Back
About RSIS
Introduction
Building the Foundations
Welcome Message
Board of Governors
Staff Profiles
Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
Dean’s Office
Management
Distinguished Fellows
Faculty and Research
Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
Visiting Fellows
Adjunct Fellows
Administrative Staff
Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
RSIS Endowment Fund
Endowed Professorships
Career Opportunities
Getting to RSIS
Research
Research Centres
Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
Centre of Excellence for National Security
Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
Research Programmes
National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)
Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
Other Research
Future Issues and Technology Cluster
Research@RSIS
Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
Graduate Education
Graduate Programmes Office
Exchange Partners and Programmes
How to Apply
Financial Assistance
Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
RSIS Alumni
Outreach
Global Networks
About Global Networks
RSIS Alumni
Executive Education
About Executive Education
SRP Executive Programme
Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
International Programmes
About International Programmes
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)
International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
Publications
RSIS Publications
Annual Reviews
Books
Bulletins and Newsletters
RSIS Commentary Series
Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
Commemorative / Event Reports
Future Issues
IDSS Papers
Interreligious Relations
Monographs
NTS Insight
Policy Reports
Working Papers
External Publications
Authored Books
Journal Articles
Edited Books
Chapters in Edited Books
Policy Reports
Working Papers
Op-Eds
Glossary of Abbreviations
Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
RSIS Publications for the Year
External Publications for the Year
Media
Cohesive Societies
Sustainable Security
Other Resource Pages
News Releases
Speeches
Video/Audio Channel
External Podcasts
Events
Contact Us
S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Think Tank and Graduate School Ponder The Improbable Since 1966
Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University
  • About RSIS
      IntroductionBuilding the FoundationsWelcome MessageBoard of GovernorsHonours and Awards for RSIS Staff and StudentsRSIS Endowment FundEndowed ProfessorshipsCareer OpportunitiesGetting to RSIS
      Staff ProfilesExecutive Deputy Chairman’s OfficeDean’s OfficeManagementDistinguished FellowsFaculty and ResearchAssociate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research AnalystsVisiting FellowsAdjunct FellowsAdministrative Staff
  • Research
      Research CentresCentre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)Centre of Excellence for National SecurityInstitute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
      Research ProgrammesNational Security Studies Programme (NSSP)Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
      Other ResearchFuture Issues and Technology ClusterResearch@RSISScience and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
      Graduate Programmes OfficeExchange Partners and ProgrammesHow to ApplyFinancial AssistanceMeet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other eventsRSIS Alumni
  • Outreach
      Global NetworksAbout Global NetworksRSIS Alumni
      Executive EducationAbout Executive EducationSRP Executive ProgrammeTerrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
      International ProgrammesAbout International ProgrammesAsia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
  • Publications
      RSIS PublicationsAnnual ReviewsBooksBulletins and NewslettersRSIS Commentary SeriesCounter Terrorist Trends and AnalysesCommemorative / Event ReportsFuture IssuesIDSS PapersInterreligious RelationsMonographsNTS InsightPolicy ReportsWorking Papers
      External PublicationsAuthored BooksJournal ArticlesEdited BooksChapters in Edited BooksPolicy ReportsWorking PapersOp-Eds
      Glossary of AbbreviationsPolicy-relevant Articles Given RSIS AwardRSIS Publications for the YearExternal Publications for the Year
  • Media
      Cohesive SocietiesSustainable SecurityOther Resource PagesNews ReleasesSpeechesVideo/Audio ChannelExternal Podcasts
  • Events
  • Contact Us
    • Connect with Us

      rsis.ntu
      rsis_ntu
      rsisntu
      rsisvideocast
      school/rsis-ntu
      rsis.sg
      rsissg
      RSIS
      RSS
      Subscribe to RSIS Publications
      Subscribe to RSIS Events

      Getting to RSIS

      Nanyang Technological University
      Block S4, Level B3,
      50 Nanyang Avenue,
      Singapore 639798

