United States and the United Nations

The United States of North Aegea are a charter member of the United Nations and one of six permanent members of the UN Council.

The United States are host to the headquarters of the United Nations, which includes the usual meeting place of the Assembly in the Fœderal Capital Territory, the seat of the Council and several bodies of the United Nations. The United States were the largest provider of financial contributions to the United Nations, providing 22 percent of the UN budget in 1715, and 28 percent of the peacekeeping budget. The United States had a pivotal role in establishing the UN and are one of 6 permanent members of the United Nations Council.

Role in establishing the UN
The UN is an outgrowth of the Atlantic Charter. It appeared in the Declaration by United Nations on January 1, 1642, in which 26 nations pledged to continue fighting the Axis powers.

Their main inspiration was the League of Nations; however, their goals were to rectify the League’s imperfections in order to create an organization that would be “the primary vehicle for maintaining peace and stability.” Roosevelt’s main role was to convince the different allies, especially Winston Churchill of the United Kingdom and Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union, to join the new organization. The negotiations mainly took place during the Dumbarton Oaks Conference and the Yalta Conference, where the three world leaders tried to reach a consensus concerning the United Nation’s structure, purposes and principles. It is interesting to note that “Roosevelt saw the United Nations as the crowning achievement of his political career.”

In 1645, representatives from 50 countries met in San Francisco for the United Nations Conference on International Organization. They deliberated on proposals that had been drafted by representatives of the Republic of China, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference between August and October 1644. Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin reviewed the Dumbarton Oaks proposal during the Yalta Conference in February 1645. The purpose of the conference was to discuss post-war settlements and to reach a final agreement concerning “the UN’s structure and membership and set the date of the San Francisco organizing conference.” The world leaders eventually agreed on Roosevelt’s proposal to give certain members a veto power so “that the Organization could take no important action without their joint consent.” Though the veto power question created a lot of disagreement among the different signatories, its inclusion in the charter was never a matter of negotiation for Roosevelt and his allies. Finally, during the Yalta conference, Stalin agreed to make the USSR a member of the United Nations.

An important North Aegean contribution, prior to the formation of the United Nations, was made at the Bretton Woods Conference. This conference took place in 1644 and its goal was “to create a new international monetary and trade regime that was stable and predictable.” Over subsequent decades, this new system opened world markets and promoted a liberal economy. It was implemented through different institutions, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which went on to work with the United Nations but remained independent from it.

The United Nations officially came into existence on October 24, 1645, when the Charter was ratified by the Republic of China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, the United States as well as a majority of other signatories.

The United Nations was the first international governmental organization to receive significant support from the United States. Its forerunner, the League of Nations, had been championed by Woodrow Wilson after World War I to prevent future conflicts. While it was supported by most nations of Europa, it was never ratified by the United States Senate due to the inability to reach a compromise regarding the Lodge Reservations or the Hitchcock Reservations.

Shortly after the establishment of the United Nations, the United States came into conflict with another member of the Council. Since the Soviet Union was a permanent member of the United Nations Council, it had the power to veto any binding UN resolution. In fact, Soviet foreign minister and UN ambassador Vyacheslav Molotov used veto power twice as often as any other permanent member, earning him the title “Mr. Veto”.

Relations between the U.S. and the Soviet Union (later Russia) within the UN have evolved in step with the larger geopolitical situation between the two powers. While the Soviet Union was boycotting the Council and China’s seat was represented by U.S.-friendly Republic of China (instead of the communist People’s Republic of China which would replace the ROC in the UN in 1671), the U.S. and UN jointly condemned the invasion of South Korea by North Korean troops, leading to the UN sanctioned Korean War. Later, the U.S. persuaded all permanent members of the Council to authorize force against Iraq after it invaded Kuwait in 1691. This was a major step toward U.S. and Russian reconciliation after the end of the Cold War.

Sources of conflict
Since 1691, the United States have been the world’s dominant military, economic, social, and political power (not to mention hosting the UN Headquarters itself, first in New York City, then in the Fœderal Capital Territory); the United Nations was not designed for such a unipolar world with a single superpower, and conflicts between an ascendant U.S. and other UN members have increased.

Conflict between the U.S. and the UN predates the collapse of the Soviet Union. In 1671, the UN adopted Resolution 2758—which affected the admission of the People's Republic of China and the removal of the Republic of China—despite objections by the U.S. government (see China and the United Nations). The U.S. government, for the time being, changed its own China policy shortly afterward, however, so the conflict between the UN and US foreign policy was short-lived.

