October 2007
The United Nations General Assembly is in the midst of its 62nd session, and the influence of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), and the G77 states (an intergovernmental economic organization of 130 developing countries within the UN) continues to feature prominently in the international political arena. In recent years, these groups have mobilized to block U.S. initiatives, such as a resolution to deter human rights violations in Uzbekistan, an initiative to link the lifting of the budget cap of the General Assembly's administrative and budgetary committee (also known as the Fifth Committee) to substantial movement toward reform, and critical reforms of the UN Secretariat.
At an AEI event on October 16, 2007, speakers and panelists weighed the growing influence of these organizations and the implications they have for U.S. leadership at the UN. Following an introduction by AEI senior fellow John R. Bolton, Senator Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) delivered the keynote address. A panel discussion featured Richard "Terry" Miller, former U.S. representative to the UN Economic and Social Council and currently the director of the Center for International Trade and Economics at the Heritage Foundation; South African ambassador to the United States Welile Nhlapo; and international organizations scholar Brett Schaefer of the Heritage Foundation. Danielle Pletka, AEI's vice president for foreign and defense policy studies, moderated.
John R. Bolton
AEI
The United States faces the challenge of convincing the United Nations to consider policies the United States thinks are important. While it may be inaccurate to say that a culture of corruption exists at the UN, a culture of inaction certainly does.
Past experience has proven that marginal reforms are doomed to fail. Major changes are necessary to maintain the UN's relevance in today's changing international atmosphere. Primarily, the UN budgetary system needs to evolve. Contributions should be shifted from a system of mandatory assessments based on GDP to voluntary payments. This will make the organization more efficient, transparent, and responsive. It is not unreasonable for the United States to insist on "paying for what we want and getting what we pay for." "One country, one vote" is not effective when there are such distortions in the contributions of each member state.
The Honorable Norm Coleman (R-Minn.)
U.S. Senate
With the UN's current structure, it is unclear who exactly is in charge. While the General Assembly works as a forum to promote discussion, the "one country, one vote" principle leads to distorted outcomes. For instance, out of 192 UN member countries only 88 are full democracies. This creates a conflict of interest between domestic ideals and the promotion of fundamental UN principles.
One way to correct the distortions within the organization is to alter the funding structure. Currently, the United States contributes 22 percent of the UN budget, while the bottom 182 countries contribute 25 percent of the budget. Every state having an equal say in the organization regardless of their contribution creates an atmosphere of representation without taxation. Switching from mandatory to voluntary contributions will allow countries to pay for only as much as they feel they are receiving from the UN.
The structure of the UN imposes constraints on its ability to perform. In the wake of the UN scandals in the 1990s, Kofi Annan's administration created an atmosphere of indifference and inaction. The recent change in leadership should breathe new air into the organization and has already shown a willingness to reform that has been absent in recent years.
The UN is comprised of individual states with individual interests. If the UN is unable to meet U.S. needs, then the United States will look elsewhere. It is only reasonable to demand accountability and transparency from an organization to which the United States contributes so much.
Ambassador Welile Nhlapo
Embassy of South Africa
South Africa is one of only four African countries that have been involved in the UN since its inception in 1945. South Africa has made many important contributions to the UN and believes in many of its overarching themes.
A residual Cold War mentality helps to explain many of the divisions that currently exist within the UN. The dominance of blocs, both regional and issue-based, must be addressed. The NAM and the G77, for instance, were both born out of the Cold War era. Even though the political system has collapsed, they still exert a great deal of influence in the UN, primarily because of their large numbers. This is a particularly relevant problem because the groups are no longer the homogenous bodies they once were, yet they still have the ability to be greatly influential.
One can appreciate the frustrations the United States has with the NAM, but one must also note that the NAM does not always vote as a bloc. Rather, diplomats vote according to instructions given to them from home, which are based on a number of considerations.
Richard "Terry" Miller
Heritage Foundation
There is a need to distinguish between the idealist hopes of UN reform and the reality of UN bureaucracy. Sovereign equality is the basis for the "one state, one vote" system, but this concept fails to take into account the discrepancies in the wealth, power, territory, people, and resources of different states. This kind of system creates a democratic deficit when member countries are so mismatched and many are not democracies themselves. As a result, countries with little or no financial stake in the UN have a disproportionate influence in its dealings.
The G77 can control virtually any UN General Assembly decision based purely on its large member-base. In 1964, the original 77 members were all united by a lack of economic development and a belief that developed countries should give them more money. The G77 learned to use the power of the majority to control and manage the UN. Since then, globalization and capitalism have provided development opportunities for many of the countries. The future of the group is uncertain as the differences among its members become more pronounced. However, the G77 still maintains a large amount of influence in the UN.
The NAM is united by a common hatred for Israel and the West. It has become a haven for tyrants and dictators, which is clearly demonstrated by its choice of Cuba as the current chair. The OIC is not as large as the NAM or the G77, but it is a far more cohesive organization. It is particularly difficult to deal with because many of the OIC's ideals are in direct conflict with those of the UN.
These three UN country blocs all exert an undue amount of influence over UN decisions. Their role needs to be addressed if the UN wishes to become more democratic and efficient.
Brett Schaefer
Heritage Foundation
No one leads the United Nations. The secretary general and permanent members of the security council do not have the power to shift the organization in a direction that it does not want to go. It might be more realistic to say that the organization has 192 leaders, which effectively means it has no leader at all. This breeds gridlock and inefficiency, with the "one nation, one vote" principle ignoring important differences between member countries.
Those who are most effective at shaping the UN agenda are the country blocs, specifically the G77, the NAM, and the OIC. The G77 and the NAM both have the numbers needed to sway UN decisions. While the OIC is a far smaller organization, it has a great deal of influence within the NAM and the G77 and can exert its power through those larger channels. These groups shape the way UN reform is conducted, and in many cases they have blocked efforts to make the UN a more effective body. This is a curious point because members of these groups receive the most benefit from the UN yet contribute such minimal amounts to the UN budget.
AEI interns Jessica Nagro and Kingston Kwek prepared this summary.
