Philosophical Roots of the United Nations

Question: Is the U.N. primarily a realist or a liberal organization?

As necessary a question as this is, it cannot be put so two-dimensionally. One cannot simply slap the “realist” or “liberal” label on the entire United Nations. The many facets of the organization were conceived from different sources, each intent on pursuing their own agenda. Simply put, there are too many powers at work here to round their viewpoints into one ideology.

We’ll start at the beginning. The formation of the U.N. was done in the wake of World War II, with the purpose of ensuring worldwide security. Here, we see a realist expectation of a future war. However, in order to band together to form such an organization, a certain level of trust had to be felt that each member nation would adhere to their promises. This demonstrates liberal recognition of the trustworthiness of alliances and the commitment to dialogue.

In the Security Council, there is a similar ideological mix. That most founding member states of the U.N. allowed for five countries to possess veto power shows that they had faith that those countries would act in accordance with the views of the rest of the world. These countries were not so concerned that the USA, the USSR, the UK, France, and China would use their power aggressively, so they liberally acceded to that system. However, those five countries proposed the idea because they wanted to retain they influence in defense and security matters, since they, operating under a realist mindset, foresaw lingering military threats.

The U.N.’s charitable works projects are a wing of their liberalism-motivated activities, as it is not necessarily a defense concern of entire nations (save your “plumbing in Palestine” arguments, I’m already aware of them). To ask for resources from these nations to help the poor requires a basic trust that these resources will not be needed for defense purposes, which complies with liberal philosophy. However, the fact that national governments are the ones being asked to give aid, and not private organizations, business, or individuals, represents the realist idea that the state is the overarching unit of governance.

I don’t believe the U.N. as a whole espouses one particular viewpoint. In their current state, they’re too bureaucratic to espouse much of anything. I’m sure they would love to curve towards the liberal perspective, and work towards mutual security and development, but many of their member states are forced to operate under a realist mentality when they cannot put their faith in the organization alone. It could be argued that the U.N. could reverse this image by reforming its mechanisms and acting as a potent global negotiation force, but with 192 members, representing nearly every population group in the world, finding a consensus on any issue is nigh-impossible.