      Click here for direction to RSIS

      Get in Touch

    Connect
    Search
    • RSIS
    • Publication
    • RSIS Publications
    • CO03042 | “Irrelevant” UN, “Irreverent” US: Whither Institutionalism After Iraq?
    • Annual Reviews
    • Books
    • Bulletins and Newsletters
    • RSIS Commentary Series
    • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
    • Commemorative / Event Reports
    • Future Issues
    • IDSS Papers
    • Interreligious Relations
    • Monographs
    • NTS Insight
    • Policy Reports
    • Working Papers

    CO03042 | “Irrelevant” UN, “Irreverent” US: Whither Institutionalism After Iraq?
    Tan See Seng

    05 December 2003

    download pdf

    Commentary

    Introduction

    In recent international relations discourse, supporters and detractors of the United States have agreed on one thing: US foreign policy under the George W. Bush administration has evinced an aggressively internationalist agenda; it sees selective engagement in multilateral diplomacy and institutions as useful only insofar as these serve to promote and protect US interests. This brand of “a la carte multilateralism” has provoked criticism of America as being arrogantly unilateralist, revisionist, or imperialist.

    On the other hand, the view of the United States as the world’s sheriff—reluctant or trigger- happy—cannot be separated from the perception of the United Nations as an increasingly irrelevant if not inept institution. Indeed, few would argue that the UN is not in need of reform. Chronically under-funded and constrained by a largely outmoded charter espousing commendable principles but also cumbersome laws, the UN is subject to the whims of its member states as well as the widespread use (and abuse) of veto power by the Security Council’s Permanent Five. Nevertheless the UN has garnered some significant achievements in the areas of peace operations, economic development, human security and health despite its built-in structural weaknesses.

    Balancing Principle Against Power

    However concerns for the “human dimension” cannot be successfully realized at the empirical level without the support of hegemonic power. Contemporary international order depends on two interrelated factors: a UN attuned to security challenges, both traditional and human, of the post-9/11 world; and a US which shows less irreverence than it has hitherto for the principles of multilateralism and institutionalism. The Bush administration has not demonstrated serious concern for human and other non-militaristic aspects of security in Iraq and the wider global war on terror. This is not to imply that the world’s foremost democracy and key donor nation finds human security a disagreeable notion. Rather, it is to suggest that a United States geared primarily to fight global terror may find that human security considerations do not always comport with the requirements of its military-oriented anti- terror mission.

    Yet it is not inconsistent to say that the UN’s human security mission, were it to succeed, cannot do without robust US support. As Singapore’s Permanent Representative to the U.N has noted, the question confronting the UN today is primarily political, not structural: how best to construct a security architecture predicated upon US leadership and supported by a UN-sponsored legitimacy. In other words, a fundamental source of international order—or “root cause for peace”—today involves finding the right balance (or seeking convergence) between institutionalist-cum-humanistic principles on the one hand, and the preponderant power of the US on the other. The relationship between principle and power is one characterized by both competition and congruence. Hence, the key to minimizing conflict and maximizing cooperation between the UN and the US lies in the successful managing of inherent tensions and exploiting of potential synergies in that relationship.

    Recent Developments: An Opening?

    In his address to the UN General Assembly on September 12, 2002, President Bush, preparing for war against Iraq, issued a noteworthy challenge. Calling Iraqi “defiance” a threat to UN authority and to “peace,” Bush asked: “Are Security Council resolutions to be honoured and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?” This charge of imminent irrelevance was reiterated in US Secretary of State Colin Powell’s address to the Security Council on February 5,2003.

    As 2004 approaches, with little progress on Iraq’s post-conflict rehabilitation in sight, the Bush administration seems possessed by what one Washington Post columnist has called an “unprecedented bout of multilateralist spirit.” It has launched an all-out drive to obtain a new UN resolution, and is even contemplating negotiations and compromises with the French that would have been unimaginable a short while ago.