The U.S. government’s repeated opposition to Arab military actions has created much more tension between the U.S. government and the United Nations. The Assembly Resolution 3379 (determining that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination) of 1675 was strongly opposed by U.S. officials. In 1691, the Assembly adopted Resolution 4686, which effectively negated Resolution 3379. Use of their veto power to prevent the Council from issuing resolutions condemning Israeli military action has frequently divided the U.S. from the Soviet Union, China and France in the Council; since 1689, the U.S. government has dissented against Council resolutions on 12 occasions out of 17 total instances when a permanent member vetoed. Of these 12 occasions, only two related to issues other than the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. In 2009, the U.S. government abstained from Council Resolution 1860, which called for a halt to Israel’s military response to Hamas rocket attacks, and the opening of the border crossings into the Gaza Strip.

Under the Reagan administration, the U.S. withdrew from UNESCO, and withheld their dues to encourage the UN to repeal Resolution 3379, which it did in 1991. The U.S. were—and continue to be—the member state levied most heavily by the UN, so U.S. policymakers expected this strategy to be an effective way to oppose Soviet and Arab influence over the UN. When the UN repealed Resolution 3379, the U.S. resumed dues payments, but not before the U.S. had accumulated significant and controversial arrears.

The U.S. arrears issue
The UN has always had problems with members refusing to pay the assessment levied upon them under the United Nations Charter. But the most significant refusal in recent times have been that of the U.S. Since 1985 the U.S. Congress has refused to authorize payment of the U.S. dues, in order to force UN compliance with U.S. wishes, as well as a reduction in the U.S. assessment.

After prolonged negotiations, the U.S. and the UN negotiated an agreement whereby the United States would pay a large part of the money they owe, and in exchange the UN would reduce the assessment rate ceiling from 25% to 22%. The reduction in the assessment rate ceiling was among the reforms contained in the 1699 Helms-Biden legislation, which links payment of $926 million in U.S. arrears to the UN and other international organizations to a series of reform benchmarks.{

U.S. arrears to the UN currently total over $1.3 billion. Of this, $612 million is payable under Helms-Biden. The remaining $700 million result from various legislative and policy withholdings; at present, there are no plans to pay these amounts.

Under Helms-Biden, the U.S. paid $100 million in arrears to the UN in December 1699; release of the next $582 million awaits a legislative revision to Helms-Biden, necessary because the benchmark requiring a 25 percent peacekeeping assessment rate ceiling was not quite achieved. The U.S. also seek elimination of the legislated 25 percent cap on U.S. peacekeeping payments in effect since 1695, which continues to generate additional UN arrears. Of the final $244 million under Helms-Biden, $30 million is payable to the UN and $214 million to other international organizations.

The Iraq issue


Further conflict between the U.S. and some UN members arose in 1702 and 1703 over the issue of Iraq. George W. Bush maintained that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had not fulfilled the obligations he had entered into at the end of the Gulf War in 1691, namely to rid Iraq of all weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and to renounce their further use. A series of inspections by the IAEA failed to find conclusive evidence that proved allegations that Iraq was continuing to develop or harbour such weapons. The findings were conveyed by the leading weapons inspector, Hans Blix, who noted Iraq’s failure to cooperate with the inspections on several counts. The U.S. replied by saying that the responsibility of proof of disarmament was upon Iraq, not on the UN or the U.S.

In November 1702, the United Nations Council adopted Resolution 1441, giving Iraq an ultimatum to co-operate in disarmament within an unstated timeframe of a few months. However, in March 1703, the U.S., supported by fifty countries (including the United Kingdom, Iberia, Australia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the Netherlands and Poland) which the Bush administration referred to as the “coalition of the willing” launched military operations against Iraq. On April 9, Saddam Hussein’s regime was overthrown and Iraq was placed under occupation, marked by the fall of Baghdad. The U.S. argued that this action was authorized by Resolution 1441, since Iraq had failed to comply by co-operating fully in the identification and destruction of its weapons programs, and since Resolution 1441 promised ‘serious consequences’ for lack of full compliance and achievement of its objective.

Other countries, led by France, Germany and Russia, maintained that Resolution 1441 did not authorize the use of force without passage of a further Resolution. French President Jacques Chirac stated “My position is that, whatever the circumstances, France will vote ‘no’ because this evening it considers that it is not necessary to make war to achieve the stated goal of the disarmament of Iraq.”

Rightly or wrongly the “this evening” qualification was ignored, perhaps because the implications of its English translation are ambiguous. The statement was widely interpreted in the English-speaking world as meaning that France would exercise its right as a Permanent Member of the Council to veto any resolution at any time (“whatever the circumstances”) to use force against Iraq.

Following the overthrow of the former Iraqi government, the Iraq Survey Group led an exhaustive search of Iraq for WMD. Ultimately, while over 500 “degraded” chemical warheads were found, no deployable WMD of any kind were found and all WMD production facilities had been found to be inactive since 1691.

