Does the United States Need the United Nations?

In today's global village, this is somewhat like asking: "Does New York need the United States?" The problem is that we have not broken the habit of thinking of the United Nations as "them" rather than "us". Its successes are our successes; its failures our failures. This was widely understood after the Second World War, when the United States took the lead in creating the United Nations and became its host; ironically, it seems to be largely unrealized today, at the very time that war is joined by other unforeseen threats to human existence and well-being that cry out for governance on the world level. Basic to understanding the United Nations present situation is the fact that the nations have never allowed it either the powers or the funding necessary to achieve its ambitious purposes.

Like the Continental Congress in America, it is at the mercy of the willingness of its Member States to pay their assessments. Even worse, it cannot borrow. Given these limitations, the accomplishments of the United Nations system are nothing short of remarkable. It has achieved and retained virtually universal membership, phased out colonialism rapidly with surprisingly little bloodshed, monitored free elections in some 50 countries, and helped keep more than 80 conflicts from exploding into war. Its agencies have trained teachers and expanded literacy, wiped out smallpox from the earth, cut child mortality rates in half since 1960 and delivered millions of pounds of food for famine relief. It has stationed 42 peacekeeping units in trouble spots, which may have made the difference in averting a third world war. All this has cost the United States about $7 per person per year. Compare that with about $1,000 per person annually for the military, which a stronger United Nations might enable us to cut substanti ally.

Taking the long view, the case is far more compelling. An important principle of social organization is subsidiarity. Each decision should be made at the lowest level where it can be done effectively. Thus, some things are decided locally, others require state action, and some have to be handled nationally. And some require global solutions.

Globalization is the wave of the future. The worldwide web dissolves the barriers of time and space. A raging flood of speculative capital ignores national boundaries. Transnational corporations shift jobs and resources wherever costs are low and restrictions are few. The gap between the "haves" and "have-nots" widens, both among and within countries. Population burgeons as forests disappear, arable land erodes or is paved over, air and water are polluted, and deserts expand. Genocide seems to demand humanitarian intervention, even at the expense of national sovereignty. Refugees from hunger or civil strife pour across boundaries, straining the social fabric elsewhere. Nuclear weapons proliferate into irresponsible hands, while deadly radioactive wastes accumulate. Global warming and depletion of the ozone layer require a global response. Water, a necessity of life, will soon replace oil as the most fought-over scarce resource. Never again will the United States be able to isolate itself from the world's prob lems, or to expect to solve them unilaterally.

To put it mildly, the world is in a life-threatening mess. Only an empowered United Nations or a stronger successor organization can preserve a livable planet for future generations. In this fleeting moment of our ascendancy in the world, we, Americans, have more potential than any other people to determine the success or failure of the human experiment. It is in our best interest to exercise leadership in strengthening and supporting institutions that can deal effectively with the global problems that threaten our very existence.

The paradigm for our new century is "Spaceship Earth"--the beautiful, undivided ball that our astronauts saw from the moon. A spaceship can succeed only if everyone on board cooperates in a fully accepted plan. Narrow nationalism must give way to loyalty to the best interests of all, if a livable world is to survive. This is the necessity--and the glory--of the new millennium.

Dr. Everett Reflor is an emeritus professor of economics at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater and former President of the Campaign for United Nations Reform.