The UN -- Realist or Liberal?

I don't think it's possible to declare the United Nations as either realist or liberal, just as you can't a human being. In theory and in practice, it acts as both.

Theoretically (and arguably) in practice, the UN treats all nations as legitimate, regardless of their governments. This aspect of political correctness stems out of a desire to appease all actors involved, whether Zimbabwe or Sweden. This is a very realistic perspective on international relations. Liberalism only allows for dealing with fellow liberal states, like the McCain League of Democracies would seek to do. In supporting this case, I want to point out several instances of how the UN as a body has acted with realist ends in mind.

Libya served as chair of the UN's 57th Commission on Human Rights (US State Department). This autocratic state with a history of funding terror organizations and stifling opposition to Muammar Ghaddafi's rule was supposed to be the guiding force in the world of human rights. This is a direct result of the UN’s determination to be viewed as “objective” in the broader global environment. As a result, considering liberal states only view other liberal states as legitimate institutions to be dealt with, the UN does not always stick with its liberal mandate.

The UN additionally assumes it can facilitate cooperation between nations, a vast segment of liberal philosophy. Realism tends to view international affairs on a microcosmic basis, assuming that all nations are locked in a state of constant rivalry, and cooperation is impossible. This very fact means the UN's existence itself is liberal. This is an attempt to provide order in the anarchy of the realist imaginary.

What this goes to prove isn’t that the UN is one or another, but that it is a syncretic blend of the two, just like anything else in the foreign policy realm. Trying to argue that it is exclusively one way or another is impossible. Even if it is more liberal than realist, it still remains that realist philosophy has played a role in shaping the government of the organization. Most will agree that it maintains a mostly liberal philosophy in government. But as the Libya example proves, it is not empirically liberal.

I basically want to use this blog post to show how nothing has to be exclusively liberal or realist. In foreign policy terms, to be exclusively one or the other is silly. All institutions and ideas are a blend of one or the other.