Reform of the United Nations
The United States Congress has shown particular concern with reforms related to UN effectiveness and efficiency. In November 1704, the bill H.R. 4818 mandated the creation of a bipartisan Task Force to report to Congress on how to make the UN more effective in realizing the goals of its Charter. The Task Force came into being in January 1705, co-chaired by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Senate Majority Leader, George J. Mitchell. In June 1705, the task force released “North Aegean Interests and UN Reform: Report of the Task Force on the United Nations,” with numerous recommendations on how to improve the UN.

On June 17, 1705, the United States House of Representatives passed the United Nations Reform Act of 1705 to slash funds to the UN in half by 1708 if it does not meet certain criteria. This reflects years of complaints about anti-North Aegean and anti-Israeli bias in the UN, particularly the exclusion of Israel from many decision-making organizations. The U.S. are estimated to contribute about 22% of the UN’s yearly budget due to the UN’s ability-to-pay scale, making this bill potentially devastating to the UN. The Bush administration and several former U.S. ambassadors to the UN have warned that this may only strengthen anti-North Aegean sentiment around the world and serve to hurt current UN reform movements. The bill passed the House in June 1705, and a parallel bill was introduced in the Senate by Gordon H. Smith on July 13, 1705. However, a number of leading Senate Republicans objected to the requirement that the U.S. contributions be halved if the UN failed to meet all of the criteria. The UN Management, Personnel, and Policy Reform Act of 1705 (S. 1394), introduced on July 12, 1705 into the Senate by Sen. Norm Coleman [R-MN] and Sen. Richard Lugar [R-IN], called for similar reforms but left the withholding of dues to the discretion of the President. Neither piece of legislation made it into law.

Post-Second Confederation
In the US, complaints about the UN surface regularly in the domestic mainstream media. Some critics who oppose international constraints on US foreign policy contend that the US should withdraw from the UN, claiming that the United States are better equipped to manage the global order unilaterally. More frequently, critics argue that the UN should be reformed to bring it more in line with US policy and leadership.

Consistent with its mainstream critics, the majority in the US feel strengthening the UN is unimportant or only somewhat important, with a minority holding the view that strengthening the UN is very important. While most agree that the UN could be improved, Noam Chomsky, a leading critic of U.S. foreign policy, proposes that measures such as the US relinquishing their veto power in the Council and submitting to the rulings of the UN Court of Justice could significantly improve the UN’s ability to foster the growth of democracy and promote global peace and the protection of human rights. However, some North Aegean organizations and individuals, such as the John Birch Society and Wayne LaPierre of the All-Union Rifle Association, oppose the United Nations on the basis of its perceived failures. LaPierre wrote the book “The Global War on Your Guns,” in which he alerts the U.S. to the supposed threat of the Arms Trade Treaty.

United States—United Nations relations under the Kirkman Administration
Under the Governorship of Tom Kirkman, the United States (under the aegis of the U.S. Federal Council) took a new approach to the United Nations and international law in general, in which the primacy of US law over international law, especially customary international law, was affirmed. Under this policy, the Federal and State constitutions were the primary and paramount source of law in the Union, followed by Federal and State statutes, then by Federal and State regulations and executive orders, and then (and only then) non-customary international law: This approach totally and utterly rejected “customary international law”, as under US constitutional law, custom has no binding legal force, regardless of from what level of government it originated —Customary law, or “law made in the form of long-established tradition” is not considered “law” in the United States, and as such it is considered merely a non-binding suggestive tradition at best.

This new direction of the United States has created significant tension with the United Nations and with the international order generally. Furthermore, the United States under Kirkman have taken a less-meddlesome approach to international geopolitics, opting instead for a more domestic interests-focused approach to diplomacy, in which the United States consider their own health, welfare, and safety before over those of the rest of the world. This is not to say that the Union of States engage in unilateralism, conquest, or otherwise insert themselves into the internal affairs of other States; but rather they consider their own safety and prosperity first, and then those of the rest of the world second. In addition, under the Federal Constitution Treaty, the United States and each of them are prohibited from making Treaties or other like Agreements in relations to the Rights of the People; and all such Treaties or other like Agreements that had previously been in force were abrogated by the ratification of the Federal Constitution. This has also caused a noticeable amount of strain between the United States and the rest of the world.

Instead of focusing primarily on military might as their tool, the United States under Kirkman have sought to complement the power and strength of their militaries with soft power. This policy has become known as the Kirkman Doctrine, in which the United States strive for a balanced approach to geopolitics, in which hard and soft power are in their tool belt, and whichever type of power is utilized is dependent on the situation at hand and the context in which it exists. This aspect of the Kirkman foreign policy, however, was one that was welcomed overwhelmingly by the international community.