    However one should not regard these new developments as indicative of a diminution in the US unilateralist impulse, or an abandonment of its militaristic agenda. If anything, the shift toward greater multilateral engagement in this case is likely better understood as an attempt by the Bush administration at recalibrating rather than transforming its foreign and security policy, at least where Iraq is concerned.

    By most accounts, this recalibration is tactical rather than strategic in nature. Even so, the quagmire in which the United States currently finds itself in post-Baathist Iraq not only underscores the need for well thought-out exit strategies, but the importance of a robust institutional response to post-conflict rehabilitation, whether in terms of U.N. involvement or of NATO. In short, institutionalism is not yet dead as an ordering principle for international security in the post-9/11 world.

    The Case for (Reviving) Institutionalism

    Analyst G. John Ikenberry in After Victory (2001) posits that a key source of international order is to be found in the immediate aftermath of major wars when the winners decide how best to turn power into order. More specifically, what can the hegemonic state do with its preponderant power? In Ikenberry’s view it can do at least three things:

    • First, it can use its commanding material capabilities to dominate over other states; or imperialism.
    • Second, it can abandon the endless rounds of disputes and conflicts and adopt a self- detachment about international affairs or isolationism.
    • Third, it can try to transform its favorable power position into a durable international order that commands the allegiance of other states within that order or institutionalism. To achieve this outcome, the hegemonic state has to allay the anxieties of weaker states regarding its pursuit of either imperialism or isolationism.

    Institutionalism, in Ikenberry’s opinion, is the most optimal option for establishing and preserving international order and stability in the modern state system, for the following reasons:

    • A hegemonic power can use institutional strategies as restraints on indiscriminate and arbitrary uses of state power;
    • The hegemonic power can employ institutions to successfully trade off short-term benefits for longer-term gains to create a favorable and durable order.

    Why America Should Choose Institutionalism

    Among the reasons advanced for hegemonic powers such as the United States not to “go it alone” in the post-9/11 era three are noteworthy:

    • Multilateral institutions, such as the U.N., W.T.O., and APEC, though not without difficulty, can be helpful in managing the effects of globalization. Properly functioning institutions can serve as mechanisms for functional cooperation and dispute settlement. In this respect, the U.N. must make itself more relevant and institute the painful but necessary reforms to that end.
    • Institutionalism can make the continued exercise of disproportionate U.S. power more palatable to other states. Postwar institutions such as the U.N., GATT, World Bank, and I.M.F., all of which the U.S. helped establish, provided assurance to other states that they can safely lock in their commitments to the emerging postwar international order in return for the exercise of strategic restraint on America’s part.

    Imperialism encourages the rise of counter-coalitions and may even provoke “blowbacks.” Some respected thinkers have suggested that 9/11 was a plausible backlash against perceived U.S. imperialism.

    Conclusion

    In today’s conflict-ridden world, the attainment of human security is far too important an objective to be frustrated, whether by institutional irrelevance of the United Nations or US irreverence for institutionalist and humanistic principles. Finding the right balance of principle and power and seeking points of congruence if not convergence between the two are critical to ensuring that human security considerations would not be swamped by narrowly defined national interests. The following assumptions could form the basis for a proper framework for UN-US collaboration:

    • US primacy in the contemporary international order;
    • US leadership, not imperialism or isolationism, as a condition for international order;
    • Need for UN to be reformed to avoid becoming irrelevant;
    • US-UN cooperation within robust institutional frameworks as a global public goodthat benefits the international community.

      These propositions would underwrite a more favourable and durable international order for the post-9/11 world, without which the realization of human security would prove a highly doubtful enterprise.

    About the Author

    Dr. Tan See Seng is an assistant professor at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, where he coordinates the Multilateralism and Regionalism Program.
    Categories: RSIS Commentary Series / International Politics and Security / Regionalism and Multilateralism / Global

    Commentary

    Introduction

    In recent international relations discourse, supporters and detractors of the United States have agreed on one thing: US foreign policy under the George W. Bush administration has evinced an aggressively internationalist agenda; it sees selective engagement in multilateral diplomacy and institutions as useful only insofar as these serve to promote and protect US interests. This brand of “a la carte multilateralism” has provoked criticism of America as being arrogantly unilateralist, revisionist, or imperialist.

