Interview with Mark Lagon

Dr. Mark P. Lagon is Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization (IO) Affairs. In this capacity, he has broad responsibility for multilateral policy development, negotiations and administration, particularly within the United Nations system. He has lead responsibility for U.N.-related human rights and humanitarian policy, U.N. administration and reform, as well as the IO Bureau’s public diplomacy and outreach programs.

Dr. Lagon previously served as a member of the Secretary of State’s Policy Planning Staff, where he focused on U.N. and international organizations, democracy and human rights, and public diplomacy (2002-2004). From 1999 to 2002, he was a senior staff member of the Republican staff at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, with particular responsibility for the State Department authorization bill, international organizations, economic sanctions, broadcasting and public diplomacy and human rights.

He has a Ph.D. from Georgetown University and an A.B. magna cum laude from Harvard University. Dr. Lagon is married and has a daughter. Recently, he sat down with Citizens for Global Solutions’ Executive Vice President Don Kraus for this interview.

How important is the relationship between the U.S. and the U.N. for our country to achieve its foreign policy goals?

It’s very important. The United States feels that it needs multilateral options for achieving common goals with partners in the world.

The U.N. is unique in its global membership and its global reach, particularly in the way it helps people and provides humanitarian assistance to people. It’s very important so our relationship with the U.N. is important. It’s kind of a curious expression to refer to “the relationship between the United States and U.N.” because the U.S. is part of the U.N. But I think that we should look at it as a model of constructive leadership. The United States has to help set the agenda for the U.N., and there are times in the United States when to actually make change, and we looked to other policy avenues.

How do major U.S. decisions that are carried out at the U.N., for example votes on Security Council or General Assembly resolutions, get decided?

Well, our team at our missions, they see the lay of the land because they are at the U.N. and world capitals. They not only report on the facts but they make recommendations about the best way to approach things. Fundamental decision-making is made in Washington. The State Department is the core of that. The bureau I work in often works in concert with other bureaus, be it the African Affairs Bureau on peacekeeping missions in Sudan or the Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Bureau….And we work together to form substantive policy. Almost anything that is an important action for the United States, particularly on a resolution, a vote or seeking support of other nations for a U.S. resolution, involves interagency coordination. That means that we’ll be sitting down with people at the National Security Council, the Defense Department and others and it means we’re sending out instructions that get cleared by other agencies. They see them. They get buy-in. It’s very healthy.

What is the Bush administration’s position on legislation that would require the United States to withhold U.N. dues?

We should be clear: The administration’s position is that we oppose mandatory withholding of American dues to the United Nations. Our dues are an obligation and I believe, and the administration believes, we should pay them.

You have been a key player in formulating the administration’s policy on the current round of U.N. reforms. At this point in time, what are you most pleased with and what concerns you the most?

I think that those things that lie in the area of addressing potential corruption, misuse of funds and accountability are helpful. Particularly with accountability, there are important reform ideas on the table. Many of them are not yet realized. Beefing up the independence and resources of the OIOS (Office of Internal Oversight Services) is one thing we are very high on. There is the idea to have an independent oversight advisory committee that will essentially offer audits of the auditors. The committee could look at the OIOS or look at the Board of Auditors, OIOS being for internal oversight and Board of Auditors for external oversight, and “check the checkers” and give a sense of credibility to their work, so that we could assess whether they deserve more resources. I guess the thing that I’d say that disappoints me the most is…I think we need to develop a dialogue in the U.N. in which developing countries come to appreciate that the United States and some of its partners who are the major donors…in looking at management reform do not have an agenda which is about budget cutting per se. The major [contributors] are not chiefly looking for a shrinkage of the U.N. budget or a rebate into the pockets of the contributors….Our goal together should be a U.N. that delivers not less but better, and we hope that over time a dialogue can emerge with a great sense of what is at stake.

Secretary General Annan’s term is up at the end of the year. What qualities do you believe the U.S. should look for in a new Secretary General?

We are in the process of looking at all potential candidates. It’s important that the next Secretary General be really committed to high ethical standards and have some qualities of exceptional leadership and management skills....He or she can be helped by a chief operating officer…but the buck stops at the top with him or her….There needs to be a commitment to the management of the U.N.


Updated April 10, 2006