Global Policy Forum

By Don Kraus and Simon Weber*

Now that President George W. Bush has bypassed the Senate and recess appointed John Bolton to the post of U.N. ambassador, a new battle is underway. The fight for who will represent the United States at the United Nations is over, and the extremely complicated struggle to determine how the United Nations can be retooled into an effective 21st century institution has begun in earnest. President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the newly confirmed Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations Kristen Silverberg have a problematic three-front battle on their hands, and Ambassador Bolton is one of them.

The same week that Bolton arrived in New York, Foreign Affairs magazine published a poll in which 72 percent of Americans said that showing more respect for the views and needs of other countries would enhance U.S. national security. Silverberg, as Bolton's boss, will be responsible for making sure he sticks to the administration's playbook, which surprisingly calls for some positive changes at the United Nations. Bolton's long history of "no carrots" diplomacy and aggressively pushing his own ideologically driven agendas makes him a difficult employee to manage to begin with. The job will be more challenging because Silverberg has no previous foreign policy experience and, despite his flaws, Bolton knows more about the U.N. than any other ambassador ever sent to Turtle Bay.

The second front is at the United Nations. The U.S. Mission in New York is tasked with preparing for the U.N.'s 60th Anniversary September Summit—the largest gathering of world leaders in history. A large body of proposals is already supported by the United States, including new standards of oversight and accountability, a Democracy Fund, a Peacebuilding Commission to help societies rebuild after conflict ends, an improved Human Rights Council, and a new tools to combat terrorism. These ideas enjoy widespread support among political leaders in the United States and abroad. But the comprehensive package of reforms proposed by Secretary General Annan includes non-starters for the United States that are coveted by developing nations, such as an increase in official development assistance to 0.7 percent of gross domestic income.

Another bone of contention is Security Council reform. Deputy Ambassador Anne Patterson has called for the African Union and the Group of Four—Germany, Japan, India and Brazil—"to stop pushing for [Security Council expansion] votes, and to focus first on more urgently needed reforms." The Security Council debate has indeed "siphoned extensive resources and attention away from more critical UN reforms." The United States should fiercely oppose any new veto wielding seats on a too often dysfunctional Security Council. But the administration must also focus on the comprehensive nature of the negotiations. If the United States wants to achieve the management and conflict-related fixes that it supports, it must be prepared to accept policies that in words of Kofi Annan, "take into account not only the needs of its own citizens but also the needs of others."

The third front the administration must fight is a rear guard action on Capitol Hill. Over the past two months, the House of Representatives twice passed flawed legislation that mandates the withholding of 50 percent of legally obligated U.S. dues to the United Nations. The Hyde U.N. Reform Act—which was introduced in the Senate by Gordon Smith, R-Ore.—authorizes cutting U.S. payments to the United States in half, should the United Nations fail to adopt 39 specific reforms in an unreasonably short timeframe.

This is, without a doubt, the wrong approach. Eight former U.S. ambassadors to the United Nations—including tough-minded Republicans like John Danforth and Jeanne Kirkpatrick—have warned that withholding U.S. dues "would create resentment, build animosity and actually strengthen opponents of reform." Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns even testified that cutting contributions "would diminish our effectiveness… [and] undermine our efforts to play the leading role in reforming the United Nations." President Bush, Secretary Rice and other administration officials have, likewise, stressed the importance of the United States taking a leading role in creating a capable, 21st century-United Nations. Even John Bolton proclaimed his commitment to "a stronger, more effective [UN], true to the ideals of its founders and agile enough to act in the 21st century." Usually, when this president wants to chart foreign policy in his Republican-controlled Congress, he gets what he wants. Those who were visited by President Bush and Vice President Cheney on the eve of the CAFTA vote can surely attest: This administration will spare no expense to pursue its agenda—when it cares. A similar effort would have made all the difference on the controversial Hyde Act, which received 196 nay votes even without a strong lobbying effort by the administration.

One thing that is certain is that the United States has an unparalleled opportunity to revitalize the United Nations without employing threats and bullying tactics. Unfortunately, Congress's recent actions threaten to undermine this opportunity and deny Americans the cooperative foreign policy they clearly want. Untill now, the Bush administration has spoken loudly but left the stick at home, refusing to expend political capital in order to defeat the Hyde Act's withholding policies. If the president is serious in his commitment to "work as far as possible within the framework of international organizations" now is the time for him to devote the necessary resources to pursue a strong, effective, 21st-century United Nations.

Many see the outcome of the September Summit as a legacy for Secretary General Annan. But if the president keeps House Republicans in line, Ambassador Bolton on message and negotiates reasonable deals with other nations, a United Nations that works could be his lasting legacy as well.

About the Authors :Don Kraus is executive vice president and Simon Weber is government relations associate at Citizens for Global Solutions.