[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 128 (Tuesday, September 17, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10648-S10649]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IT IS TIME TO DEBUNK THE DANGEROUS MYTHS ABOUT THE UNITED NATIONS
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, today the U.N. General Assembly will convene
its 51st session. This occasion has particular meaning for me because
51 years ago I had the honor of serving on the International
Secretariat of the San Francisco Conference that drew up the United
Nations' charter. In 1970, I was privileged to serve as a
Representative of the United States to the 25th session of the General
Assembly of the United Nations. This year I have been honored again
with my nomination by President Clinton and confirmation by my Senate
colleagues to be a representative of the United States to the 51st
session of the United Nations General Assembly.
[[Page S10649]]
Having been present at the United Nations' creation and observed its
work over the last 50 years, I strongly believe in the need for such a
body and in the principles upon which it was founded. While I have
applauded and participated in efforts to amend and improve the
organization, I would argue that these last 51 years have witnessed an
impressive record of achievement. Though it has not always lived up to
all the expectations of its founders, the United Nations has
irrevocably changed the world in which we live. Despite the obstacles
posed by the politics of the cold war, I can think of numerous examples
where the United Nations succeeded in promoting international peace and
security--in Namibia, El Salvador, Cambodia, and countless other
countries. Whether brokering peaceful settlements to violent conflicts,
halting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, protecting the
international environment, or immunizing children from disease, the
United Nations has made the world a safer place. Clearly, if the United
Nations did not exist today, we would have to invent it.
I am therefore troubled by the increasingly violent attacks on this
important institution--in Congress, the press, and other public fora.
These attacks seem symptomatic of a broader and dangerous tendency to
seek to retreat from our international commitments and obligations.
Revolutionary changes in communications, transportation, capital flows,
and the nature of warfare have irreversibly linked our fate with that
of the rest of the world. Today, there is no ocean wide enough--nor
border fence we could build that would be high enough--to keep out an
often turbulent world.
Rather than abandoning our role as part of the international
community, we should endeavor to expand and improve cooperation with
those states that share our values in order to address our common
problems. The United Nations offers a valuable forum for such
cooperation.
With this in mind, I would like to use this opportunity to address
three of the more dangerous myths that have been propagated recently
regarding the United Nations:
The first of these myths is that the United Nations somehow threatens
American sovereignty. Critics of the United Nations have often depicted
the organization as a nascent world government eager to supplant the
nation-state. In fact, the United Nations more accurately resembles an
unruly debating club, where members control and vote on its activities.
Moreover, the United Nations charter clearly states that resolutions of
the General Assembly are non-binding on member states. In similar
fashion, United Nations conventions only apply to nations that elect to
ratify them. The one United Nations body in which decisions could be
binding upon member-states is the Security Council, where the United
States and other permanent members enjoy veto power. Because of these
institutional checks, the United Nations usually must struggle to
achieve enough of a consensus to make action possible. In no way could
one mistake this organization for an out-of-control bureaucracy
trampling upon the prerogatives of nation-states.
A second myth about the United Nations is that it does not serve
American interests. In the most extreme version of this myth,
critics imagine that the United States always fares worse when it acts
multilaterally, than when it goes it alone. In fact, given that many of
today's most pressing problems--be it crime, disease, environmental
degradation, terrorism, or currency crises--transcend national
boundaries, there is much to be gained from forging common solutions to
common problems.
The end of the artificial divisions of the cold war has presented the
United States with an extraordinary opportunity to use the United
Nations to advance its foreign policy goals. In the last U.N. session,
members of the General Assembly voted with the United States 88.2
percent of the time; 91 percent of Security Council resolutions were
adopted unanimously. The United Nations has enabled the United States
to avoid unilateral responsibility for costly and entangling activities
in regions of critical importance, even as it yields to the United
States a position of tremendous authority. To paraphrase former
Secretary of State James Baker, U.N. peacekeeping is a pretty good
bargain. For every dollar the United States spends on peacekeeping, it
saves many more dollars by preventing conflicts in which it might
otherwise have to become involved.
From a cost-benefit perspective, U.S. contributions to the United
Nations and its agencies have been a very worthwhile investment. In
addition to the American lives and dollars saved by U.N. peacekeeping
missions, other U.N. agencies have worked to prevent disaster and death
and to promote health and security both here in the United States and
abroad. In 1977, the World Health Organization [WHO] averted an
estimated 2 million deaths per year by eradicating smallpox. Today,
WHO's children immunization program saves an estimated 3 million lives
every year. In 1992, during a severe drought in Africa, the Food and
Agriculture Organization and the World Food Programme saved an
estimated 20 million people from starvation. And in this last week, the
U.N. General Assembly overwhelmingly adopted the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty, which will contribute to the security and well-being of
generations of peoples to come.
Which brings me to the third myth: that U.S. participation in the
United Nations is ruinously expensive. In fact, in fiscal year 1996,
the United States' assessed and voluntary contributions to the U.N.
system totaled $1.51 billion. That includes $304 million for the U.N.
general budget, $359 million for peacekeeping operations, $7 million
for war crimes tribunals, $337 million in assessments to the United
Nations' specialized agencies, and $501 million in voluntary
contributions to programs such as UNICEF and other programs that the
United States has treaty obligations to support. This total American
contribution represented less than half of 1 percent of the current
defense budget; that allotted for peacekeeping less than the annual
budget of the New York City police force.
On a per capita basis, the annual U.S. contribution to the U.N.
regular budget breaks down to slightly more than $1 per American. This
is considerably less than what most other people in the world pay. For
example, the per capita contribution of the U.N.'s newest member state,
Palau, is over $6 per person. Clearly, the American taxpayer is getting
a good deal for his money.
Of course there is certainly room for further economies. Like many
large organizations, the United Nations could be leaner, more
efficient, and more responsive. But rather than eviscerating one of the
key institutional underpinnings of the present international order by
starving it of funds, we should work patiently but determinedly with
like-minded states and with the U.N. Secretariat to reform and to
improve it. I am heartened by the consensus among such strong advocates
for U.N. reform as former Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick and former
Assistant Secretary of State John Bolton that the U.S. benefits greatly
from its membership in the United Nations. I also agree with them that
a U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations would be contrary to our
national interests.
How we go about the task of reforming the United Nations will say a
lot about the prospects for American leadership in the twenty-first
century. As after World War II, the United States faces a decisive
challenge: whether to maintain the mantle of international leadership
and stay engaged in the creation of a new international order, or to
seek to retreat into isolationism. The latter course is an even more
dangerous option today than it would have been 51 years ago. Only
through international engagement and assertive leadership can America
hope to prosper and safeguard its security in the next century. The
United Nations can serve as an important vehicle for advancing these
vital national interests.
____________________