Of the seemingly endless list of reform proposals, most fall into one of the following categories:
Security Council
Critics say the five permanent members of the council – the U.S., Russia, Britain, France, and China – no longer fairly represent the holders of wealth and military power in the world. Japan and Germany are the most obvious candidates for inclusion. Third World states also are pushing for representation on the council. India is the most frequently mentioned candidate. A related reform would dilute the overwhelming dominance of the great powers by eliminating absolute veto power by any of the five members.
Volunteer U.N. Army
Many experts see the impasse in Bosnia as further evidence that the U.N. needs a military force at its disposal that is independent of any member government. Supporters of such a force say it should have a mandate not only to keep the peace but also to intervene militarily to stop the kinds of mass murder and genocide seen in recent conflicts. Where would such forces come from? Some recommend using mercenaries from around the world, trained according to U.N. standards and rapidly deployed as the Security Council saw fit.
“The difficulty with the volunteer force is that it changes the nature of the game, because it gives the U.N. for the first time capacity of its own,” says Urquhart, a leading reform proponent. “It will not always be dependent on governments, most of whom chicken out at the last minute, and therefore it will become a different kind of organization with some very minor trappings of sovereign power. But if the U.N. is going to start to try to deal with civil wars and major disturbances of that kind, it’s going to have to have the capacity to do it.”
Secretary-General
Because they may now serve two five-year terms, critics say that secretaries-general tend to spend too much time campaigning for reappointment instead of doing their job. The solution, many reformers suggest, is a single, seven-year term. Urquhart also would like to see an improved selection process that opens up the field to a broader range of talented individuals, especially women, rather than simply settling for someone whose political views do not offend any of the 185 member governments.
“The way they appoint the secretary-general is absolutely ludicrous,” he says. “What’s the point of having a seventy-two year-old Coptic professor of international law as the secretary-general?” he asks, referring to Boutros-Ghali. “He’s a nice guy, but he’s hopeless, a zero leader with no charisma. There’s no organization in the private sector that would dream of appointing its chief executive this way.” More appropriate, Urquhart suggests, would be a leader like Mary Robinson, the president of Ireland. “She’s easily Europe’s best human rights lawyer, she’s been an enormous success as president, she has great charisma, and she’s a bright, tough lady.” (18)
Better Management
Reform advocates say the secretary-general’s diplomatic duties are too demanding to expect him, or her, to also be responsible for managing the vast U.N. system. The solution, says Luck of the United Nations Association, is to appoint someone, second in command only to the secretary-general, to manage the U.N. “We need to have a deputy secretary-general who is the chief operating officer of the system,” Luck says, “and let the secretary-general be the global troubleshooter and the voice of the international community and the peacemaker.”
Personnel
A related issue involves hiring and firing practices at the U.N. In 1992, just after taking office, Boutros-Ghali instituted a hiring freeze and suggested a number of steps to downsize the organization. But Thornburgh, who served in the U.N. Department of Administration and Management in 1992-93, thought the reform process was slow to get off the ground. In a 1993 report to the secretary-general, he listed a number of obstacles to improving the U.N.’s work force, including a glass ceiling preventing the promotion of women, a lengthy appeals process preventing the demotion or firing of non-productive employees and insufficient training.
Thornburgh sees little improvement in the past two years. “There’s just a lot of deadwood there, people who in more placid times might be acceptable,” he says. “The biggest deficiency is that the place is replete with expert diplomats and politicians but very thin in management talent, particularly at the middle-management level.”
Unitary U.N.
This concept, defined by Bolton and promoted by the Bush administration, would encourage member governments to consider the U.N. as a whole, rather than as a conglomerate of separate agencies. Such an approach, Bolton says, would make it easier to eliminate duplication and make the organization work more efficiently.
“If you look at the U.N. as an entire system and not just as a cluster of individual agencies you can assess where there is duplication and overlap,” Bolton says. The World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization, for example, both address the related issues of nutrition and health. “Under a unitary U.N. approach we would have tried to rationalize their operations to reduce the duplication in the work of the two agencies.” With the election of President Clinton, Bolton says, “this policy of looking at the U.N. as a system has now fallen by the wayside.”
CLINTON VS. CONGRESS
As part of his policy of “assertive multilateralism,” President Clinton supports the goal of reforming the United Nations. “Those of us who most respect the U.N. must lead the charge of reform,” he said at a June 26, 1995, ceremony in San Francisco commemorating the signing of the U.N. Charter. “Over the years it has grown too bloated, too often encouraging duplication and spending resources on meetings rather than results.”
But some reform advocates saw the United States under President Clinton has been no more effective than other member governments in pushing for real change at the U.N. “There is a lack of political will on the part of the member states to actually follow through on reform,” Thornburgh says. “They’re all pretty much the same, and the United States is no different.”