    On the other hand, the view of the United States as the world’s sheriff—reluctant or trigger- happy—cannot be separated from the perception of the United Nations as an increasingly irrelevant if not inept institution. Indeed, few would argue that the UN is not in need of reform. Chronically under-funded and constrained by a largely outmoded charter espousing commendable principles but also cumbersome laws, the UN is subject to the whims of its member states as well as the widespread use (and abuse) of veto power by the Security Council’s Permanent Five. Nevertheless the UN has garnered some significant achievements in the areas of peace operations, economic development, human security and health despite its built-in structural weaknesses.

    Balancing Principle Against Power

    However concerns for the “human dimension” cannot be successfully realized at the empirical level without the support of hegemonic power. Contemporary international order depends on two interrelated factors: a UN attuned to security challenges, both traditional and human, of the post-9/11 world; and a US which shows less irreverence than it has hitherto for the principles of multilateralism and institutionalism. The Bush administration has not demonstrated serious concern for human and other non-militaristic aspects of security in Iraq and the wider global war on terror. This is not to imply that the world’s foremost democracy and key donor nation finds human security a disagreeable notion. Rather, it is to suggest that a United States geared primarily to fight global terror may find that human security considerations do not always comport with the requirements of its military-oriented anti- terror mission.

    Yet it is not inconsistent to say that the UN’s human security mission, were it to succeed, cannot do without robust US support. As Singapore’s Permanent Representative to the U.N has noted, the question confronting the UN today is primarily political, not structural: how best to construct a security architecture predicated upon US leadership and supported by a UN-sponsored legitimacy. In other words, a fundamental source of international order—or “root cause for peace”—today involves finding the right balance (or seeking convergence) between institutionalist-cum-humanistic principles on the one hand, and the preponderant power of the US on the other. The relationship between principle and power is one characterized by both competition and congruence. Hence, the key to minimizing conflict and maximizing cooperation between the UN and the US lies in the successful managing of inherent tensions and exploiting of potential synergies in that relationship.

    Recent Developments: An Opening?

    In his address to the UN General Assembly on September 12, 2002, President Bush, preparing for war against Iraq, issued a noteworthy challenge. Calling Iraqi “defiance” a threat to UN authority and to “peace,” Bush asked: “Are Security Council resolutions to be honoured and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?” This charge of imminent irrelevance was reiterated in US Secretary of State Colin Powell’s address to the Security Council on February 5,2003.

    As 2004 approaches, with little progress on Iraq’s post-conflict rehabilitation in sight, the Bush administration seems possessed by what one Washington Post columnist has called an “unprecedented bout of multilateralist spirit.” It has launched an all-out drive to obtain a new UN resolution, and is even contemplating negotiations and compromises with the French that would have been unimaginable a short while ago.

    However one should not regard these new developments as indicative of a diminution in the US unilateralist impulse, or an abandonment of its militaristic agenda. If anything, the shift toward greater multilateral engagement in this case is likely better understood as an attempt by the Bush administration at recalibrating rather than transforming its foreign and security policy, at least where Iraq is concerned.

    By most accounts, this recalibration is tactical rather than strategic in nature. Even so, the quagmire in which the United States currently finds itself in post-Baathist Iraq not only underscores the need for well thought-out exit strategies, but the importance of a robust institutional response to post-conflict rehabilitation, whether in terms of U.N. involvement or of NATO. In short, institutionalism is not yet dead as an ordering principle for international security in the post-9/11 world.

