The following article summarizes main points from a talk given in Santa Rosa April29 by Mr. James Wilkinson, former Deputy US Representative on the UN Security Council with the rank of Ambassador. He is now a local resident, and member of the Sonoma County UNA Board.
Can the UN Succeed? B The Third Try for World Order
Since the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, nations have struggled for the third time to devise a more secure, prosperous and just world order. The first try, the League of Nations, lacked US support and expired in the ashes of fascist aggression The second; the UN of 1945, fared far better, but the Cold War stunted fts development
The focus of the post-Cold War third try is still the UN Charter's vision of collective security, international cooperation, and the rule of law. Through its first 6O years, the UN scored many impressive accomplishments in peacemaking, economic development, environmental protection across borders, equal rights for women, and disaster relief. Today, every day, UN agencies are at work helping millions; UNICEF saving children, WHO fighting disease, UNHCR aiding refugees, UNDP battling poverty and many others.
But the UN system has also fallen short. Conflict and violence persist; over half the world's people still live below any reasonably defined poverty line, human rights too often get mere lip service, and progress is stalled on disarmament and global warming. Scandals plague the UN bureaucracy,
the General Assembly gratuitously denounces the US, and Security Council
powers squabble among themselves.
What does it all add up to? Is it time to scrap the UN? Or should we redouble our efforts to make it work better? American neo-cons would take the first course by whittling the UN down to servant status; they seek a UN that would protect corporations and do international welfare, and that above all would stay out of Washington's way when the US throws its weight around. On the other side, Europeans have led the good fight to forge the kind of effective UN foreseen in 1945, although they often lack the political will and military muscle to follow through.
The American public, it turns out, rejects neo-con thinking and is sliil in tune with President Roosevelts vision of 1945. Surveys have consistently shown that a majority of Americans advocates the rule of law, wants to cooperate with other countries, supports a strong UN and favors foreign aid.
Most Americans see our country as the leader in advancing a better world system with these values since WW Il In fact, the reality of US foreign policy has beer otherwise for more than two decades.
Consider the record:
The US has undermined institutions to implement the rule of law. America withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in 1986 because the Court was about to declare covert CIA mining of Nicaraguan harbors illegal. Moreover, Congress (but not the US public) has opposed the International Criminal Court to prosecute individuals for crimes against humanity.
The US has undercut the principles of collective security and multilateral peacekeeping. Although the elder President Bush showed what could be done when he forged a UN consensus to end Iraqi aggression in Kuwait, the present Administration has snubbed its nose at the Security Council. In between, the Clinton Administration faulted the UN for the ABIackhawk Down@ incident in Somalia, even though US forces were sent into action by a Command Center in Florida without the knowledge of the UN Commander in Somalia. Worse, the US turned a blind eye to the 1994 genocide that killed upwards of 800,000 people in Rwanda.
The US has obstructed cooperation on global issues. Under President Reagan, the US reversed years of negotiations on the Law of the Sea convention and ceased to participate in UNESCO. Later, Senate conservatives rejected the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty for nuclear weapons and the Kyoto Protocol to fight global warming. The explanation is not that the treaties were bad, but that US leadership has been hobbled by ideological rigidity.
US foreign aid has declined. Most Americans think it is 15-20% of the federal budget, but it is less than 1%, and adds up to only $51 per American per year. Measuring aid as a percentage of national income, we are 15th or 16th in the world, even when official programs and private charities are combined.
Congressional withholding of dues and bad-mouthing of the UN has diminished the UN's stature and sapped the vitality of US public support. The latest example was the Oil-for-food program, presented by Congress as
an unconscionable UN failure. In reality, by far the largest flow of cash into Saddam Hussein's pockets went through his agreements with Jordan, Turkey and Syria to sell those countries illegally smuggled oil. Congress and the White House not only knew of these deals years ago, but let them continue while explicitly exempting Turkey and Jordan from the consequences of violating UN sanctions. These facts got tost in the Congressional and media frenzy to denounce the UN.
The upshot is that US foreign policy, despite Washington's rhetoric, has abandoned the vision of 1945. The UN has many flaws, and UN reform is important. But the more essential change has to take place in Washington
to bring US government actions into line with the American values
embedded in the UN Charter and the majority aspirations of our citizens.
