英文版32】美国在联合国的利益

America’s Interests in the United Nations A U.S. Response to the report of the un secretary-general’s high-level panel on threats, challenges and change By Six Former U.S. Permanent Representatives to the UN Thomas Weston, Program Manager Parag Khanna, Rapporteur Institute for the Study of Diplomacy Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY Peter Burleigh James Cunningham Jeanne J. Kirkpatrick Donald F. McHenry Edward Perkins Thomas R. Pickering THE INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF DIPLOMACY (ISD), founded in 1978, is a program of Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service and is the School’s primary win- dow on the world of the foreign affairs practitioner. ISD studies the practitioner’s craft: how diplomats and other foreign affairs professionals succeed and the lessons to be learned from their successes and failures. Institute programs focus on the foreign policy process: how decisions are made and implemented. ISD conducts its programs through a small staff and resident and non- resident “associates.” Associates, primarily U.S. and foreign govern- ment officials, are detailed to or affiliated with the Institute for a year or more. The Institute seeks to build academic-practitioner collabora- tions around issues using associates and Georgetown faculty. ISD staff and associates teach courses, organize lectures and discussions, and mentor students. In addition, ISD’s Pew Case Studies in International Affairs are used in over 1,000 courses in the United States and abroad. BOARD OF DIRECTORS Thomas R. Pickering Chairman of the Board Max M. Kampelman Chairman Emeritus Peter F. Krogh L. Thomas Hiltz Vice-chairmen Dennis Blair Thomas Boyatt Kathy Bushkin Chester A. Crocker J. Michael Farrell Joseph B. Gildenhorn Brandon Grove, Jr. Lee H. Hamilton Brian C. Henderson Frank J. Hogan Arthur H. House Andrew Jacovides Omar M. Kader Farooq Kathwari Tommy Koh Carol J. Lancaster Samuel W. Lewis Donald F. McHenry Mark C. Medish David C. Miller, Jr. David D. Newsom Phyllis E. Oakley William E. Odom Mark Palmer Rinaldo Petrignani Cokie B. Roberts J. Stapleton Roy Tara Sonenshine Peter D. Sutherland Nancy Bernkopf Tucker James E. Walker III Frank G. Wisner Milton A. Wolf America’s Interests in the United Nations A U.S. Response to the report of the un secretary-general’s high-level panel on threats, challenges and change By Six Former U.S. Permanent Representatives to the UN Thomas Weston, Program Manager Parag Khanna, Rapporteur Peter Burleigh James Cunningham Jeanne J. Kirkpatrick Donald F. McHenry Edward Perkins Thomas R. Pickering Institute for the Study of Diplomacy Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY Note: The views experssed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of any of the individuals or organizations, governmental or pri- vate, with which the individual participants in the discussion group are affiliated. Institute for the Study of Diplomacy Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. 20057–1025 © 2005 by the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy. All rights reserved by the publisher. No part of this Report may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise—without permission in writ- ing from the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy. Material contained in this Report may be quoted with appropriate citation. The Institute for the Study of Diplomacy appreciates the grant provided by the UN Foundation, which made this project possible. 3 ISD’s Examination of America’s Interests in the United Nations During the UN General Assembly meeting in September 2003, Secretary-General Kofi Annan created a High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change to provide him and the member states of the United Nations with ideas about the policies and institutions required for the United Nations to be effective in the twenty-first century. The panel submitted to him in December 2004 a report entitled “A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibilities,” an analysis of how to improve the collective institutionalized response to the most pressing threats and challenges to global peace and security. The report also presented more than one hundred specific recommendations to the secretary-general and the member states. With a view to informing the U.S. administration, the Congress, and the public as they consider reactions and approaches to the panel’s recommendations and the broader question of the U.S.’s engagement with the United Nations, the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, with the support of the United Nations Foundation, developed a program to examine the panel’s report from the perspec- tive of U.S. interests in the United Nations in the years ahead. The program brought together U.S. permanent representatives and long-serving acting permanent representatives to the United Nations from every U.S. administration of the last twenty-five years. They included ambassadors Thomas R. Pickering, Jeanne J. Kirkpatrick, Donald F. McHenry, Edward Perkins, James Cunningham, and Peter Burleigh. The permanent representatives held a lengthy private discus- sion followed by a public presentation on the campus of Georgetown University on February 14, 2005, chaired by ISD Board Chairman Pickering. There was no attempt to achieve a consensus of views on the part of the permanent representatives, although on some issues a near consensus was reached. Rather, the discussion elicited expression of a variety of views on the report itself and discussion of some issues not treated in the report, many of which point to recommendations likely to elicit support from the United States and those that may not. The participants did not try to address the more than one hundred recommendations of the High-Level Panel but did take on a number of the most noteworthy. The report of the deliberations was prepared by former Ambassador Thomas Weston, the project’s program manager, and Parag Khanna, the program rapporteur. Casimir A. Yost Director 4 America’s Interests in the United Nations America’s Interests in the United Nations a u.s. response to the report of the un secretary-general’s high-level panel on threats, challenges and change Thomas Weston and Parag Khanna SUMMARY The six former U.S. permanent representatives to the United Nations who gathered on February 14, 2005, at Georgetown University to deliberate on the UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel report on Threats, Challenges and Change did so at a time of some controversy related to the