EVENTS

Date:	Thursday, February 19, 2004
Time:	10:30 AM -- 12:00 PM
Location:	Wohlstetter Conference Center, Twelfth Floor, AEI 1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036

February 2004
What Are We to Think about the U.N.?

America's inability to convince the UN Security Council to endorse military action against the regime of Saddam Hussein marked a watershed in U.S. relations with the world body. To some, it signaled the Security Council's flight from responsibility; to others, America's disdain for international opinion.

Beyond Iraq lie deep questions about unilateralism and multilateralism, law and power, and the relation of the United Nations to American interests. Various aspects of UN work will be examined this year in a series of panel discussions at AEI moderated by Joshua Muravchik, who is writing a book about the United Nations. Upcoming panels will look at UN efforts at peacekeeping, human rights, and arms control, as well as the UN's special treatment of Israel and the culture of Turtle Bay.

To launch the series, AEI senior fellow Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, former U.S. undersecretary of state Thomas R. Pickering, and former U.S. undersecretary of state as well as current president of the United Nations Foundation Timothy E. Wirth discussed how the United States should approach the UN in light of the circumstances surrounding the war in Iraq at a February 19 AEI event.

Joshua Muravchik
AEI

Historically, America has been of two minds about international organizations. Americans have been enthusiastic about them in principle, and as a result the United States was the motivating force behind both the League of Nations and the United Nations. Once these organizations came into being, however, American enthusiasm dampened considerably, with the United States abjuring from the League of Nations and having a tempestuous relationship with the United Nations for much of its history.

Senator Timothy E. Wirth
President, United Nations Foundation and Better World Fund

Through his involvement with the UN Foundation, Senator Wirth has a unique perspective on public perceptions of the United Nations and the contours of the debate regarding America's involvement in the organization. The UN Foundation, created with a $1 billion donation from Ted Turner, assists the UN on a variety of issues, including children's health, environmental risk, reproductive health, and the outstanding U.S. debt to the UN. It has also contributed funds to democracy building in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The UN Foundation has also measured American public opinion regarding the UN, concluding that the UN has consistently enjoyed a 70 percent favorable rating among Americans since the 1950s. There was, however, a substantial drop to below 50 percent in March 2003, though the number is climbing to its historic heights. The Foundation has also found that attitudes towards the UN do not differ greatly between Republicans and Democrats, and, moreover, approximately 60 percent of Americans support the proposition that the UN should "take a leading role in helping Iraq to set up a new government." The poll numbers point to an important dichotomy when thinking about the UN: the organization's functions can be divided into technical and humanitarian tasks, and political and security functions. Popular support is much greater for UN activities relating to fighting diseases and hunger, as well as the activities critical to the functioning of the global economy. The American public, however, views the UN's political operations, most notably the Security Council, much more skeptically. As Senator Wirth observed, "[Public] perception changes depending on which UN we are talking about." The Foundation believes that widespread public acceptance of the UN's humanitarian and technical operations means that debate is limited to the remaining 20 percent of UN operations-the international security issues that dominate the headlines.

In later remarks, Senator Wirth raised the question of national sovereignty: how should the UN, an organization founded on the importance of national sovereignty, change to acknowledge the reality that what happens within national borders matters to the international community? Whatever the ultimate outcome, reform will depend on an agreement between the nations of the north and the nations of the south, countries with widely differing interests that must be reconciled if the UN is to be capable of addressing contemporary threats.

Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering
Senior vice president for international relations at Boeing and former under secretary of state for political affairs

Thomas Pickering presented what could be called the realistic but optimistic view of the United Nations. The UN is a reality of contemporary international affairs, and as Pickering said, "If it were not there, we...would probably have to invent something more or less like the United Nations." As such, the United States can either use the organization to further its interests, or allow other powers to use it to stymie and subvert American leadership. In fact, the Security Council is explicitly designed to reflect the interests of its members, as it is unable to do anything antithetical to the interests of the permanent, veto-wielding member states. If the United States is wise, it can use the council to further its diplomatic goals; if it is foolish, America's rivals can use the Security Council as a weapon against it.

The debate about the United Nations is as much a debate about the use of force as it is a debate about the proper role of the UN. Given the intensity with which some nations oppose the use of force, questions of war and peace are bound to polarize the UN, forcing the United States to campaign fervently in order to win the support of other countries and thus the organization as a whole. But just because UN imprimatur is difficult to receive due to the philosophical divide on war does not mean the United States should dismiss the organization offhandedly or downplay the importance of the UN seal-of-approval. With this in mind, Ambassador Pickering suggested a new rule for understanding use-of-force situations at the UN: "How you go into a use-of-force and combat situation in the United Nations very much determines how you will come out of it with that same group of people."

