Heritage Foundation Leadership for America

What Happened in 2002

America's relationship with the U.N. in 2002 was dominated by three topics: the war on terrorism and the debate over military action in Iraq, the International Criminal Court, and the Administration's position on several international issues raised at various U.N. conferences.

The U.N. generally supported America's war on terrorism. On September 28, 2001, the Security Council had passed Resolution 1373, which outlined prohibitions on funding and support for terrorism. In October 2001, the Secretary-General ordered the creation of a Policy Working Group on the United Nations and Terrorism. Its report, released in September 2002, makes recommendations regarding U.N. "activities to dissuade groups from embracing terrorism (12 recommendations), activities to deny groups and individuals the means to carry out terrorist acts (12 recommendations), and efforts to sustain a broad-based international cooperation in the struggle against terrorism (7 recommendations)."1

On November 8, 2002, the U.N. Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, which accuses Iraq of being in "material breach" of past Security Council resolutions, outlines a tougher inspection regime than imposed by the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) until 1998, and calls for consequences if Iraq fails to comply with the conditions outlined in the resolution.

The Bush Administration, which opposes the ICC, formally "unsigned" the treaty on May 6, 2002,2 shortly after the required 60 nations ratified it, enabling it to enter into force on July 1. In early July, out of concern that the ICC would attempt to prosecute U.S. soldiers who participate in peacekeeping operations even through the United States had not ratified the treaty, the United States vetoed renewal of the mandate for the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina. After heavy negotiation, the Security Council approved a 12-month immunity from prosecution for U.N. peacekeepers.

President Bush also signed the American Servicemembers Protection Act in P.L. 107-206. Subject to presidential waiver, this act prohibits U.S. cooperation with the ICC, restricts U.S. participation in certain peacekeeping operations, prohibits transfer of intelligence to the ICC, and restricts military assistance to some ratifying states. It also began the process of negotiating agreements with other nations to prevent the transfer of U.S. nationals to the ICC as permitted under Article 98 of the treaty. As of September 24, 2002, America had signed 12 Article 98 agreements granting ICC immunity for Americans.3 The United States is engaged in negotiations with the European Union for compromise language on an EU-wide Article 98 agreement.

The Bush Administration has developed an arms-length policy toward international conferences and treaties. For example, the President made a decision not to attend the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) from August 26 to September 4 in Johannesburg, South Africa. The decision to send top U.S. officials and experts to the WSSD instead ensured that the conference would focus on the issues rather than provide an opportunity for radical environmental and anti-capitalist groups to advance a political agenda that is decidedly anti-development. This objective was achieved to a large extent; the summit Plan of Implementation did not include a mandate for poor nations to use expensive and impractical renewable energy sources. Instead, it urged them to adopt "efficient, affordable, cost-effective energy technologies," including fossil fuels.

The Administration also expressed skepticism about the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, which will not achieve its purported goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in order to combat possible global warming (See Chapter 9 on Energy by Charli Coon).

What to Do in 2003

The issue of weapons inspections and conflict with Iraq dominated America's relationship with the U.N. over the past year and revealed clearly the organization's political nature. America's relationship with the United Nations must be based on a realistic strategy that seeks its support for U.S. interests but does not let opposition in the world body influence or prevent actions that the President and Congress determine are in the nation's best interests.

The variety of issues the U.N. considers demands a broad-based policy that supports U.S. interests. The United States should:

• Continue to strive to make the U.N. a useful ally in the war on terrorism. Relying on the U.N. to combat terrorism of its own initiative is naïve. The U.N. has yet to agree on a precise definition of terrorism, a fact that perhaps explains the ineffectiveness of the 12 existing international treaties that address the issue. Instead, the United States and similarly minded nations must work together to combat terrorism, working with the U.N. whenever such a course is useful, but not restricting their efforts to that body.

Several specific efforts should be made: (1) avoid linking terrorism to "root causes," such as human rights or poverty, that distract from the core issue of fighting terrorism; (2) do not press for a precise definition of terrorism, which is very controversial, if it will distract from substantive efforts to combat it; (3) fight to give the Counter Terrorism Committee real teeth and the authority to aid in the fight against terrorism; and (4) avoid the tendency within the U.N. of linking pet issues to popular initiatives, such as the efforts of anti-nuclear activists to make the possession of nuclear weapons synonymous with terrorism, or the linking of disarmament treaties with the war on terrorism.

• Be prepared to act alone to protect U.S. interests and secure international peace. The Security Council's adoption of a new resolution on Iraq provides additional support for U.S. military action in Iraq should that country fail to disarm. America has a responsibility to ensure that Iraq's compliance with the U.N. inspections and disarmament regime is total and that the inspections proceed quickly. Therefore, U.S. officials should closely scrutinize the efforts of U.N. weapons inspectors and ensure that all violations or obstructions are reported forthwith.

If Iraq does not abide fully with the 2001 resolution, no additional Security Council vote is necessary for action. As President Bush explained,

The United Nations will fulfill its obligations to peace, Saddam Hussein will disarm. If not, for the sake of peace, for the sake of securing the homeland, for the sake of protecting our friends and allies, the United States will lead a mighty coalition of freedom-loving nations and disarm Saddam Hussein.4

• Send experts to argue forthrightly for U.S. positions at international conferences, and be prepared to reject final documents that are not in U.S. interests. As demonstrated by the success of the delegation sent to the WSSD, America can succeed in international conferences if its delegation is well-prepared. During that conference, America allied with poor nations to reject the anti-growth agenda of the radical left. Appealing to the best interests of other nations and being unafraid to express U.S. interests is a sound foundation for gaining international cooperation and understanding. America should send appropriate officials and technical experts to future U.N. conferences to present the Administration's coherent and convincing positions on important international issues, such as sustainable development and global warming, which could affect the United States or its policies.
• Negotiate ICC Article 98 agreements with every nation with which it has diplomatic relations. The United States must protect its citizens from a court that would not observe such basic rights as trial by a jury of one's peers, protection from double jeopardy, and the right to confront one's accusers.
• Negotiate a permanent compromise over the jurisdiction of the ICC over U.S. troops participating in U.N. peacekeeping operations. The one-year immunity given by the Security Council from ICC prosecution for troops participating in a U.N. peacekeeping operation ends on July 12, 2003. The United States must, at a minimum, work to extend the exemption while striving to achieve permanent immunity from ICC authority for U.S. participants in U.N. peacekeeping operations. Until this ideal goal is achieved, America will face an annual showdown in which it may be forced to threaten to veto the resolutions that renew U.N. peacekeeping missions unless a new one-year immunity is granted.

Brett D. Schaefer is the Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs in the Center for International Trade and Economics at The Heritage Foundation.

EXPERTS