accountability of UN bodies for recent misdeeds, real and alleged, especially those related to the Oil-for-Food program. Instead of focusing on those controversies, the permanent representa- tives deliberated on the implications of the panel’s report and recom- mendations for U.S. interests in the UN organization, resulting in a discussion that highlighted agreement on the need for UN reform and on the elements of reform that could find favor with a broad spectrum of U.S. opinion. Those findings included the following: � Most, but not all, of the permanent representatives welcomed the report, but most felt that it would have been strengthened by pri- oritizing the recommendations. � All of the permanent representatives supported an activist U.S. government role in the United Nations and saw the necessity of this if a serious reform agenda was to be carried out. 5 � All of the permanent representatives placed emphasis on the necessity of fundamental reform of the UN Secretariat, arguing that it is a barrier to progress. Several participants particularly favored empowering the secretary-general and holding him accountable. � Most permanent representatives were skeptical that the panel’s call for an expanded Security Council would enhance the power and effectiveness of the Security Council. The report was judged to be an excellent start on recommending ways to improve the United Nations, especially in the elaboration of a definition of terrorism, the emphasis on the importance of taking steps on furthering nonproliferation, the advancement of thinking on the use of force, and the need for reforming the institutions of the United Nations, especially the Secretariat. Questions were raised about whether the report would lead anywhere without sustained support from the United States and other key members of the United Nations. In fact, several permanent representatives called for enhan- cing the authority of the secretary-general over the Secretariat as a means of increasing accountability and effectiveness. There was no dissent about the need for ensuring the accountability of the secretary -general as the chief administrative officer of the organization for its operations. There was, however, wide recognition that full accounta- bility was not possible without substantial changes in the personnel and management practices of the Secretariat to give the secretary-gen- eral the necessary authority and responsibility. It was noted that such changes would have to apply to the personnel of all member states, including the United States. On the elaboration of criteria for the use of force, the examination of article 51 in the report, which appeared to increase its elasticity, was a step forward, even though the permanent representatives viewed as unrealistic in today’s world acceptance of article 51 and chapter VII of the UN Charter as absolute constraints on member states’ actions. The point was made that the expansion of acceptance of criteria on the use of force (especially with regard to the “responsi- bility to protect”) was increasingly being honored, in particular by African states. 6 America’s Interests in the United Nations In a long discussion of the report’s consideration of Security Council reform, there was no dissent from the view that any Security Council expansion could decrease the council’s effectiveness and therefore had to be questioned in term of U.S. interests. Moreover, realistically, the permanent representatives agreed with the report’s analysis that no permanent member of the Security Council was like- ly to give up either its seat or its veto. The change in Security Council membership viewed as most likely would be the eventual establish- ment of a European Union (EU) seat, though whether either of the current EU permanent five (P-5 members of the Security Council— that is, the United Kingdom and France) would be prepared to yield to an EU seat seemed remote—and a matter for EU members to resolve themselves. An evolutionary move toward more semiperma- nent members through choices by regional groupings and the weight of certain states within regions was noted. The other suggested poten- tial evolutionary developments in the Security Council were moves to increase restraint in the use of the veto by permanent members, through adoption of the recommendation on “indicative voting” or through agreements by the permanent five on conditions under which use of the veto would be justified. The call for reform of the UN Human Rights Commission in the report found wide support, although not proposals for universal membership. Several agreed that a depoliticization of human rights issues in the UN system was necessary. The recommendation for the establishment of a Peace Building Commission was generally favored in terms of increasing the efficien- cy of peace-building efforts in the United Nations and across the spe- cialized agencies and for its possibilities in leveraging additional resources for peace building efforts. Some concern was expressed about the implications of establishing a commission as a means of imposing restraints on unilateral U.S. peace-building efforts in this area. Concerns were also expressed about potential increases in costs to the United States should there be a move toward requiring assessed contributions for operations under such a commission. The potential for enhancing states’ capabilities through peace building, especially since enhancing states’ capabilities by definition included advancing of democracy, was noted. Summary 7 THE REPORT OF THE HIGH-LEVEL PANEL The report itself was introduced in the public session by Bruce Jones, the deputy research director of the UN High-Level Panel secretariat. Elaborating on the impetus for Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s con- vening of the panel in late 2003, he said that, after the diplomatic cri- sis over the U.S. invasion of Iraq, it was essential to reconcile the divergent priorities of the United States and the United Nations. The United States had further delineated an array of new threats that the United Nations lacked a comprehensive strategy to confront. Hence the guiding question for the panel members was, “Could the UN reform itself to deal with new threats to international peace and secu- rity?” The process was motivated by both successes and failures. Despite the either late or lacking peacekeeping missions in Rwanda, the for- mer Yugoslavia, and other countries, Jones pointed out, more civil wars have been settled by mediation in the past decade than in the past several hundred years. The presence not only