Indeed, lawmakers in Washington seem more interested in reducing U.S. commitments to the United Nations than in strengthening its ability to carry out American foreign policy. This attitude is especially apparent among Republicans, who in 1994 won the majority in Congress for the first time in forty years.
“Peacekeeping cannot solve the world’s problems and should not be expected to,” said then Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms, R-N.C. “Some of us have said that all along. American leadership in the world should not be defined by how many U.N. peacekeeping operations we participate in.” (19)
As part of a drive to cut foreign aid spending, Helms has spearheaded proposals to cut U.S. funding if U.N. peacekeeping operations from thirty-two percent to twenty-five percent – the same percentage the United States pays for the rest of the U.N. costs – beginning in fiscal 1994.
Then Sen. Dole introduced a bill that prohibited the participation of U.S. military forces in any U.N. peacekeeping missions that would place them under the command of foreign nationals. The proposed Peace Powers Act not only poses a direct challenge to the president’s authority as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, but also would effectively end U.S. military participation in most U.N. missions, as peacekeeping missions typically come under the military command of more than one country.
Another proposal, the National Security Revitalization Act, part of the House Republicans’ “Contract With America,” also would restrict U.S. peacekeeping missions and would withhold U.S. funding of U.N. agencies pending the enactment of reforms. But with attitudes toward the U.N. at a low point, there is little support for reforming the organization to make it more effective.
The underlying premise in all these proposals is that the United States can conduct its foreign policy more effectively on its own or with carefully chosen allies then it can through a multilateral body such as the United Nations. President Clinton and those who support his policy of strengthening multilateral organizations accuse Republicans of launching the United States into a new era of isolationism, similar to that preceding the outbreak of World War II.
“The United States must be prepared to act alone when necessary, but we dare not ignore the benefits that coalitions bring to this nation,” Clinton said at the San Francisco commemoration of the U.N. Charter. “We dare not reject decades of bipartisan support for international cooperation. Those who would do so, these new isolationists, dismiss fifty years of hard evidence.”
Republicans reject these charges. “Neo-isolationism is a scare word that doesn’t capture even somewhat fairly what we’re talking about, which is trying to analyze what concrete U.S. national interests are and how to advance and defend them,” Bolton says. “Simply to say that not being willing to engage in assertive multilateralism is the same as neo-isolationism reflects a profound misunderstanding of what American foreign policy interests are, as well as the shallowness of their own intellectual thinking.”
“Part of the problem in improving the United Nations’ ability to act now is that the majority in Congress sees undermining the organization as a way of going after the president and his weaknesses in foreign policy,” Luck says. “The United Nations has become a vehicle for that.”
CONCLUSION
If the United Nations is to continue to play a role in world affairs, it has to take account of the changes that have occurred in the world over the past half-century.
“Fifty years ago, you didn’t see the Rwanda genocide in your living room while you’re having a drink in the evening,” Urquhart says. “Fifty years ago, there wasn’t this sort of global society with global capital markets and instant electronic circulation of money. There are a whole lot of things which didn’t exist in 1945 when the charter was written. Now we’ve got to really face up to them.”
Whatever new peacekeeping roles the United Nations takes on in the near future, they are likely to be less ambitious than envisioned in the heady days after the Cold War’s collapse. Plans to beef up peacekeeping missions, as outlined in the secretary-general’s 1992 report to the General Assembly, have been sidelined. Following setbacks in Somalia and Bosnia, peacekeeping operations already have been scaled back, as the belated and undermanned mission to Rwanda demonstrates.
“Once an organization’s reputation is badly damaged, as the U.N.’s reputation has been in Somalia and now, even worse, in Bosnia, people begin to question everything about it,” says Carpenter at the Cato Institute. “Even the worthwhile functions it has served, the achievements it has had in Namibia, for instance, are going to be far less impressive than they might otherwise have been.”
With the United States especially reluctant to support efforts to strengthen the U.N., some diplomats are prodding Europe and Japan to pick up the slack. “It’s a foolish idea to assume that every time anything happens the only country that can do anything is the United States,” Urquhart says. “It isn’t like 1945, when the United States was the only country still on its feet. There are some nice, big, grownup countries out there, some of which are quite rich. But there remains this hopelessly defeatist attitude that if the United States doesn’t want it, it won’t happen.”
There is another reason, Urquhart says, why the United Nations’ member governments should not allow the confusion over the U.N.’s role as global peacekeeper to undermine its place in world affairs. “In fifty years’ time, the United Nations won’t be judged on having failed in Bosnia,” he says. “It will be judged on whether it did anything about poverty, economic imbalance, and the environment. Those are the forces that are going to shape the future one way or another, not what happens in Bosnia.”
