Memo to the Community: What Progressives Should Be Saying About U.N. Reform

To: Interested Parties From: Ken Gude, Associate Director, International Rights and Responsibilities Program Date: September 8, 2005 The United Nations is at a turning point; terrorists, internal conflicts, rogue regimes, poverty and disease – not wars between major powers – now represent the greatest threats to international peace and security. But the U.N. has yet to adapt to meet the demands of this new environment. In this changed world, U.S. national security depends on a strong and effective United Nations, and it is squarely in the interests of the United States to lead the reform effort to better equip the U.N. to preserve peace and security, promote freedom and development, and protect democracy and human rights. In the aftermath of World War II, and at a moment in history when we were the foremost world power, the United States played a leading role in the creation of the United Nations. Progressive U.S. leaders recognized the importance of reinforcing our strength by forming a new compact among the world’s nations to work collectively to preserve peace and security. That international architecture has served U.S. interests very well – as 60 years later, America remains the preeminent world power. Unfortunately, the legacy of post-war progressive leaders is foundering under attacks by conservative extremists who prefer a world where America dominates other nations but is isolated to one where America leads by cooperating with other countries to achieve common goals. If their vision prevails, the United States will grow weaker and less secure. As we move towards the General Assembly meeting next week, here are seven things progressives should be saying about the U.N.: A strong and effective U.N. will make Americans safer. The United States is the most powerful nation in the world. We cannot and do not want to be the world’s policeman. Despite our preeminence, our current military commitments limit our ability to respond to other crises. A strong and united world community is the best weapon against our terrorist enemies and it can serve as the locus of a coordinated effort to defeat radical Islamists. The U.N. saves the U.S. money. Simply put, the U.N. is a bargain. For about five dollars a year for each American, the U.S. gets peacekeepers, fights diseases and global poverty, and helps children. Through instruments like UNICEF and the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance (OCHA), the U.N. is able to coordinate global efforts to help the world’s children, assist victims of disaster – like victims of Hurricane Katrina – and fight the outbreak and spread of diseases like SARS, bird flu, and AIDS. The U.S. spends more in a month in Iraq than it contributes to the U.N. in an entire year. Click here for more information on Why the U.N. Matters. Oil-for-food is a scandal. The independent investigation into the debacle rebuked both the U.N. management and the Security Council for severe failings that allowed Saddam Hussein to make billions of dollars from oil sales. Saddam netted $1.8 billion from the program under the U.N. bureaucracy’s watch and $11 billion from illicit oil sales tacitly approved by the United States and other members of the Security Council. Combine this with the more than $9 billion that went missing from the Coalition Provisional Authority and it seems no one is very good at keeping track of money in Iraq. U.N. is aware of its problems and it is aggressively pursuing reform. Secretary-General Kofi Annan began the reform process when he established a high-level panel in 2003 to make recommendations on reform. He followed that up with his own report, In Larger Freedom, released earlier this year, which formed the basis for the negotiations that have taken place in New York this summer. Annan’s agenda starts with management reform – and he has already instituted changes that are designed to improve the performance of senior managers, enhance oversight and accountability, ensure ethical conduct, and increase transparency. Only the United States and other U.N. members can reform the U.N. Kofi Annan works for the Security Council, and more broadly, the General Assembly – not the other way around. Many exclusively blame the U.N. bureaucracy for failures such as the oil-for-food scandal as if the program wasn’t overseen by the Security Council. Both the U.N. bureaucracy and institution need to be reformed. Annan has laid down an ambitious agenda; now it is up to the membership to follow through. Conservatives don’t want an effective U.N. Many on the right are ideologically opposed to multilateral institutions like the U.N. One – current U.N. Ambassador John Bolton – famously argued that “there is no such thing as the United Nations.” True to form, upon arriving in New York, Ambassador Bolton has been trying to sabotage the entire reform effort. The truth is, many conservatives fear that a strong and effective U.N. would restrict our ability to launch unilateral wars against non-existent threats and fail to plan for the aftermath. Wouldn’t that be a disaster. Conservatives in Congress undermine our ability to lead reform process. In the midst of their hysterical calls for management reform – something that is already taking place – conservatives in Congress have put forward legislation that would withhold our U.N. dues until the U.N. reforms to their liking. This is classic bully in the playground behavior that is counterproductive and, frankly, beneath a nation of the stature of the United States. Other U.N. members will not respond favorably to these types of threats, and neither would we. If we follow this path, we will lessen our influence at the U.N. and hamper the reform process. Why the U.N. Matters Date Created: 9/8/2005 1:21:39 PM