of peacekeepers, but also of an array of international mechanisms such as diplomatic observers, has contributed to this positive trend. There were, in short, enough failures to demand reform but also enough successes to guide it. The panel adopted a framework focusing on six areas: wars between states; wars within states; organized crime; terrorism; nuclear proliferation; and social threats such as poverty, disease, and environ- mental scarcity—all of which affect the ability of citizens and states to participate in society. As the panel’s final report noted, “Collective security built on weak states will fail.” Both concerns raised by the United States as well as nontraditional threats were taken very seri- ously. The report argued that in all areas investigated, threats can cross borders and endanger state stability. Furthermore, consultations with scientific experts shed light on how issues such as conflict, dis- ease, and state failure are deeply interconnected. The panel members therefore adopted the position that reciprocity in relations—or mutu- al aid—is critical in moving toward taking collective action to solve common problems. 8 America’s Interests in the United Nations THE DELIBERATIONS OF THE PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVES The permanent representatives began with the key question for the United States of whether the United Nations—as it is represented in New York, specifically through the Security Council and the General Assembly—is worth the effort to reform. There was wide agreement that the answer is yes but some questioning about whether the United States has the “political stamina” to do so, which would require a sus- tained, multiyear commitment that engages the Congress in a biparti- san fashion. Some were skeptical that such a consistent approach is sustainable by any U.S. administration let alone whether it could be continued over multiple presidencies. All agreed, however, that it was difficult to imagine any of the High-Level Panel recommendations coming to fruition without strong U.S. support. Indeed, the entire dynamic within the United Nations without strong U.S. leadership would be hard to predict. It was noted that the more the United States leads in fostering reform, the more that reform will be in the U.S.’s interest. With few exceptions, such interests among many states are aligned with those of the United States. One participant stated that, although the report was a useful effort, many of its recommendations stand little if any chance of being adopt- ed or implemented. Another supported the High-Level Panel’s pur- pose, namely to adapt a 1945, interstate conflict era charter to the twenty-first century, where the prevailing form of conflict is intra- state. Though guidelines may be lacking to deal with civil wars, pro- cedures have evolved over time through the very messy process of dealing with them in succession. If lessons were applied to future sit- uations as is done in the report, that would represent progress. Another former permanent representative was hopeful that the High-Level Panel would be a solid platform to generate greater under- standing within the United States about what the United Nations is as a foreign policy tool. He argued that if the United Nations did not exist, the United States would have to sit down and try to invent something like it. One permanent representative noted that there is broad support in the United States for the United Nations, but no clear consensus on its The Deliberations of the Permanent Representatives 9 universal utility in promoting U.S. interests. Polls show high support for the United Nations, but international issues related to the United Nations rank low on the public’s priorities. Another permanent rep- resentative cautioned that, though the general public in the United States is very supportive of the United Nations, there is no agreed policy among the Congress, the Executive and the other branches of leadership about a framework for U.S. leadership. The United Nations has strong support in the general public and in the Congress, but many have specific reservations about particular provisions. A comparison was made of universal support among the U.S. public for the Declaration of Independence, but opposition on the part of many to statements therein quoted in isolation. One permanent representa- tive was strongly of the view that detractors of the United Nations may not advocate for withdrawal, but they will continue to nag and investigate and undermine it. Another suggested recasting the United Nations in terms of the work of its specialized agencies to build sup- port for practical efforts. Several permanent representatives stated that many High-Level Panel proposals would not be accepted by many member states of the United Nations, nor by the Secretariat bureaucracy. For example, many member states could oppose the distinction between inter- and intrastate conflict. Overcoming such opposition will require diploma- cy and leadership currently not present, according to one permanent representative. It was noted that there are political forces in the United States that do not want to see the United Nations become more effective. Another permanent representative believed that it was not enough for the report to denounce unilateralism; rather, the High-Level Panel should have come up with better mechanisms for collective security. The panel did not resolve the tensions between unilateral versus col- lective action, hard versus soft threats, and legal versus illegal actions. Instead, it basically said that everything is important, thus nothing is more important than anything else. Collective security priorities, how- ever, must exist. They must be identified, and the United Nations must be made to focus on them, overcoming its institutional paralysis. Many have not come to terms with the qualitatively new threats and the extraordinary will that needs to be brought to bear to confront 10 America’s Interests in the United Nations them. The secretary-general’s letter of transmittal of the report to the General Assembly identified AIDS, weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and terrorism as key threats to focus on, which the perma- nent representatives agreed was a good start. Secretariat The permanent representatives discussed at length the need for man- agement reform at the United Nations in several areas. They paid great attention to the dilemma of holding the secretary-general accountable, as the chief administrative officer of the organization, for the operations of the organization