    The Case for (Reviving) Institutionalism

    Analyst G. John Ikenberry in After Victory (2001) posits that a key source of international order is to be found in the immediate aftermath of major wars when the winners decide how best to turn power into order. More specifically, what can the hegemonic state do with its preponderant power? In Ikenberry’s view it can do at least three things:

    • First, it can use its commanding material capabilities to dominate over other states; or imperialism.
    • Second, it can abandon the endless rounds of disputes and conflicts and adopt a self- detachment about international affairs or isolationism.
    • Third, it can try to transform its favorable power position into a durable international order that commands the allegiance of other states within that order or institutionalism. To achieve this outcome, the hegemonic state has to allay the anxieties of weaker states regarding its pursuit of either imperialism or isolationism.

    Institutionalism, in Ikenberry’s opinion, is the most optimal option for establishing and preserving international order and stability in the modern state system, for the following reasons:

    • A hegemonic power can use institutional strategies as restraints on indiscriminate and arbitrary uses of state power;
    • The hegemonic power can employ institutions to successfully trade off short-term benefits for longer-term gains to create a favorable and durable order.

    Why America Should Choose Institutionalism

    Among the reasons advanced for hegemonic powers such as the United States not to “go it alone” in the post-9/11 era three are noteworthy:

    • Multilateral institutions, such as the U.N., W.T.O., and APEC, though not without difficulty, can be helpful in managing the effects of globalization. Properly functioning institutions can serve as mechanisms for functional cooperation and dispute settlement. In this respect, the U.N. must make itself more relevant and institute the painful but necessary reforms to that end.
    • Institutionalism can make the continued exercise of disproportionate U.S. power more palatable to other states. Postwar institutions such as the U.N., GATT, World Bank, and I.M.F., all of which the U.S. helped establish, provided assurance to other states that they can safely lock in their commitments to the emerging postwar international order in return for the exercise of strategic restraint on America’s part.

    Imperialism encourages the rise of counter-coalitions and may even provoke “blowbacks.” Some respected thinkers have suggested that 9/11 was a plausible backlash against perceived U.S. imperialism.

    Conclusion

    In today’s conflict-ridden world, the attainment of human security is far too important an objective to be frustrated, whether by institutional irrelevance of the United Nations or US irreverence for institutionalist and humanistic principles. Finding the right balance of principle and power and seeking points of congruence if not convergence between the two are critical to ensuring that human security considerations would not be swamped by narrowly defined national interests. The following assumptions could form the basis for a proper framework for UN-US collaboration:

    • US primacy in the contemporary international order;
    • US leadership, not imperialism or isolationism, as a condition for international order;
    • Need for UN to be reformed to avoid becoming irrelevant;
    • US-UN cooperation within robust institutional frameworks as a global public goodthat benefits the international community.

      These propositions would underwrite a more favourable and durable international order for the post-9/11 world, without which the realization of human security would prove a highly doubtful enterprise.

    About the Author

    Dr. Tan See Seng is an assistant professor at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, where he coordinates the Multilateralism and Regionalism Program.
    Categories: RSIS Commentary Series / International Politics and Security / Regionalism and Multilateralism

    Popular Links

    About RSISResearch ProgrammesGraduate EducationPublicationsEventsAdmissionsCareersVideo/Audio ChannelRSIS Intranet

    Connect with Us

    rsis.ntu
    rsis_ntu
    rsisntu
    rsisvideocast
    school/rsis-ntu
    rsis.sg
    rsissg
    RSIS
    RSS
    Subscribe to RSIS Publications
    Subscribe to RSIS Events

    Getting to RSIS

    Nanyang Technological University
    Block S4, Level B3,
    50 Nanyang Avenue,
    Singapore 639798

    Click here for direction to RSIS

    Get in Touch

      Copyright © S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. All rights reserved.
      Privacy Statement / Terms of Use
      Help us improve

        Rate your experience with this website
        123456
        Not satisfiedVery satisfied
        What did you like?
        0/255 characters
        What can be improved?
        0/255 characters
        Your email
        Please enter a valid email.
        Thank you for your feedback.
        This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By continuing, you are agreeing to the use of cookies on your device as described in our privacy policy. Learn more
        OK
        Latest Book
        more info