A time for new blood:
A plan for the next ambassador to the U.N.
By Jonathan Dean and Charles J. Brown
The Washington Examiner
October 27, 2006

WASHINGTON - Say what you will about the U.S.-U.N. relationship, it has never been boring. But each year, despite the differences that inevitably arise, both parties to this oddest of diplomatic marriages return to a fundamental truth: the United States needs a strong and effective United Nations, and the U.N. needs smart, principled, and focused U.S. leadership.

Over the past year, the U.S. sought the U.N.’s help with the crises in Iraq, Israel/Lebanon, and Afghanistan; the genocide in Darfur; and the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran. And while the Bush Administration sometimes regarded the U.N. response as imperfect, it has never stopped viewing the world body as an indispensable partner.

For its part, the U.N. has urged the U.S. to engage it more constructively. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has called on the United States to support his efforts to reform the U.N.’s management and strengthen its ability to respond to the challenges of a new century. His dialogue with the U.S. Mission has not always been easy, and it has often left both sides frustrated.

And with the recent decision by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee not to move John Bolton’s nomination as U.S. ambassador to the U.N. forward, the relationship once again is at a crossroads. President Bush should accept the Senate’s action and appoint a new representative to advance U.S. interests and objectives.

Bolton’s successor will not have an easy job. But with the right approach, he or she can do much to move beyond the bickering and return to a 60-year tradition of cooperation and partnership We suggest the following six-point program as a place to start:

1. Work with allies. Many of the U.S.’s closest friends have lost confidence in its ability to act in good faith. With so much of the its agenda dependent on international support and cooperation, the Bush administration needs to demonstrate it can cooperate with those countries whose votes it needs to support its agenda.

2. Negotiate rather than threaten. Over the past two years, the U.S. approach to negotiations on how to revitalize and improve the U.N. was to threaten financial doom if other nations did not go along with its demands. Refraining from such threats will tamp down much of the current hostility and go a long way to rebuilding trust among long-standing allies.

3. Acknowledge progress. If the Bush administration wants others to hear its complaints, it has to demonstrate it is a credible locutor on U.N. reform. Constructive criticism of the world body needs to come in the context of a more accurate and evenhanded assessment of the U.N.’s significant progress on reform. Giving other countries some credit for their contributions also wouldn’t hurt.

4. Tackle poverty. While terrorism, nonproliferation and management reform remain the Bush administration’s top priorities at the U.N., they rank relatively low on the agendas of most other governments — particularly those whose populations live on less than two dollars per day. The previous U.S. ambassador’s opposition to the Millennium Development Goals during last year’s 60th anniversary summit encouraged other countries to backtrack on other issues important to the United States. Returning poverty eradication to its rightful place at the forefront of the global agenda will encourage other countries to be more open to U.S. concerns.

5. Revive the Democracy Caucus. Recent efforts to create a Democracy Caucus at the U.N. were largely stifled due to the fact that other democracies, especially those in the developing world, have come to mistrust U.S. leadership on democracy promotion. The Bush administration should allow its allies to take the lead in addressing these concerns by extending the Caucus’s agenda beyond human rights to poverty, economic development, and debt relief.

6. Show up. To paraphrase Woody Allen, ninety percent of successful diplomacy is showing up. It is awfully hard for other countries to take U.S. complaints seriously if its ambassador doesn’t show up for the relevant negotiations — as was the case with the debate over a new Human Rights Council. Similarly, absenting the U.S. from critical meetings on Darfur has not helped efforts to end the genocide.

President Bush has the opportunity to move boldly in a new direction by acknowledging that it is time to choose a new U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Doing so will reinvigorate long-standing relationships with this country’s closest allies and strengthen U.S. credibility. And it will return the United States to the partnership-driven, consensus-building, and problem-solving approach that characterized its first six decades of interaction with the U.N.

Retired ambassador Jonathan Dean, currently an adviser on global security issues, was the U.S. representative and deputy representative to the NATO-Warsaw Pact force reduction negotiations in Vienna between 1973 and 1981. Charles J. Brown is the president and CEO of Citizens for Global Solutions, a foreign policy advocacy organization in Washington.

+ READ ON THE EXAMINER WEBSITE