U.S. ONCE AGAIN ASLEEP AT THE UN WHEEL
By Don Kraus
Executive Vice President, Citizens for Global Solutions

There will be a largely unnoticed absence in the parade of cabinet nominees scheduled to receive their ritual Senate confirmation grilling this month – the U.S. Ambassador to the UN. Under the Clinton administration, the United Nations ambassador was a member of the cabinet, as well as in previous administrations. Unfortunately, in his first term President Bush chose to demote the position. The results have been problematic, and could prove even more detrimental now.

Typically, appointments and Senate confirmations proceed in a top down manner; with cabinet secretaries first in line and ambassadors near the end. In 2001 it took the Whitehouse six months to appoint John Negroponte as the Permanent Representative to the United Nations. One fallout of having no one at the helm in New York for half a year was the loss of the United States’ seat on the Human Rights Commission. A strong UN ambassador could have prevented this. But it is incredibly difficult for a deputy ambassador, even one representing the United States, to go head to head with permanent representatives and win. However, the 2001 loss of an important UN seat and some prestige is nothing compared to what is now at stake.

The United Nations has a central role to play in the tsunami relief and reconstruction effort. A strong U.S. voice now will shape long-term UN policy and priorities once initial relief efforts are completed. In Iraq, the UN is playing a key advisory role in advance of the January 30th national elections. Regardless of the outcome of the elections, the United States will require greater UN involvement in Iraq to begin downsizing its forces in the region. Therefore, the U.S. cannot afford to have the ambassador’s seat empty at this crucial moment.

Of course the administration could simply choose to allow the new UN ambassador to jump to the front of the confirmation line without re-elevating the position to the cabinet. This would resolve some of the short-term concerns created by a vacancy at the New York mission. But it wouldn’t give President Bush’s ambassador the Whitehouse access and clout required for three crucial challenges looming on the horizon.

Firstly, despite the President’s commitment last December “to defend our security and spread freedom by building effective multinational and multilateral institutions,” members of Congress seem bound and determine to attack the United Nations. Senator Coleman, who has called for Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s resignation, will chair the foreign relations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the UN. Growing congressional hostility comes at time when UN peacekeeping operations and assessments are approaching an all time high. With members of Congress lining up to extract their pound of UN flesh, funds for these missions are sure to be held hostage. In 1999 UN ambassador Richard Holbrooke was able to cut a deal with a Republican Congress to repay U.S. arrears to the UN in part because of his cabinet member position. This administration will need a UN champion with equivalent influence and clout to bring a rebellious Congress once again into line.

Secondly, the UN is at a crossroads. The need for an effective UN is greater than ever, yet the institution’s credibility is near an all time low. This September a summit of world leaders will meet to determine the organization’s future. The U.S. representative in New York will play a pivotal role in developing the agenda for this summit. This person must have a direct line to the President. Working through a Secretary of State who is sure to be distracted by Iraq, Afghanistan, tsunami reconstruction and other world events is a recipe for disaster.

Finally, in 2006 Kofi Annan will step down and a new Secretary-General will be elected by UN member states. The United States will want to prevail in what is one of the most hard-ball down and dirty political slugfests on earth. When the U.S. supported the election of Kofi Annan, over his predecessor Boutros Gali in 1996 despite overwhelming international opposition, the U.S ambassador, Madeline Albright, was a member of the President’s cabinet and able to play the vital role required to bring Annan to helm of the UN.

President Bush recently said that, “my country is determined to work as far as possible within the framework of international organizations, and … to make those institutions more relevant and more effective in meeting the unique threats of our time.” His opponents have called these words mere rhetoric. The President can prove otherwise, and promote US national security interests, by bringing the next U.S. ambassador to the UN into his cabinet. It could be the signal that much of the world is waiting for.

Updated January 24, 2005