United States and the United Nations

The United States is a charter member of the United Nations and one of five permanent members of the UN Security Council.

U.S. role in establishing the UN

The term "United Nations" was suggested by Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill during World War II, to refer to the Allies. It appeared in the Declaration by the United Nations where, on January 1, 1942, 26 nations pledged to continue fighting the Axis powers.

In 1945, representatives from 50 countries met in San Francisco for the United Nations Conference on International Organization. They deliberated on proposals that had been drafted by representatives of the Republic of China, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference between August and October of 1944. The United Nations officially came into existence on October 24, 1945, when the Charter was ratified by the Republic of China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, the United States as well as a majority of other signatories.

The United Nations was the first international governmental organization to receive significant support from the United States. Its forerunner, the League of Nations, had been championed by Woodrow Wilson after World War I to prevent future conflicts. While it was supported by most European nations, it was never ratified by the United States Congress due to the inability to reach a compromise regarding the Lodge Reservations or the Hitchcock Reservations.

Shortly after the establishment of the United Nations, the United States came into conflict with another member of the Security Council. Since the Soviet Union was a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, it had the power to veto any binding UN resolution. In fact, Soviet foreign minister and UN ambassador Vyacheslav Molotov used the Soviet veto twice as often as any other member, earning him the title "Mr. Veto". (see Soviet Union and the United Nations)

Relations between the U.S. and the Soviet Union (later Russia) within the U.N. have evolved in step with the larger geopolitical situation between the two powers. While the Soviet Union was boycotting the Security Council and China's seat was represented by U.S.-friendly Republic of China (instead of Communist China which would replace the ROC in the U.N. in 1971), the U.S. and U.N. jointly condemned the invasion of South Korea by North Korean troops, leading to the UN sanctioned Korean War. Later, the U.S. persuaded all permanent members of the Security Council to authorize force against Iraq after that nation invaded Kuwait in 1991. This was a major step toward U.S. and Russian reconciliation after the end of the Cold War.

Sources of conflict

Since 1991 the United States has been the world's dominant military, economic, social, and political power. The United Nations was not designed for such a unipolar world with a single superpower, and conflict between an ascendant U.S. and other UN members has increased. The September 11, 2001 attacks on the U.S. and subsequent military conflicts have clarified the desire of other countries to use the UN as a vehicle to rein in what they see as American unilateralism.

Conflict between the U.S. and the U.N. is not new. The first major defeat for the U.S. at the U.N. was Resolution 2758 - the admission of the People's Republic of China and removal of the Republic of China against U.S. wishes in 1971 (see China and the United Nations). Since the U.S. changed its own China policy shortly after, however, this did not do lasting damage. Far more serious was the General Assembly Resolution 3379 of 1975 equating Zionism with racism, which caused great offense in the United States. Resolution 3379 was eventually negated in 1991 by Resolution 4686, but only after years of increasingly strained relations. Under the Reagan administration, the U.S. withdrew from UNESCO, and began to deliberately withhold its U.N dues as a form of pressure on the UN. By far, the U.S. was, and continues to be, the state levied most heavily by the U.N. Therefore, U.S. policymakers considered this tactic an effective tool for asserting U.S. influence in the UN. The U.S. eventually repealed its policy of withholding funds in an effort to mend the U.S.-UN relationship, but not before the U.S. had accumulated a significant debt to the U.N.

Persistent use of its veto power in the Security Council with respect to resolutions condemning the actions of Israel has been an ongoing cause of friction between the General Assembly, where the post-cold war status quo is a majority bloc of Arab and developing countries which has condemned Israeli actions on numerous occasions, and the United States (see Negroponte doctrine).

The U.S. arrears issue

The U.N. has always had problems with members refusing to pay the assessment levied upon them under the United Nations Charter. But the most significant refusal in recent times has been that of the U.S. For a number of years, the U.S. Congress refused to authorize payment of the U.S. dues, in order to force U.N. compliance with U.S. wishes, as well as a reduction in the U.S. assessment.

