Uncle Sam Wants You to Reform the United Nations: But the U.S. Needs the U.N. as much as the World Body Needs its Largest Benefactor
By Scott Paul
The Journal of International Peace Operations (PDF)
Volume 2, Number 3
(November-December, 2006)

In 2003, the President Bush warned that the United Nations would become irrelevant if the Security Council refused to back the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Yet, to no one’s surprise, the U.S. has returned to the U.N. time after time to deal with international crises.

Last June, U.N. Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown, criticized the U.S. for praising the U.N. in private while criticizing it in public and called for more constructive engagement with other Member States. Ambassador Bolton, calling it the worst mistake of a U.N. official in a decade, promised severe consequences. Less than two weeks later, then-Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick met privately with Mr. Malloch Brown to ask for help in drawing up a new compact for reconstruction in Iraq; by then, Mr. Malloch Brown’s remarks had already become ancient history.

The temperature between the U.S. and the U.N. is certainly hotter than usual, but both parties always come back to the table. The 60-year U.S.-U.N. marriage has proven to be extraordinarily resilient, its benefits too great for either party to abandon over petty squabbling. Might it be time for counseling? Absolutely. Splitsville? Not anytime soon.

No matter how little love the U.N. feels from the U.S., Mr. Malloch Brown’s brand of constructive criticism and gentle prodding is likely as aggressive and confrontational as any U.N. official is prepared to be with Washington. After all, even at this low point in U.S. influence, what other country can marshal support for reform or bring the world together to condemn human rights abuses? Last June in the L.A. Times, reporter and author James Traub offered a window into the U.N.’s reliance on the U.S.: “Crisis brewing in the Horn of Africa? Let's bring in the State Department because only the U.S. can talk sense to both the Ethiopians and the Eritreans.” And let’s not forget the dollars and cents: the U.S. picks up 22% of the regular U.N. bill and an even bigger percentage for its peacekeeping operations.

Still, the U.N. is a cheap date for the U.S., whose share of the regular budget, $418 million, amounts to substantially less than it pays each year to operate the Smithsonian museums in Washington, D.C. In addition, the U.S.’s $2 billion contribution to U.N. peacekeeping – less than 3% of annual expenditures for Iraq – supports operations in eighteen war-torn or unstable regions. Recent studies by the RAND Corporation and the U.S. Government Accountability Office confirm that U.N. peacekeepers are not only the most effective at securing the peace they’re also the best bargain in town.

None of this is to suggest that the U.N. doesn’t need to change to keep the relationship happy. Two years ago, Secretary-General Kofi Annan hatched a plan to update the organization so it can respond to the challenges of a new century and made important improvements over the past year. For example, the U.N.’s ethics and oversight bodies have been revamped, and Member States established a Peace Building Commission to help countries emerging from war become stable and prosperous (over the past decade, roughly half have relapsed back into conflict).

But the glass of U.N. reform this year has only been half full, in large part due to America’s seemingly wavering commitment to the institution. As with any marriage, threatening to walk out the door and turn off the lights is not the most effective way to induce change, yet that is exactly what the Bush Administration has tried to do. Predictably, other Member States, unwilling to yield to these threats, rejected management and operations upgrades that would make the U.N. more responsive to everyone’s needs.

There is a significant split in the Bush Administration over this hostile approach to the U.N. Some in the Administration support the threats and have ramped up the anti-U.N. rhetoric. These officials would have us focus on the institution’s shortcomings and its ongoing tension with the U.S., and then file divorce proceedings.

Yet, they represent the minority view in government. Most U.S. policymakers recognize the U.N.’s shortcomings side by side with its substantial benefits and rewards, and when conservatives in Congress contemplated withholding U.N. dues, the Bush Administration went on the record in opposition. This majority in government understands the critical but often unheralded role of the U.N. in U.S. foreign policy.

As the U.S. confronts nuclear threats in North Korea and Iran, global terrorism, a reconstruction mess in Iraq, and genocide in Darfur, it will need broader support than it can muster from traditional allies or through ad-hoc coalitions. For bringing the entire world together to discuss global threats and challenges, the U.N. is the only game in town.

Moreover, the unfinished reform agenda and friction between the U.S. and U.N. are symptoms of infidelity, not incompatibility. Full U.S. support and cooperation not only strengthens the marriage, it brings a stronger and more effective United Nations easily within reach. Recommitting to our longstanding partner is the best way to realize a more fulfilling and rewarding relationship with the United Nations.

Scott Paul is the Campaigns Manager for Citizens for Global Solutions.


+ READ ON THE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL PEACE OPERATIONS WEBSITE