The United States of America--the United Nations: shared principles--shared future.

Over the past two years, the United Nations has been praised for its support of the United States during the aftermath of September 11, and faulted for tailing to support the United States and its allies in the war in Iraq. On the following pages, two perspectives on the U.S.-UN relationship are presented. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs Kim R. Holmes takes a look at both UN successes and problems in meeting its goals, while affirming U.S. commitment to helping the UN live up to those goals. Ambassador William II. Luers, president and CEO of the United Nations Association of the United States of America (UNA-USA) discusses the broad reach of the UN as it serves the nations of the world and, ultimately, U.S. global interests. Both officials look to a shared future, and observe that failure to come to agreement does not mean the UN itself is a failure.

UN Serves U.S. Global Interests

By William H. Luers, President and CEO, United Nations Association of the United States of America (UNA-USA)

For nearly 60 years, the United States Government has found the United Nations usually supportive of American interests and objectives. The UN has been the indispensable international body for the United States to build coalitions and broad international support, such as in the 1991 Gulf War. More recently, within 24 hours after the events of 9/11 the UN Security Council and then the UN General Assembly approved unanimous resolutions condemning the terrorists and calling for their punishment. Most of the member states of the UN seek American leadership and support, and recognize that the U.S. is the one democratic power most able and willing to find solutions to the world's problems.

On occasion, the UN has not been supportive of U.S. objectives. Last spring, for example, the UN Security Council would not approve a resolution to authorize military" action against Iraq because key allies of the U.S. within the Council disagreed with the planned action by the United States and United Kingdom. In the eyes of the world community, that UN security "forum"--just one of the many entities in the UN system--played the role it was designed to play. The Council expressed the will of some of its most powerful members against the action proposed by two of its members. The issues in dispute in the Security Council were important ones on which major nations disagreed. But the disagreements represented a failure of diplomacy and sharp national differences of worldview--NOT a failure of "the UN."

A more far reaching area of dispute between the U.S. and other UN member states has been--and continues to be--over the role of international law and treaties in setting norms of international behavior, one of the core issues of the Security Council debate over Iraq. To the extent that nations of the world disagree with American actions, that attitude is likely to be reflected in the UN Security Council, but "the UN" does not create or even promote such sentiment. The Security Council provides a neutral forum for debate, discussion and resolution.

Moreover, the UN system is much broader than the Security Council and most of that system consistently serves U.S. interests as well as the interests of other nations. For example, at the same time the Council debate was happening over Iraq, Asia experienced the outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS)--an infectious disease that threatened the lives and security of some of the most populous nations on earth. Thanks to the quick, reliable and universally accepted intervention of the UN's World Health Organization (WHO), actions were taken in China and elsewhere that--at least for now--quelled this threat.

The vast array of institutions and agencies that form this unique entity" that we refer to loosely as "the UN" has expanded over the past few decades to meet the needs of 191 member nations and a world population of 6 billion. While the world media and governments are focused on the Middle East and Iraq reconstruction, the UN is undertaking thousands of tasks around the world. The UN's World Food Program is feeding millions of citizens of Ethiopia; UN agencies are working to eliminate polio and fight HIV/AIDS in over 100 nations; and 14 UN missions are currently keeping the peace in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Europe--and much more in every corner of the world.

The strength of the UN system is its universality, its credibility, its moral authority and its willingness to take on the problems that may be distant from U.S. interests, resources and attention, but close to the many billions of our fellow citizens of this globe. Even if the UN has the inefficiencies of a large multinational institution, and even if it does not follow the United States on every issue, this amazingly far-reaching and respected organization serves our global interests well.

A U.S. commitment to making the UN stronger and more effective would make the United Nations an even more important factor in America's relations with the world.

Looking Forward: U.S.-UN Relations

By Kim R. Holmes, Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, U.S. Department of State

For over five decades, the United States, the United Nations and a good number of its members have shared a vision of the world in which peace and prosperity are the property of all people. We have shared core principles of freedom, democracy, good governance and human rights. Our key interest in engaging in multilateral organizations like the UN lies in promoting this vision and these principles.

We believe the UN does a good job in many areas, such as counterterrorism. After terrorists breached our shores in 2001, the Security Council and the General Assembly quickly lent their support. In less than two years, the new Counter-Terrorism Committee has effectively enhanced the capacities of states to fight terrorism.

In peacekeeping, recent efforts have helped maintain ceasefires and implement peace agreements. The first UN mission in East Timor went further. It helped the people create an interim government, adopt a constitution, hold elections and gain independence. UN peacekeeping operations need achievable objectives if they are to succeed. Peace enforcement that requires offensive military capability, as in Bosnia and Rwanda, is much more difficult; we do not want to send poorly armed peacekeepers into armed conflicts where they can make little difference or unwittingly become part of the problem.

The UN is most instrumental in providing humanitarian aid and refugee relief. The World Food Program is particularly effective. Hence, we and other nations contribute a great deal to it in voluntary funds.

Some of the UN's technical agencies also accomplish important work. The World Health Organization's response to the SARS outbreak and new International Maritime Organization measures that make it more difficult to use ships as tools of terrorism and decrease oil spills and pollution are good examples.

As much as the UN accomplishes, however, sometimes it does not work well or as well as we would like. The Security Council has at times failed to act when it should. UN member states have adopted conventions and treaties that we were unable to sign or ratify because of U.S. law, or because the outcome would be detrimental to our interests or not serve the document's ostensible principles. Each member has the right to decide which agreements it wants to join. This doesn't mean we think the UN is a failure.

The UN cannot be expected to do everything or give all areas the attention they need. There is still too much duplication and waste, and a need for mechanisms like sunset provisions that would help foster accountability. World events will always generate pressure on the UN to take on new work; yet an ever-increasing budget is not sustainable. The UN should prioritize programs to become even more effective and efficient.

UN agencies and commissions should remain focused on their missions and avoid politicized debates. The Commission on Human Rights did not; it strayed dramatically from its founding principle to defend, protect and promote human rights. Consequently, it lost credibility in the eyes of the world.

Democracy and good governance should always be at the center of UN activities. They help to foster and reinforce the peace. We have seen progress in certain areas, but more can be done. For any reform to take root, member states must meet their obligations, accept their responsibilities and adhere to the principles for which the UN was founded.

We will continue to engage in the UN system because it is in our national interest to do so. We need an international forum where leaders of the world can settle their differences at the table of diplomacy. We need a multilateral organization that enables us to leverage our resources to meet the challenges that lie ahead. In so many cases, this is the most efficient way for the U.S. and other nations to promote international peace and security, protect the innocent, fight poverty and pandemic diseases, and advance the values and principles we have long cherished. We not only want the UN to live up to these goals; we are committed to helping it do so.