The UN: Oh, But It Was Such a Great Dream!
Wilson in particular had a mistaken confidence in world public opinion, and did not appreciate the Realist point that the rest of the world tends to psychologically and diplomatically gang up against a superpower (as against Britain in 1777, or against France in 1812, Germany in 1941 or the United States in 2003) or use techniques (like a world criminal court) to weaken that superpower by arresting its generals. Supporters of multilateralism note that the system produced spectacular failures, such as Korea, Suez and Vietnam--which I see as a reason for change rather than keeping the old consensus system.
President Bush has not rejected multilateralism. He has redefined the consensus mechanism. As long as NATO operates on a rule of unanimity, its ability to act is passive, awaiting an outside attack. Its ability to be proactive will be hostage to domestic politics of its members. One solution to that is perhaps intervention in domestic politics--bribing legislators in other countries--which the United States was tempted to do regarding Turkey in 2003. (I don't know if we did or not.) Or the U.S. can organize politics directly in other countries, rather like the French did with Citizen Genet in the U.S. in the 1790s. We are indeed doing that right now through various foundations.
Unanimity weakens NATO by leaving it vulnerable to gaming by France, which deserted NATO forty years ago but kept formal membership and a formal veto. The solution to that is the Bush-Blair coalition of the willing approach. That means action without UN approval (as in Vietnam, Bosnia, Kosovo and Iraq). In Iraq the Americans secured the support of the great majority of NATO countries, as well as implicit support from nearly all the nations in the Middle East as well as major countries such as Japan. The coalition of the willing strategy was validated by generally successful reelection campaigns in the UK two weeks ago (where the antiwar party placed a weak third), and in Australia and the U.S. last year. (I note of course that reelection failed in Spain.)
The basic flaw of the UN system was that it was created as a compromise with totalitarianism. Therefore it could never confront a Communist totalitarian regime (except in the odd case when the U.S.S.R. boycotted the UN in 1950). Indeed it developed quite a tolerance for totalitarianism. As for democracy, the Communists insisted that they were truly democratic, as measured not by contested elections but by their success in keeping the capitalistic oppressors of the working class out of power. That line of thought has died out save in Cuba, Vietnam and North Korea. Democracy as we understand it was never high on the agenda of the League or the UN. The League sponsored one-time plebiscites, then moved on. Indeed, within fifteen years of its founding most of the League members abandoned democracy. The UN's success rate in promoting democracy even in small isolated islands has scarcely been better. (East Timor is perhaps a success; but then there's Cyprus, where it has bogged down for forty years.) Is there an idealist left who thinks the UN is an effective force for promoting democracy?
FDR thought he could transcend the failed politics of the League by forging a close personal relationship with Stalin and Churchill (while controlling China financially; as for France he never could figure a way to handle that country.) Bush has followed the same formula, as underscored by his personal relationship with Putin and Blair. Of course we no longer have financial control over China (it may almost be the reverse), and the U.S. has still not figured out how to handle France. The bottom line is that with a handful of exceptions (like Canada), the nations of the world have used the UN primarily to help their own cause and punish their enemies. Bush agrees with that and has added the Wilsonian points that tyranny is the real enemy and that war for democracy is a just goal that will lead to a universal peace.