# Posted 12:39 AM by Ariel David Adesnik  

PLAY BALL! Kevin Drum has taken up the challenge I threw his way a couple of days back. What I wanted to know was whether was still going to defend the importance of a UN role in postwar Iraq even after reading Rachel's incisive criticism of the UN's shortcomings as a nation-builder.

Here's what Kevin had to say:

While Belton lists several knocks against international coalitions, she fails to address their biggest positive: they provide a broad acceptance of the effort that the United States is almost certain to lack on its own.

Now, as I have said to Kevin before, the acceptance of American efforts to rebuild Iraq will depend not on the multilateral validation of such efforts, but rather on their contribution to Iraqi freedom and prosperity. This is a point that firm multilateralists never seem to pick up: America's reputation depends much more on whether its actions promote common values than on whether its actions reflect a UN consensus.

In the short term, America would no doubt win plaudits for granting the UN a considerable role in the governance of postwar Iraq. But if a joint UN-US occupation fails, the US will be the one that takes the blame in Europe and elsewhere. Now, as Kevin acknowledges, giving the UN a considerable role may well jeopardize the success of the transition to democracy. In fact, Kevin goes so far as to admit that there are members of the Security Council who have a strong incentive to see the process fail.

That being the case, the question one has to ask is whether it is better win short-term applause for accommodating the UN, or long-term respect for actually making Iraq a better place to live?

On a related note, I'd like to take some shots at a slightly more theoretical post on the UN that Kevin put up just after his response to Rachel and myself. In it, Kevin answers the question of "why [he] think[s] we should continue to take the United Nations seriously." After all,

The UN does indeed have a lot of problems, some of them inherent in any international organization, but regardless of this there are only a few options for how we can conduct both the war on terrorism and our broader relations with the world.

Those few options for how the US can conduct its foreign policy are basically four: on its own, through bilateral ties, through a better multilateral organization, or through the UN.

In case you couldn't tell, the way Kevin sets up the options, its pretty clear that the UN comes across as the most realistic. But that is only because Kevin has cleverly excluded from his list of options the most viable form of international cooperation: multilateral alliances similar to NATO.

Even if the UN gets sidelined because of the recent Security Council fiasco (which I doubt will happen), the intelligence sharing functions of NATO will continue to play a critical role in fighting the war on terror. Moreover, it doesn't seem that any of the cooperation the US has received from Arab regimes has had anything to do with the UN. In fact, in terms of the actual search for Al Qaeda, the UN really hasn't contributed anything at all.

Aside from its humanitarian functions, I'd be curious to know what Kevin considers to be the UN's contribution to "our broader relations with the world." As I see it, the UN has two main roles. First, to win over European public opinion. The only reason 19 European governments supported the war against Iraq was because the US made a serious effort to secure a resolution authorizing the use of force.

Second, the UN takes care of situations the US wants to stay out of: Bosnia, Kosovo and (earlier on) Cambodia and Somalia. I have to admit, that is quite a useful thing, since the US can't afford to take responsibility for the aftermath of every civil war. For example, if the current war in the Congo ever ends, we'll need the UN to runs things afterward.

In short, we need the UN. But in no way does that mean that we have to work with the United Nations even when doing so would severely damage our interests, as in the case of postwar Iraq. The important thing to avoid is the sort of kneejerk anti-UN sentiment that led Rumsfeld & Co. to recommend that the US not even ask for a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq.

Finally, working with the UN plays an important role in ensuring domestic support for US foreign policy. While Americans may have supported the war even without a second resolution, I seriously doubt they would have done so had the administration not made a compelling case against Iraq at the United Nations. Sensibly, the American public sought UN approval but recognized that such approval is not the be all and end all of the search for international legitimacy.

OK, Kevin, now it's your turn. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion