Informal Session with Prof. Edward Luck on
“Prospects and Challenges of UN Multilateralism”
New York, August 8, 2003

On August 8, 2003 the Permanent Mission of Indonesia to the UN hosted an informal session with Prof. Edward Luck on “Prospects and Challenges of UN Multilateralism.” Prof. Luck is an expert on US-UN relations and UN affairs. Currently he is the Director of the Center on International Organization at Columbia University. During the presentation Dr. Luck presented his views on UN multilateralism, looking specifically at American exceptionalism and the reform agenda of the UN. The summary of his presentation is as follows:

American Exceptionalism

There is recognition that the US is both exceptional and ambivalent.

Four characteristics make the US exceptional with respect to the UN:

1. A willingness to go it alone and a feeling of being immune to criticism.

2. An assumption that its national values are universal and that its policies are expedient, moral, proper and just.

3. Inward looking sources of legitimacy.

4. Multilateralism seen as an option, not an obligation, and one of many alternatives.

Within the context of UN history, other countries can be viewed as exceptional: the USSR, France and China.

There are several sources of US ambivalence:

1. History, geography, political culture.

a. History – The US has a sense that as a nation, it differs from the powers in Europe. The US arose from those who fled the European systems and from 1776 onward, have maintained different internal as well as external relations.

b. Geography – It has kept itself apart from others in terms of security but has embraced others things such as globalization.

c. Political culture – The US has maintained a skepticism regarding the role of government and has tended to perceive government as intrusive. There is a general trust of local authorities but less with state governments and even less with those at the federal levels. Hence, the UN is not attractive specifically because it supercedes these bodies as a global government entity. Americans perceive themselves to be distant from the UN.

2. Dominant political framework: Federalism. This paradigm leads to a different understanding of government.

a. American ambivalence to global institutions – Americans generally think well of the UN but have an idealized support of it. The American population is a polarized body politic with about 20% opposed to global institutions.

b. Politicized issues: generally, Democrats are in favor of global bodies whereas Republicans are opposed to them. In Congress, these issues become very divisive.

c. Geopolitical and strategic – is the US too big to fit in the world? Trying to balance international power relations in government bodies is difficult because these power arrangements are asymmetrical and imbalanced. The US is focused on results and not process. Americans find it difficult to identify with UN declarations.

The US is not fundamentally opposed to international institutions and their support varies by issue. Overall, Republicans have tended to support multilateral economic and trade issues (WTO, NAFTA) more than Democrats. However, the US has a very idealistic perception of what multilateralism is and has often been let down by it.

Public opinion polls demonstrate that US citizens do not support the UN. A Washington Post/ABC poll taken before the war in Iraq showed a 75% disapproval rating against the UN and a Gallup poll showed 58% versus 37% of Americans saying the UN was not doing a good job. The subsequent war in Iraq further damaged the UN’s importance in the eyes of Americans with 60% of them in May 2003 (as opposed to 32% in March 2003) saying the UN had become less important. Additionally, the 43% in 2003 agreed that the UN was a good influence on the US as opposed to 72% in 2002.

Outside the US, public opinion of the UN has also deteriorated. In Europe, there has been an increase of people agreeing that the UN has become less important. In developing countries, the decreasing importance of the UN has become even larger. Fewer believe that the UN has a good influence on their country in 2003 than in 2002.

Reform Agenda at the UN

According to Kofi Annan, the UN may be in need of radical reform. Issues such as the realignment of ECOSOC and the Security Council need to be addressed as well as the need for voices to be heard and a reiteration of the importance of the UN. Furthermore, other issues must also be addressed. Is there a need for pre-emptive action? With an emphasis on prevention, who decides? These general issues must be discussed in the GA.

In terms of reform, there are several current problems. Although the need for reform is great, the bad political climate hinders the actual ability to achieve reform. There is an imbalance of power with respect to inside debate and outside implementation. Most countries want reform but they want it less reflective of outside power dynamics. This may sound attractive but in actuality, is not conducive to radical reform.

The decision making process is also problematic at the UN. Security issues and terrorism, while important, are uncomfortably managed at the UN. It is difficult for the US to envision how that UN fits into the broad efforts of these issues. The CTC may be running out of steam and the Secretariat is not organized to deal with terror.

The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is also an issue that has split member states. The role of the Security Council with respect to violations to the NPT etc. remains in question and it is unclear what the Council does. Is the Security Council focused on local crises? Or is it responsible for international peace and security across the board? Will the Security Council become marginalized, dealing with only certain issues? US dominance has led to the dominance of Security Council issues.

Questions & Answers

Q1:
US attitudes towards the UN can be seen as cynicism. For example, in Somalia, the US blamed the UN for failures there. In Rwanda, the US stance on the use of the word “genocide” in terms of the atrocities on the ground led to no action in the country. How much of this is naivety on the part of the US?

A1:
The US acts in the UN with both cynicism and idealism in its use of international institutions. Why did Bush make that speech at the UNSC? Why are Americans still supportive of the war? All polls show about 70% support since the beginning to get rid of Saddam and not WMDs. It was not until Bush went to the UN that WMDs came into it. The whole US notion was about regime change. Did Bush go to the UN `through cynicism or idealism? Bush probably thought the case would be very convincing and would get support. He was over confident. The US often looks cynical but sees the UN as where states go to do business. There is a notion that common ground can be found. In pragmatic terms, the US pays less attention to process. The US is trying to do the same thing as other states and is not more cynical than others. In Somalia, we had no interests there. We went in and thought it would be fast. The US pinned the blame on the UN. As for Rwanda, both the Security Council and the US were reluctant to do anything.

Q2: Two part question:

1. We have exhausted what we can do on substantive reform. The UN has to reflect political realities. The world is not democratic but what is right? To have reform exercises to show the world we are doing something but remain stuck in a stalemate? There is a lot of talk but little is ever done.

2. Given the political reality, is there hope for the UN? Do we need to wait for a new administration?
A2: Reform is a process, not an event. It must be ongoing. Reform at the UN is seen as punishment but even the best of institutions need reform. We need to look at it as adaptation since priorities change. Reform can happen.

Q3:
The UN is a brainchild of the US and promotes US values (such as democracy). There is a need for reform to make it more efficient. If:

1. The big states are leaders, what does it mean for overcoming the challenges facing the UN?

2. At the UNGA, how can we bring back multilateralism?

A3:
There are probably people in the US administration that would probably want to weaken the UN but they are probably not a majority. They should not look at the Uzn as a way to constrain the US however, opposition to the war made this viewpoint prevalent in the US. It feeds the US view that we are difference and that the UN is not for us. Seeing the US as a problem is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Loose caricaturing of this administration gets away from solid analysis.

Q4: There are several parts to this question.

1. The US seems to be willing to go it alone. The cost of unilateralism is high. Iraq will cost over $100 billion and more than $1000 per household. Does the US realize this? What’s the impact on the White House?

2. The issues of developing countries seem to have been missed. If Cancún fails, there will be an increase in unilateralism and bilateralism and more protectionism. What is the cost of the failure of Cancún?

3. The US appears distant from the Millenium Goals. How can the separation of power in the US support the long term commitment to the MDGs? Is there hope?

A4: Universally broad international cooperation is mandatory. There is strong recognition of burden sharing. The political pattern in the US is that the US cares more about partners than international organizations and results over ideas. The idea of partnership matters.

The public is becoming more aware of the costs and Congress is giving Paul Wolfowitz trouble. The administration says its cheap and easy but it’s not looking at the past. Bush’s inexperience has resulted in not pushing people to get the numbers. He has failed to remember that we are not good policers and we are not imperialists. There was no multilateral alternative in this case. There was no alternative except not going to war.

In terms of Cancún, how deep is the US commitment to these goals. It is easy to sign on. The attitudes to development are very divided. The separation of powers leads to big problems. There is a constant want to negate the works of previous administrations. A new Congress means they want to do new things. It makes it hard to get things done.

Q5: This is a two part question:

1. The Council on Foreign Relations said that the UN needed to build a bigger consensus among major players and compared it to the WTO. What do you think of this?

2. Does the US use its supremacy wisely? Will the US sign the ICC or Kyoto?

A5:
The WTO was backed by the Republicans. On issues like trade the US and the European Union are able to battle it out through international organizations. However, security issues are different and you cannot have that at the UN. The imbalance incapacitates the UN. During the post-Cold War, there has been decreased defense spending by all countries but the gaps remain huge. In terms of Kyoto and the ICC, the US won’t sign either. Kyoto is an ongoing process but the document is flawed. The world is not ready for the ICC. Regional courts like Rwanda and Yugoslavia can work. The political groundwork for the ICC has not been laid out in the US. NGOs did not work with the US from the beginning because it was too difficult. They thought they could come back later and convince the US but it was too late. It plays into the conspiracy theory of everyone being against the US.

Q6: What are the chances of Bush’s re-election?

A6:
It is too early to tell. Bush is beatable if the Democrats are unified and have a strong candidate. If the economy is weak, Bush will struggle. However, the economy shows signs of rebounding. Approval ratings are high but not that high. Rebuilding Iraq is what people should be supporting: making it work does not support the war but the establishment of stability in the region.

Q7: How influential is the media’s role in forming American opinion?

A7:
Americans are ignorant of foreign affairs. The US is learning more but international institutions do not come up much. Media does not lead public opinion but it gives the public what they want which is entertainment. The media reflects the US public.

--ooOoo--