[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.

                          ____________________