Hobbes v. Kant (The US and the UN)

Before extrapolating on the UN report concerning Gitmo, it is important to frame this collision of ideas and priorities. The United Nations is a beast of our own creation. The US pushed for and created this international body. We are the largest contributor to the UN, in terms of funds, military measures, technology and manpower. The UN headquarters is based in North America and we are permanent members of the Security Council. Thus it is a US construct.

The UN is a deliberative body of some 191 member states. Differing agendas and conflicting philosophies swarm the halls of the General Assembly. Reports are made, investigations are pronounced, military actions are pondered and resolutions are conducted. Thus, when a report such as The Commission on Human Rights is filed, you can guarantee that many eyes have reviewed and previewed the findings before it reaches the general public. Moreover, when a report denounces the most central member state of human rights violations this is cause for concern.

The UN’s only weapon against a member state such as the US is the court of public opinion. In Professor Nye’s terminology this is Soft Power, and it works quite well in most cases. It is the power to have a sovereign nation do what you want without force and also creating a situation where the state sees its actions as a one of its own. For example, if the US does remove all detainees from Gitmo then it must do so by revealing to the world that it was in the best interest of the US to do so. It can not seem that force was the reason for policy change. In general, policy changes in this fashion are hard to pin down. Ironically, if the state did admit to the presence of Soft Power then it would not be Soft Power but some form of international coercion.

The US however does not believe in Soft Power at this moment and its policies bear this out. Hard power is the only true power and force is the only true tool for change in the world. This Hobbesian/Machiavellian philosophy is at the base of the Neo-Con mind (Kant be damned). Thus, when a report is suggestive to the US and goes on to prescribe a remedy to the situation at Gitmo; it is rebuffed by the White House within a day.

Consequently, revealing a deeper set of motives. Simply put these motives center on the UN as a front for multilateral intentions but not action. The UN can suggest but it can not demand, it can debate but it can not conclude, it can bring nations to the table but it can not force them to eat. The US is the sword and the power. The UN is only useful when the sword needs to be sharpened or the power needs to be legitimate. (Self-evident?) Therefore, the report will be drowned in a sea of punditry and policy wonks. The issues of human rights, torture, abuse, and legal codes will be left to the detainees. The US, again, has maneuvered around an issue of immense human consequence and once more defiled the justice and liberty we so cherish in this country.