At the same time, however, the world faces different threats than those that loomed when the victorious Allies founded the United Nations, and thus the international community must develop a new standard for the use of force. While the Security Council is capable of addressing cases of overt aggression, as in Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, the contemporary threats of nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and gross human-rights violations have undermined the Security Council's safeguarding of international peace and security. Thus in regard to the use of American power, Ambassador Pickering argued that eventually a "clear and present danger standard ought to be applied, with some thoughtful people giving some serious thought to the issue of what specific tests are required to do that." These tests would have to withstand both internal and external scrutiny so as to legitimize the use of force.

The UN Charter, however, must also change in the face of new challenges: the international community must not let the charter be used as a fig leaf for brutal tyrants and nuclear aspirants. Given that the Security Council is the ultimate arbiter in these cases, the United States must ultimately approach the council when it wants the international community to address a problem. Pickering believes that the United States has three ways of proceeding: First, the United States can simply work within the present structure and try to convince all parties to support its initiative, an approach that necessitates careful diplomacy. Second, the United States can propose reforms to the Security Council so that it would use a qualified veto (two or three states must veto for the resolution to fail) in cases of nonproliferation and humanitarian intervention, making it easier for the UN to act in response to a crisis. This choice, however, would require the acquiescence of the other permanent members, and it seems unlikely that any of them would want to dilute the power of the veto. Third, the United States can ignore the Security Council as it did in Kosovo, a course that is fraught with risk and raises questions about "legality, if not legitimacy."

Presently, however, the UN's greatest test is the political and economic reconstruction of Iraq. The debate over the transfer of power from the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) to a sovereign Iraqi government has given the UN an opportunity to demonstrate its worthiness. While the UN is unqualified to improve the security situation, it can play an important role in the political development of post-Saddam Iraq. A strong UN role, along with "Iraqification" and a strong U.S. security presence, is essential to America's exit strategy. As Ambassador Pickering said: "The UN...can and will help-if it comes in, and I believe it should-win Iraqis around to playing a larger role in their own future-a very significant key, in my view. To the future of Iraq and to the future of our ability to exit the country."

The UN, like any large organization, is by no means perfect, and would benefit greatly from reforms, including limits on staffing, an end to the regional distribution of senior positions, and the use of "smart budgeting" that allocates money to reward programs that make good policy sense. Regardless of the reform process, however, the outcome in Iraq will reflect heavily on the UN's ability to play a role in defusing international crises.

Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick
AEI

While Ambassador Pickering identified what the United States has to gain from the Security Council, Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick emphasized the limits of the Security Council's authority. Contrary to the opinion of former Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali and current Secretary General Kofi Annan, who have stated that any military action performed without UN Security Council authorization is illegitimate, Ambassador Kirkpatrick argued that there exist alternate sources of legitimacy for activities undertaken in the international domain. Specifically, the imprimatur of constitutional democracies that accept the rule of law is as worthy, if not more so, than the approval of the United Nations.

The Security Council, however, is not irrelevant. It serves as a critical focal point for important decisions in the world, which strengthens international law and lends a modicum of procedure to international relations. Ambassador Kirkpatrick, moreover, supports Kofi Annan's call for a review of how the Security Council deals with states acting preemptively against emerging threats, citing the need for a criteria to determine when such behavior is admissible.

Nevertheless, in a world of international terrorism and rogue states, countries cannot depend on the Security Council to preserve the peace, as illustrated by the council's treatment of Iraq. Despite a number of resolutions demanding that Iraq reveal its weapons programs to UN inspectors, the Security Council was slow to enforce violations. According to Ambassador Kirkpatrick, France and Russia had special relationships with Iraq and thus used their veto power to protect their friend, rendering the council powerless to enact its will. This case, as well as the debate over Kosovo in 1999, demonstrates the danger of multilateralism-inaction in the face of danger.

Despite the problems with UN, however, it is still a valuable organization that would be even more useful if member states and secretaries general acted with more restraint and courtesy, and if they would be "more reluctant to raise questions about the legitimacy of the actions of fellow members."

This summary was prepared by Tobias Harris, AEI staff assistant for Foreign and Defense Policy Studies.