After prolonged negotiations, the U.S. and the U.N. negotiated an agreement whereby the United States would pay a large part of the money it owes, and in exchange the UN would reduce the assessment rate ceiling from 25% to 22%. The reduction in the assessment rate ceiling was among the reforms contained in the 1999 Helms-Biden legislation, which links payment of $926 million in U.S. arrears to the UN and other international organizations to a series of reform benchmarks.

U.S. arrears to the UN currently total over $1.3 billion. Of this, $612 million is payable under Helms-Biden. The remaining $700 million result from various legislative and policy withholdings; at present, there are no plans to pay these amounts.

Under Helms-Biden, the U.S. paid $100 million in arrears to the UN in December 1999; release of the next $582 million awaits a legislative revision to Helms-Biden, necessary because the benchmark requiring a 25 percent peacekeeping assessment rate ceiling was not quite achieved. The U.S. also seeks elimination of the legislated 25 percent cap on U.S. peacekeeping payments in effect since 1995, which continues to generate additional U.N. arrears. Of the final $244 million under Helms-Biden, $30 million is payable to the U.N. and $214 million to other international organizations.

U.S. debt to the United Nations, from 1995 to 2005

Year	Regular budget	Peacekeeping	Total
31 December 1995	$414 million (73%)	$816 million (47%)	$1.231 billion (56%)
31 December 1996	$376 million (74%)	$926 million (57%)	$1.303 billion (61%)
31 December 1997	$373 million (79%)	$940 million (60%)	$1.313 billion (64%)
31 December 1998	$316 million (76%)	$976 million (61%)	$1.294 billion (64%)
31 December 1999	$167 million (68%)	$995 million (67%)	$1.170 billion (67%)
31 December 2000	$165 million (74%)	$1.144 billion (56%)	$1.321 billion (58%)
31 December 2001	$165 million (69%)	$691 million (38%)	$871 million (41%)
31 December 2002	$190 million (62%)	$536 million (40%)	$738 million (44%)
31 December 2003	$268 million (61%)	$482 million (45%)	$762 million (48%)
31 December 2004	$241 million (68%)	$722 million (28%)	$975 million (33%)
30 September 2005	$607 million (82%)	$607 million (28%)	$1.246 billion (41%)

The Iraq issue

George W. Bush addressed the General Assembly on September 12, 2002 on Iraq prior to the passage of Resolution 1441.

Further conflict between the U.S. and some UN members arose in 2002 and 2003 over the issue of Iraq. The U.S. under President George W. Bush maintained that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had not fulfilled the obligations he had entered into at the end of the Gulf War in 1991, namely to rid Iraq of all weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and to renounce their further use. A series of inspections by the IAEA failed to find conclusive evidence that either proved or disproved allegations that Iraq was continuing to develop or harbour such weapons. The findings were conveyed by the leading weapons inspector, Hans Blix, who noted Iraq's failure to cooperate with the inspections on several counts . The U.S. replied by saying that the responsibility of proof of disarmament was upon Iraq, not on the UN or the U.S.

In November 2002, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1441, giving Iraq an ultimatum to co-operate in disarmament within an unstated timeframe of a few months. However, in March 2003, the U.S., supported by fifty countries (including the United Kingdom, Spain, Australia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the Netherlands and Poland) which the Bush administration referred to as the "Coalition of the willing" launched military operations against Iraq. On April 9 Saddam Hussein's regime was overthrown and Iraq was placed under occupation, marked by the Fall of Baghdad. The U.S. argued that this action was authorized by Resolution 1441, since Iraq had failed to comply by co-operating fully in the identification and destruction of its weapons programs, and since Resolution 1441 promised 'serious consequences' for lack of full compliance and achievement of its objective.

Other countries, led by France, Germany and Russia, maintained that Resolution 1441 did not authorize the use of force without passage of a further Resolution. French President Chirac stated "My position is that, whatever the circumstances, France will vote 'no' because this evening it considers that it is not necessary to make war to achieve the stated goal of the disarmamant of Iraq" .

Rightly or wrongly the "this evening" qualification was ignored, perhaps because the implications of its English translation are ambiguous. The statement was widely interpreted in the English-speaking world as meaning that France would exercise its right as a Permanent Member of the Security Council to veto any resolution at any time ("whatever the circumstances") to use force against Iraq.

