Troubled Marriage:
The United States and the UN
Interview with Ambassador William H. Luers
The United Nations. No other organization better symbolizes
global cooperation and shared values than the sixty-nine year
old institution headquartered on the eastern shore of
Manhattan. Consequently, as rifts have opened on global
questions of peace and security, doubts have arisen about the
effectiveness of the United Nations. Many in the United States
and specifically the second Bush administration remain
unconvinced as to the UN’s ability to successfully address
pressing security questions. Circumstances in Iraq, Iran, and
Darfur have exacerbated underlying tensions, making the relationship
between the United States and the UN a rocky one of
late. The Journal spoke with Ambassador William Luers, the
head of the United Nations Association of the United States,
to discuss the UN’s strengths, weaknesses, and role in the
twenty-first century.
GJ I A : Are discussions concerning the relevance of the UN that
took place before the war in Iraq over? Or is this a challenge
that should be discussed on an ongoing basis?
L U E R S : That discussion is probably over for the time being. But
I think it raises a far more serious question about the role of
the UN. The UN’s relevance is unquestionable in so many different areas. What needs to be determined
is how the UN can play a meaningful
role in this increasingly complex
environment in which two issues,
humanitarian intervention and combat
ing terrorism, especially with regards to
weapons of mass destruction, have
become such dominant themes.
First, the Secretary General is a believer
in humanitarian intervention, which
involves some type of political—or even
military—intervention in cases of geno
cide or when leaders perpetrate particularly
heinous crimes, such as the cases of
Rwanda or Saddam Hussein. Second,
President Bush’s justifiable obsession
with the issues of terrorism and weapons
of mass destruction has sparked a debate
about whether a valid basis exists to take
urgent action to authorize military force
to head this off.
In the context of these two issues, how
does the UN get itself reorganized? How
can we start thinking differently about
the UN? How can we define its role in
maintaining international peace and
security?
GJ I A : The UN Charter is explicitly rooted
in the principles of sovereignty and
non-interference in the internal affairs
of other states. How does one reconcile
this with the increasing role of non-state
actors in terrorism and the proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction? Do you
feel that this heightens the relevance of
the UN through the needs for increased
cooperation between state actors?
L U E R S : Almost by definition the threats
today to sovereign states come from nonsovereign
actors. This argues for greater
coherency and collaboration among
states, all of which have a common con
cern about these threats, though to varying
degrees.
Another way the UN responds to these
non-state threats is by focusing on individual
rights and the growth of civil soci
ety throughout the world. This is becom
ing an increasingly important component
of the UN’s mission.
GJ I A : How can the UN avoid the perception
of U.S. preponderance in directing
the actions of the organization, particu
larly in the context of terrorism and
weapons of mass destruction? Or is this
unavoidable?
L U E R S : The UN faces a paradox, as you
pointed out. Without U.S. power, support,
financial backing, and general
endorsement, the UN is ineffective. But
since the UN is a universal organization,
this raises the question of how to balance
U.S. interests with the interests of all the
other member states.
The issue out there as the UN looks to
reform is the U.S. concern that the UN’s
basic interest now is to restrain American
power. The nations of the world are
encouraging the United States to abide by
certain rules in its pursuit of security,
particularly when it involves the use of
force. That tension exists now, and it has
always existed. I think it is more profound
today under this president than it
has been in any other moment since the
organization was founded.