• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Are U.S. Interests Being Advanced at the U.N.?

    In anticipation of President Obama’s second address to the United Nations this week, the White House has published a lengthy press release titled “Advancing U.S. Interests at the United Nations” that lists the achievements of the administration at the United Nations. The motivation behind the press release is that those achievements are not being given their due in the eyes of the White House. This is, however, entirely fitting because the achievements are themselves not really notable. In brief, the administration’s list of claimed U.N. accomplishments includes:

    • U.N. Security Council sanctions on Iran and North Korea and the Final Document of the Non-Proliferation Treaty that “advances a realistic path towards achievement … of a world without nuclear weapons.”
    • Supporting U.S. efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
    • Strengthening U.N. peacekeeping and bolstering conflict prevention efforts in Haiti, Sudan, Congo, Liberia, Somalia, Eritrea, and Sri Lanka.
    • Promoting human rights by joining the Human Rights Council, signing the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and securing General Assembly resolutions condemning human rights violations in North Korea, Burma, and Iran.
    • Advancing U.N. reform by supporting a new U.N. agency called U.N. Women, paying U.S. arrears to the U.N., pressing the issue of U.N. efficiency and accountability, working to “contain the growth of the UN budget”, and negotiating in 2009 “an agreement that held constant the share of U.S. assessed contributions to the United Nations.”

    In an effort to sift the legitimate accomplishments from the bromides and the failures dressed up as successes let’s go point by point:

    • The sanctions on Iran and North Korea are welcome, but have been too weak or poorly designed to have the intended deterrent effect. As Ambassador John Bolton notes, “Obama’s U.N. strategy regarding Iran and North Korea has not been much different from Bush’s in his last two years. Neither has been successful.” As for the NPT, no one should confuse a consensus declaration with concrete action.
    • U.N. support of U.S. efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq is welcome, but we should not lose sight of the fact that only U.S. willingness to use military force – sometimes in the face of strong U.N. opposition – has created the opportunity for those nations to move beyond oppression.
    • U.N. peacekeepers often do good work, but U.N. peacekeeping has serious problems and weaknesses. The U.S. has been pressing for serious reforms on U.N. peacekeeping for years with seemingly little effect. Despite the administration’s more conciliatory engagement, they have been even less successful than the Bush administration in pressing for peacekeeping reform. Meanwhile, problems persist.
    • Signing Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities means little without Senate advice and consent as the advocates for Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (the U.S. signed CEDAW in 1980) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (the U.S. signed the CRC in 1995) are all too aware.
    • The Obama administration did get General Assembly condemnations of human rights violations in North Korea, Burma, and Iran. But then so did the Bush Administration.
    • Getting the U.N. General Assembly to create a new, lavishly funded body like U.N. Women is about as difficult as convincing children to eat ice cream. But what can we honestly expect from U.N. Women considering the U.N. General Assembly elected Iran (which recently sentenced a woman to be stoned death for adultery) earlier this year to U.N. Commission on the Status of Women?
    • As for pressing for U.N. accountability and oversight, where was the U.S. when Inga-Britt Ahlenius, former undersecretary-general of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), was being sabotaged at every turn by the U.N. bureaucracy in her efforts to hire competent experts to make U.N. more transparent and accountable?

    Even giving full credit to the administration’s claims, which is generous to a fault, are they really notable? Are they really the harvest expected by President Obama when he promised “new era of engagement” with the United Nations to facilitate “a global response to global challenges”?

    In a word, no. Some of the “accomplishments” are welcome, but none are truly consequential. Many resemble or simply repeat policy’s of the unilateralist Bush administration. The reform claims are simply wishful thinking.

    This paltry record of accomplishment has to be galling to an administration that entered office ready to partner with other countries at the U.N. and eschew the generally frank approach of the Bush administration. Indeed, one wonders if the administration is feeling jilted by their prospective multilateral partner.

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a major foreign policy speech at the Council on Foreign Relations earlier this month which included this fascinating observation, “The UN was never intended to tackle every challenge, nor should it.  So when appropriate, we are working with our partners to establish new venues and organizations to focus on specific problems.”

    This is a welcome acknowledgement. The United Nations is a political body and many of the other member states are opposed to key U.S. policies and objectives. They use the institution to undermine those policies and are not shy about voicing disagreements and aspersions loudly and frequently. They weaken or block U.N. Security Council actions to sanction human right abuses or to enforce anti-proliferation efforts. Countries like Libya, China, and Cuba get elected to the U.N. Human Rights Council by huge majorities. The U.N. is as good as its membership allows it to be and engagement will not change this reality.

    By making engagement and good relations the primary goal and soft-pedaling disagreements and problems, the administration is pursuing a policy of unilateral diplomatic disarmament. Nearly two years in, could the Obama administration finally be realizing that America is not the reason why the U.N. so often fails to live up to expectations? Well, at least we can hope for change.

    Posted in International [slideshow_deploy]

    6 Responses to Are U.S. Interests Being Advanced at the U.N.?

    1. Pingback: I, Robot | ibot2000

    2. LALaw, CA says:

      Most importantly, the UN made Bush look like a fool, as he was. Conservatives never liked the UN and that confirmed their dislike because the UN insulted their hero, Bush (who suddenly was disowned by the GOP after the GOP suffered a second straight historic loss in 2008).

    3. Pragmatic in Texas says:

      U.S. out of U.N.

      We can find a million better uses for that building than the useless entity taking up space there now.

    4. Drew Page, IL says:

      The U.N. can be, and from time to time has been, a useful court of world opinion. But like any court, it relies on enforcement of its decisions and recommendations by a superpower, or by a collection of allied powers. It relies on a majority of its funding coming from its wealthier members.

      I can recall when Iraq repeatedly forbade U.N. inspectors, who sought to verify the existence of WMDs, access to its territory. I remember resolution after resolution came out of the U.N. condemning Iraq for this violation of the terms of its surrender following the first gulf war. This failure of the U.N. to gain access for inspections of Iraqui territory led to the U.S. believe the intelligence reports coming from our own CIA, Great Britian and Isreal strongly suggesting the existence of those WMDs. Had the U.N. the clout and/or the muscle to gain such access, the second gulf war could have been avaided.

      I also recall the U.N.'s roll in brokering a deal to allow Iran its sell oil for food and medical supplies. Koffee Anan and other U.N. operatives got rich in the process.

      The U.S. needs to do a cost/benefit analysis to determine if the benefits of membership are worth the price of admission. What does it cost the U.S. to maintain membership in this organization, both directly and indirectly? And what has it done to further the interests of the United States?

    5. Leon Lundquist, Dura says:

      History will record the Obama Administration as the appeaser who led the whole world in a race to the bottom. All that hard work holding back the oppressors for decades will be lost in a new Arms Race, led by our new pal Iran. After the nuclear anihilation of Israel and many millions of dead it will be so obvious. It may be that all the good of the Christian Era will be nullified by this man, a man who lied his way into power. If the New World Order Governance can be predicted by observation of the United Nations, then the future 'paradise' will be so corrupt that only someone truly evil will be qualified to lead it. Don't you just wonder who?

    6. Clarence Crosby ,Hub says:

      What the hell are we doing in the U.N. ? We are being judged on human rights by countries that don't even have civil rights . Instead of these countries trying to fix their problems they blame us for them and want us to change , ( ie. regress to their level misery ) , we pay the most and get the least respect of any member . I propose a new U.N. , we will be the first member and for any nation to join they have to accept our Constitution , word for word and with its original intent as proposed by its authors , otherwise we don't need nor want them in our organization .

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×