UN Bashing Redux
Posted by David Shorr
In the category of right wing retreads, guess what's near the top of the agenda for the House Foreign Affairs Committee under its new Republican management. Did you guess witholding the dues our country pays to the big bad anti-American United Nations (subject of a January 25 hearing)? No? Well, it does have an eccentric pet peeve feel to it, to be sure. Not to mention serious tone-deafness about the United States' international image. But some Republicans just loooove to beat up on the UN, can't hardly help themselves.
In all seriousness, though, this is an issue that highlights a genuine contrast of perspectives. Those who support or oppose witholding America's share of the UN budget represent distinct ways of looking at the world body -- and the US international role, for that matter. Look at what Committee Chair Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen said in her opening statement at the recent hearing (in the first para she's quoting her own earlier statement):
‘With significant leadership by the United States, the United Nations was founded on high ideals. The pursuit of international peace and development, and the promotion of basic human rights are core, historic concerns of the American people. At its best, the U.N. can play an important role in promoting U.S. interests and international security, but reality hasn’t matched the ideals.’
Accordingly, U.S. policy on the United Nations should be based on three fundamental questions: Are we advancing American interests? Are we upholding American values? and are we being responsible stewards of American taxpayer dollars?
Translation: has the UN proven itself worthy of our support? Unless the global forum is meeting the United States' expectations, we shouldn't have to pay. The argument combines "what have you done for me lately" with "I'm taking my bat and ball and going home."
Over at the Heritage Foundation's Foundry blog, Brett Schaefer kept the debate going by taking issue with a speech on the subject by Assistant Secretary of State Esther Brimmer. (She spoke at Brookings on February 1 partly to respond to the House hearing.) Here's part of the quote Brett cited:
No longer can our adversaries at the UN change the subject to our arrears when we press them on an important policy matter, as they did for so long. The President’s decision to pay our UN assessments in full means that we have had more political capital to galvanize support from allies, partners, and others for achieving our goals at the United Nations.
Where Ros-Lehtinen and Schaefer see a scandalously wayward culprit due for behavior modification, the Obama administration sees a vital diplomatic arena (e.g. Iran sanctions) where the United States has to be mindful of its reputation. In his post, Schaefer argues that for Brimmer to characterize witheld US dues as hindering diplomatic efforts merely shows a lack of confidence in the administration's own diplomatic effectiveness. In response, I'd say Brett shows a lack of appreciation for how effective American heavy-handedness is in arousing international resentment and resistance.
I should add that over the years, I've found Brett to be a conscientious partner in bipartisan dialogue. I would probably endorse many of the criticisms he makes in his written testimony for the recent hearing in the House. I would never claim that the UN has a stellar record of effectiveness, and to his credit, Brett acknowledges that the UN can claim some important contributions. The question here is one of proportion. For Republicans to devote one of their very first hearings to the UN's deficiencies and threaten to withold our dues hardly keeps things in perspective -- never mind the lack of self-awareness about the effects of American bullying.