Peace-keeping and multilateral relations in U.S. foreign policy - Douglas Bennet Jr., Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs

US Department of State Dispatch, Dec 5, 1994

I cannot tell you how pleased I am to be here. It is not that I don't love Washington; it is just that I love almost anyplace else more.

In this information-sated, wisdomstarved age, institutions that truly educate are rare; but among the precious few are the Woodrow Wilson School and the United Nations Association. The Wilson School is among the world's great training grounds for future national and international leaders. The UNA/U.S.A.--which like the UN is now in its 50th year--is more vital than ever and has become a leading center of foreign policy scholarship.

So, I look upon this evening as a great opportunity--certainly for me, and I hope for you. Real foreign policy dialogue between the executive branch and interested Americans has always mattered a lot; in this dynamic and contentious era, it matters a lot more. In the interest of frank discussion tonight, I will begin with one assertion and one assurance.

The assertion is that the fundamentals of American foreign policy under President Clinton and Secretary of State Christopher are on target for our times--including a determination to strengthen United Nations peace-keeping and other mechanisms for international cooperation.

The assurance is that the recent elections will not change that. The evidence that our policies are sound is demonstrated increasingly by results--North American and global trade agreements that create good, new jobs; steady progress toward peace in the Middle East; a firm response to Iraqui threats in the Persian Gulf; continued democratic reform in the former Soviet Union; and accord with North Korea on the nuclear issue; and momentum through NATO and the Partnership for Peace toward the most significant and elusive goal of this century--a secure, integrated, and fully democratic Europe. We are also working hard and successfully to imbue the United Nations with fresh energy.

Contrary to what some pundits would have you believe, most Americans think highly of the UN. According to a recent New York Times poll, 77% of us believe the United Nations is contributing to world peace, 89% say the U.S. should cooperate with other countries through the UN, and 59% think we have "a responsibility to contribute troops to enforce peace plans in trouble spots around the world" when the UN asks.

Another poll, taken last February, showed 80% of the public agreeing that the UN could be trusted "to do the right thing" some or most of the time, a degree of confidence nine points higher than that accorded the Government of the United States.

Main Street, America, is overrun with multilateralists. That does not mean that most Americans sit up nights thinking about the UN. If you are at all like me, you are focused on family, crime, health, the weather, and how to avoid coverage of the O.J. Simpson trial. But we in this country have developed a deep appreciation over the years of the concept of burden-sharing; we think others should bear some of the costs and take some of the risks of maintaining world order. We understand well, by the evidence of our own lives, that the line between "at-home" concerns and "out there" events has become thoroughly blurred.

Our workers, farmers, and businesspeople compete in a global market; they recognize that or they would not succeed. The plagues of the modern age--drugs, terrorism, pollution, and epidemic disease--respect no borders; illegal immigration sets pulses racing from the east coast to the west; and modern technology brings images of heroes and horror from around the world into our living rooms every day. There is no more direct or local an interest to American families than the possibility that a son or daughter one day will be called into combat because we have allowed small wars to become big ones or because we have allowed deadly weapons to fall into the wrong hands.

A sizeable chunk of the frustration that voters feel toward national governments--including our own--is that they often seem to be struggling separately and in vain to deal with problems that, by their very nature, require international cooperation.

Today, we have an historic opportunity, in the words of Secretary of State Christopher, to "build and renew the lasting relationships, structures, and institutions that advance America's enduring interests." Among these are international organizations such as the UN that are no longer paralyzed by Cold War rivalry or held back by artificial divisions between north and south. These institutions can be whatever their members choose to make them. This is especially welcome news for us, because the international political climate is more favorable to our interests and values, more inclined toward democracy and open markets than it has ever been.

But for the UN to fulfill its potential, four things have to occur:

First, there must be continued progress toward increased accountability, transparency, and efficiency in UN agencies and programs. Like any other institution these days, the UN has to deliver.