The case for the UN: austerity version

The Obama administration has undertaken a coordinated push to defend the work of the United Nations at a time when Congressional Republicans are pursuing cuts in U.S. funding to the organization. The administration’s message has been carefully crafted to appeal to budget-conscious Americans. In a speech last week, assistant secretary of state Esther Brimmer argued that getting results from the Security Council is directly related to the United States paying its bills:

[T]rying to avoid paying our bills hurts our ability to deliver results at the UN that the American people want, and that the United States needs.  The United States must be a responsible global leader, and that means paying our bills and working for real renewal at the UN. How could we have won tough Security Council sanctions on North Korea and Iran if we were continuing to incur arrears?

And today in Oregon, U.S. ambassador to the UN Susan Rice argued that, far from being a drain on taxpayer dollars, the UN alleviates financial pressure on the United States (quotes are from text as prepared).

Main Street America needs the United Nations, and so do you and I, especially in these tough economic times. America can’t police every conflict, end every crisis, and shelter every refugee. The UN provides a real return on our tax dollars by bringing 192 countries together to share the cost of providing stability, vital aid, and hope in the world’s most broken places.  Because of the UN, the world doesn’t look to America to solve every problem alone. And the UN offers our troops in places like Afghanistan the international legitimacy and support that comes only from a Security Council mandate—which, in turn, is a force multiplier for our soldiers on the frontlines. [snip]

Those of us—Democrat and Republican alike—who support the UN owe it to American taxpayers to ensure that their dollars are well and cleanly spent. But, equally, those who push to curtail U.S. support to the UN owe it to U.S. soldiers to explain why they should perform missions now handled by UN peacekeepers, and they owe it to parents around the world to explain why their children should suffer without the medicine, food, and shelter that only the UN provides.

These arguments can be taken too far. After all, the United States did get stiff sanctions resolutions against Iran and North Korea through the Security Council several times under the Bush administration, even as the U.S. was accumulating additional peacekeeping arrears.  What’s more, the United States still owes more than $700 million in back dues (the Obama administration often glosses over this point because it realizes Congress has no intention of paying most of them). And is it really the case that U.S. soldiers would have to replace UN peacekeepers in Darfur, Congo, and Cote d’Ivoire?

These quibbles aside, the administration is wise to fight these battles through the public. As Rice pointed out today, opinion surveys indicate broad if somewhat diffuse support for the UN and its work. As always, the question will be whether those who generally support working with the UN can muster the energy and focus of those who see the organization as fundamentally dysfunctional.