NOTES
1. Carroll J. Doherty, “Congress’ Foreign Policy Role At Issue in Veto Override,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, August 5, 1995, 2386-2387
2. For background see, “Foreign Policy Burden,” The CQ Researcher,
August 20 1993, 721-744
3. For background see, “A Revitalized United Nations in the 1990s,” Editorial Research Reports, July 27, 1990, 429-444
4. For background on the U.N. budget, see Jeffrey Laurenti, National Taxpayers, International Organizations: Sharing the Burden Of Financing the United Nations, United Nations Association of the United States, 1995, 29
5. Speaking at a June 11, 1995, press conference with President Clinton in Clairmont, N.H.
6. Bob Dole, “Who’s an Isolationist?” The New York Times, June 6, 1995
7. For background, see Carroll J. Doherty, “House Approves Overhaul of
Agencies, Policies,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, January 28, 1995 291-292
8. Speth spoke June 25, 1995, before the United Nations Association of the United States’ National Convention in San Francisco, Calif.
9. For background, see “Non-Proliferation Treaty at 25,” The CQ Researcher, January 27, 1995, 73-96
10. See the United Nations Association of the United States, The United Nations at
40, April 1985
11. Material in this section is based on Sandrine Teyssonneyre, How to Do Business with the United Nations (1995) 7-10
12. See Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., “Back to the Womb? Isolationism’s Renewed Threat,” Foreign Affairs, July/August 1995, 2-8
13. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, An Agenda for Peace, June 1992
14. Report of the Commission on Global Governance, Our Global Neighborhood
(1995), 236-237
15. Ibid., 237
16. For an analysis of the Somalia missions, see Chester A. Crocker, “The Lessons of Somalia,” Foreign Affairs, May/June 1995, 2-8
17. See “Short Memories,” The Economist, June 17, 1995, 42-47
18. For a more flattering assessment of Boutros-Ghali’s stewardship, see Stanley
Meisler, “Dateline U.N.: A New Hammar-skjold?” Foreign Policy, spring 1995, 180-197
19. Helms spoke March 21, 1995, at his committee’s hearings on legislation affecting the U.N. and other foreign policy issues.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Boutros-Ghali, Boutros, “A New Departure on Development,” Foreign Policy, spring
1995, 44-49
Childers, Erskine, and Brian Urquhart, Renewing the United Nations System, Dag
Hammarskjold Foundation, 1994
Dole, Bob, “Shaping America’s Global Future,” Foreign Policy, spring 1995, 29-43
Gordon, Wendell, The United Nations At the Crossroads of Reform, M.E. Sharpe, 1994
Hall, Brian, “Blue Helmets, Empty Guns,” The New York Times Magazine, January 2,
1994, 8-25+
Independent Working Group on the Future of the United Nations, The United Nations in
Its Second Half-Century, The Ford Foundation, 1995
Laurenti, Jeffrey, National Taxpayers, International Organizations: Sharing the Burden of
Financing the United Nations, United Nations Association of the United States,
1995
Meisler, Stanley, United Nations: The First Fifty Years, Grove/Atlantic, 1995
Righter, Rosemary, Utopia Lost: The United Nations and World Order, Twentieth
Century Fund Press, 1995
Schlesinger, Arthur M., Jr., “Back to the Womb? Isolationism’s Renewed Threat,”
Foreign Affairs, July/August 1995, 2-8
Thornburgh, Dick, “Today’s United Nations in a Changing World,” The American
University Journal of International Law and Policy, fall 1993, 215-223
Urquhart, Brian, “Selecting the World’s CEO: Remembering the Secretaries-General,”
Foreign Affairs, May/June 1995, 21-26
Bibliography
Boutros-Ghali, Boutros, “A New Departure on Development,” Foreign Policy, spring
1995, 44-49
Childers, Erskine, and Brian Urquhart, Renewing the United Nations System, Dag
Hammarskjold Foundation, 1994
Dole, Bob, “Shaping America’s Global Future,” Foreign Policy, spring 1995, 29-43
Gordon, Wendell, The United Nations At the Crossroads of Reform, M.E. Sharpe, 1994
Hall, Brian, “Blue Helmets, Empty Guns,” The New York Times Magazine, January 2,
1994, 8-25+
Independent Working Group on the Future of the United Nations, The United Nations in
Its Second Half-Century, The Ford Foundation, 1995
Laurenti, Jeffrey, National Taxpayers, International Organizations: Sharing the Burden of
Financing the United Nations, United Nations Association of the United States,
1995
Meisler, Stanley, United Nations: The First Fifty Years, Grove/Atlantic, 1995
Righter, Rosemary, Utopia Lost: The United Nations and World Order, Twentieth
Century Fund Press, 1995
Schlesinger, Arthur M., Jr., “Back to the Womb? Isolationism’s Renewed Threat,”
Foreign Affairs, July/August 1995, 2-8
Thornburgh, Dick, “Today’s United Nations in a Changing World,” The American
University Journal of International Law and Policy, fall 1993, 215-223
Urquhart, Brian, “Selecting the World’s CEO: Remembering the Secretaries-General,”
Foreign Affairs, May/June 1995, 21-26