Following the overthrow of the former Iraqi government, the Iraq Survey Group led an exhaustive search of Iraq for WMDs, but no deployable WMD of any kind was discovered and no production since 1991.

Granting of visas to UN member states

On September 3, 2005, the U.S. State Department refused to grant visas to the Iranian parliament's speaker and a group of officials to travel to New York and take part in the Second World Conference of Speakers of Parliaments organized by the United Nations. The United States is required to grant visas to UN member states' officials to take part in UN meetings notwithstanding any political considerations.

According to the State Department, the decision to deny visas was made on the grounds that Iran's 7th parliament was a non-democratic parliament.

Although on September 6, 2005 the State Department agreed to issue visas for the Iranian team, the Iranian delegates did not receive the visas in time to attend the conference. The United Nations had asked delegates to arrive in New York by the 5th of September at the latest.

This appears to be the second time that the United States has refused to grant visas to a UN member state's officials. Previously the United States had declined issue of a visa to Yasser Arafat.

World parliaments speakers denounced Washington's move to deny a visa to the Iranian parliament Speaker. The statement was read during the opening session of the Conference by Paavo Lipponen, Parliament Speaker of Finland, who chaired the conference.

U.S. Congress looks into reform of U.N.

The U.S. Congress has shown particular concern with reforms related to UN effectiveness and efficiency. In November 2004, the bill H.R. 4818 mandated the creation of a bipartisan Task Force to report to Congress on how to make the UN more effective in realizing the goals of its Charter. The Task Force came into being in January 2005, co-chaired by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Senate Majority Leader, George J. Mitchell. In June 2005, the task force released "American Interests and UN Reform: Report of the Task Force on the United Nations," [1] with numerous recommendations on how to improve the UN.

On June 17, 2005, the United States House of Representatives passed a bill (H.R. 2745) to slash funds to the UN in half by 2008 if it does not meet certain criteria. This reflects years of complaints about anti-American and anti-Israeli bias in the UN, particularly the exclusion of Israel from many decision making organizations. The U.S. is estimated to contribute about 22% of the UN's yearly budget due to the U.N.'s ability-to-pay scale, making this bill potentially devastating to the UN. The Bush administration and several former U.S. ambassadors to the UN have warned that this may only strengthen anti-American sentiment around the world and serve to hurt current UN reform movements. The bill passed the House in June 2005, and a parallel bill was introduced in the Senate by Gordon Smith on July 13, 2005. [2] However, a number of leading Senate Republicans objected to the requirement that the U.S. contributions be halved if the UN failed to meet all of the criteria. The UN Management, Personnel, and Policy Reform Act of 2005 (S. 1383), introduced on July 12, 2005 into the Senate by Sen. Norm Coleman [R-MN] and Sen. Richard Lugar [R-IN], called for similar reforms but left the withholding of dues to the discretion of the President [3]. As of February 2006, neither bill has come to a vote.

The future of the U.S. in the U.N.

The relevance of the U.N. in the modern world is questioned by its critics, and there is a small but growing movement in the U.S. to withdraw from the U.N., which it sees as nonproductive morally and practically. This in part stems from a desire to ensure that sovereignty stays with national bodies, and not be yielded to any sort of extranational organization. Another possible reason for this dissent is its use as a negotiation tactic; by threatening to walk out, the U.S. is voicing its displeasure and putting pressure on the U.N. to address U.S. concerns and interests. Yet another motivation is dismay at the failure of the U.N. to fulfill its goals in such areas as peacekeeping and human rights.

Few observers expect the "get U.S. out of U.N." (a pun on the initials for the United States and the pronoun "us") movement to result in the U.S. actually withdrawing. Proposed legislation in both houses of U.S. Congress to withdraw has been met with minimal support, and has never come close to becoming U.S. policy. The appointment of John Bolton, however, who had been a vocal critic of the United Nations, as U.S. Ambassador in July 2005 was generally viewed as an indication that the George W. Bush administration was growing even more skeptical of the merits of the U.N.

External links

• Official website of the United States mission to the UN
• http://www.un.org/aboutun/history.htm
• http://www.iht.com/articles/88413.html
• http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0311-10.htm
• New push to 'get U.S. out of U.N.'
• http://www.getusout.org/