FOLLOW US
N. Brown: United States and United Nations: Defining a New Relationship in a Globalizing World
Written by Noel Brown, President, Friends of the United Nations
Wednesday, January 23, 2002
Delivered at an International Symposium on the United States and the United Nations, “Exploring the Future of U.S.-U.N. Relations,” January 23, 2002
By almost any measure and despite its many weaknesses and shortcomings, the United Nations must be considered a “success story” at least in terms of staying power. At 57, the United Nations remains the longest surviving multilateral, multifunctional organization in history. The United Nations is attempting to do what has never been done before on this scale and that is to create a “negotiated” world order of independent sovereign states that is universal in membership, global in scope and almost total in its responsibilities.
Like all institutions of this kind, however the United Nations is undergoing a major transition. But transition to what is not yet clear. Its future is not assured nor can it be taken for granted. Nowhere is it written that United Nations is destined to survive or to long remain in its present shape. It is after all only the second of such experiment in the twentieth century. It’s predecessor the League of Nations expired after only 20 years.
How the United Nations manages this transition therefore and what kind of organization will emerge at the end of the process will depend in large measure on the way it is utilized, nurtured and valued by its 189 members, but more especially on the nature and quality of support and leadership it receives from the United States.
And that is why future U.S.-U.N. relations is especially important and eminently timely. In the political geography of our time, the U.S. is de facto, the world’s “sole superpower,” which at one and the same time places it in a paradoxical and pivotal situation; since if the U.S. acts, it has consequences and if it does not act it likewise has consequence. Sometimes failure to act or to act in timely fashion may have even more far-reaching consequences than the action itself. Consequently how the United States defines its relationship with the globalizing world and the United Nations in particular will be of immense significance. Phrases like unilateralist or isolationism are not especially enlightening in view of the U.S. global interest and attendant global responsibilities. In this connection perhaps I could offer a few observations by way of context and perspective.
To begin with, the United Nations has always enjoyed a special relationship with U.S. This is not simply because it remains the “largest single contributor” to the various United Nations budgets, which may explain the temptation to define that relationship strictly in financial terms. More important is the fact that American values and leadership largely influenced the very conception and design of the United Nations. The very designation “United Nations” was of U.S. coinage… mainly that of President Roosevelt, whose vision of a “Post War World” greatly influenced and shaped the organization, as the world, and especially the allied power wrestled to find effective ways to unite strength to deter future aggression.
Moreover, the four freedoms, which he espoused: Freedom from fear; freedom from want; freedom to worship; freedom of opinion and expressions formed the backbone of the United Nations Charter and remains a driving force behind many of its operations. It is interesting to note that at the Millennium Summit held in September 2000 many of the same principles were reaffirmed in the Summit Declaration by governments at the highest levels, thereby suggesting their universal acceptance. One might add by way of “gender parity” that Eleanor Roosevelt was also a “U.N. activist” and a champion of the human rights revolution and she is now closely identified with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Roosevelt family may thus be said to have been closely involved in the formulation and development of the United Nations story.
If this fragment of history is taken as a point of departure, then it would follow logically that there is a fundamental linkage between the values long espoused and defended by the U.S. and the premises of the U.N. which makes for a special bond and a natural relationship. Any thought of abandoning the organization or going it alone as some have advocated or “Getting the U.S. out of the U.N.and the U.N. out of the U.S.” would mean walking away from its own values and the historic legacy of Roosevelt and other great American leaders. On the other hand, support for the organization would seem to be a way of guaranteeing the deepening of these important principles and values globally.
Good governance, transparency and accountability in a democratic and prosperous world seem to be in the best interest of the U.S. This does not mean blind support of the organization but “critical and constructive engagement” and prudent leadership as the foundation of a new kind of relationship. And the world now seems prepared for this.
Naturally in every such speculation there are risks of exaggeration or dangerous over-simplification, as well as the temptation to envisage a United Nations, shaped largely in the image and likeness of the U.S. without regard for other systems and values, principles and aspirations, particularly if there are no strong checks and balances in the global system capable of resisting such temptation.
Our challenge today is not to indulge in idle speculation or far-fetched political fantasies, but to engage in an informed and constructive conversation about our “future”; more precisely a cooperative and mutually supportive future between the U.S. and the U.N.
Reduced to a question the focus would seem to be this: How can the United Nations best serve the interest of the United States? And conversely how can the United States advance the mission of the United Nations in its service to humanity as envisaged in the Charter? We had a glimpse of a partial answerafter the September 11 attack when the world and the United Nations rallied to the side of the United States. Will the U.S. now rally to the side of the U.N. in building a future that works for everyone in a world that works for everyone? This is the question and our challenge today.