1651) because states have far more resources to commit acts such human right violations on a larger scale. The problem is that there is nothing to enforce civil relations between states.
“Man is by nature a political animal.” (Aristotle in the Free Library, 2010). I agree with Aristotle’s interpretation of human nature. This is because humans tend to fix political problems with political solutions. The solution that most believe would fix the problems that arose out of contractualism was another form of contractualism, namely the United Nations. The idea behind this is if all states come into contract with each other, there will be one authority that enforces peace on a global level and enforces good governance within sovereign states. This is Hobbsian contractualism brought up one level in political scope and unit.
This is where the paradox of authority arises. The paradox of authority can be look at as an infinite loop of child-parent relationships in terms of political units. To enforce a contract, there needs to be an authority that enforces it and makes it binding. That enforcing authority itself needs authority to oversee its enforcing of lower-level contracts. This means that another contract is needed and so even another authority is needed to over see that contract.
This cycle of contract-authority can continue infinitely. This is the paradox of authority. Today, the United Nations is where this infinite loop ends. This means that there is no authority that makes sure the United Nations does not violate the contract it has with nation-states. In essence this means that the United Nations has no accountability for its actions. When decisions have no accountability, they are made prematurely thus failures are more likely.
One only needs to look at the failures of the United Nations and in specifically the failures of the United Nations Security Council to see this lack of accountability in one of the biggest reasons for their existence. In the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations, there are broad aims that illustrate what the United Nations mandate should be. (1945). These aims include the end of ware and the promotion of peace, the reaffirmation of human rights to all humankinds, the establishment of law where previously there was none and the promotion of social progress for all humankind.
The Black Hawk Down situation that occurred during the early 1990’s can be seen as one of the monumental failures. (Meredith, 2006). The United Nations sanctioned and sent the United States military into Somalia for a peacekeeping mission. The United States wanted to look good in front of the world because its was an election year and sending in their army as peacekeeping force would have achieved this image. Had the United Nations achieved their aim, the United States would have received the good publicity it was look for.
The situation in Somalia unfortunately escalated into a war, which left Somalia extremely distrustful of the United Nations and the West. Somalia was left in a worse state that it was in when the United States entered the country. Had there been some accountability in the United Nations for their choices and actions, they may have approached the situation completely differently. This incident changed the foreign policy of the United States and ultimately led to an unwillingness to intervene in the Rwandan Genocide by the United States.
In 1994, 800 000 Tutsi’s were murdered in what became known as the Rwandan Genocide (BBC, 2008). The United Nations got involved too late and the United States refused to get involved at all because of the Black Hawk Down incident that occurred four years earlier. Here one can see how previous choices and actions led to people suffering that had nothing to do with the initial situation. If the United Nations has made better choices, nearly a million people could have had their lives spared.
In conclusion, the paradox of authority stems from the structural nature of Hobbsian contractualism (1651) and that this paradox means eventually there will be an authority at the top of a chain that does not have any accountability to a higher authority.
This is the case with the United Nations. The United Nations made a bad decision with Somalia that ultimately left Somalia in a worse condition than it was in when the United Nation sent in the American military as a peacekeeping force. This bad decision subsequently affected the United State’s foreign policy. When the United States and the United Nation was really needed in Rwanda, they did not respond and subsequently 800 000 people were murdered. It is apparent that the paradox of authority lead to a lack of accountability which is ultimately lead to the failures of the United Nations.
List of References:
· Hobbs, T, 1651. Leviathan. England.
· BBC News. Rwanda: How the Genocide Happened. [Online]. Available: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1288230.stm [Accessed 12 May 2010].
· The Free Library. Book I: Chapter II. [Online]. Available: http://aristotle.thefreelibrary.com/A-Treatise-on-Government/1-2 [Accessed 12 May 2010].
· Meredith, M. 2006. The State Of Africa. Great Britain: The Free Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment