BATTLING THE UNITED NATIONS

CONTENTS

LOSING TWO UNITED NATIONS SEATS

LOSING TWO UNITED NATIONS SEATS

The United States suffered two humiliating defeats when it lost two seats in the United Nations. In May 2001, the United Nations Economic and Social Council vote to remove the United States from the Human Rights Commission and from the International Narcotics Control Board.

The United States not only played the key role in founding the Human Rights Commission in 1964, but a senior American diplomat had co-chaired the board in the 1990s. The Bush administration was shocked by the vote in May 2001. Officials were particularly stunned, because the United States delegation to the human rights group had lined up 43 votes of support, more than enough to win a seat on the 53-member commission. But only 29 nations backed the United States.

The White House acknowledged that there were also many nations who voted against the United States deliberately. Many countries resented the United States’ decision not to sign the Kyoto treaty on greenhouse gases. The United States also drew criticism for building up a large debt to the United Nations and for threatening to abrogate SALT I in order to implement the National Missile Defense system. Furthermore, the United States had declined to join a variety of pacts -- including a treaty on land mines, the Law of the Sea treaty ,and the agreement setting up an International Criminal Court.

When the United States was voted off the United Nations Human Rights Commission and the International Drug Monitoring Board, conservatives in Congress sought revenge. They threatened to withhold payment on $244 million in dues to the United Nations if the seat were not restored in the spring of 2002. Democratic and Republican leaders of the House International Affairs Committee agreed to go ahead with the next United Nations dues payment of $582 million. But an agreement was reached in which a later payment of roughly $244 million would be withheld unless the United States was reinstated.

In April 2002 -- after one year of humiliation -- the United States was reinstated on the 53-member Human Rights Commission.

THE UNITED STATES LOSES IN THE WORLD COURT

In mid-2001, the United Nations’ International Court of Justice, located in The Hague, ruled that the United States broke international law in the 1999 execution of a German national. The court also sought to expand its authority, declaring for the first time that interim decisions it issues were binding. The 15-member World Court effectively claimed influence over the American legal system.

The case grew out of the first-degree murder convictions of brothers Karl and Walter LaGrand, who moved to the United States from Germany in 1967 as children but never gave up their German nationality. They were convicted of the 1982 killing of a bank manager during a robbery in Tucson, Arizona. Karl LaGrand was executed first. Then, just 27 hours before Walter was to go to the gas chamber, Germany sued in the World Court, alleging that the brothers had been denied access to German consular officials after their arrest. The court asked for a postponement, but Arizona went ahead with the execution. The court said that in the LaGrand case an established American legal principle limiting appeals violated the country’s responsibilities under an international treaty it signed. (Washington Post, June 27, 2001)

Acting on a claim by Germany that LaGrand was denied consular rights guaranteed under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the World Court issued an emergency order saying that “the United States of America should take all measures at its disposal to ensure that Walter LaGrand is not executed pending the final decision in these proceedings.” The court also found that the failure to inform the brothers of their right to consular services violated the 1963 Vienna Convention -- a position the United States had already acknowledged. When the brothers became aware of their rights as German citizens, they were precluded from using it as a basis for appeal because of the doctrine of “procedural default” in American courts. The World Court ruled that the doctrine of “procedural default” in the LaGrand case violated American obligations under the Vienna Convention. The court suggested that in similar cases, “the United States, by means of its own choosing, shall allow the review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence.” (Washington Post, June 27, 2001)

In November 2000, the United States had argued before the World Court that the LaGrand brothers had received a fair trial, including 15 years of appeals in various courts. The United States also argued that Germany was attempting to turn the U.N. tribunal into a criminal appeals court. But Germany argued that it merely wanted “nothing ... more than compliance, or, at least, a system in place which does not automatically reproduce violation after violation of the Vienna Convention, only interrupted by the apologies of the United States Government.”

In June 2001, the World Court rejected the United States’ arguments, saying that its order “did not require the United States to exercise powers it did not have; but it did impose the obligation to take all measures at its disposal to ensure that Walter LaGrand is not executed. ... The Court finds that the United States did not discharge this obligation.” The World Court concluded that “two central factors constrained the United States’ ability to act. The first was the extraordinarily short time between issuance of the Court’s Order and the time set for the execution of Walter LaGrand. The second constraining factor was the character of the United States of America as a federal republic of divided powers.” (Washington Post, June 27, 2001)

REFUSING TO PAY PAST UNITED NATIONS DUES

Just before he left office, Clinton scored a diplomatic victory by convincing the United Nations to change its budget rates, thus lowering the United States contribution to more reasonable levels. In January, the Senate agreed by a vote of 99-0 to pay the $582 million the United States owed in back dues.

When Bush took office just weeks later, he refused to build on the success of the Clinton administration. Following the Senate’s vote, all that remained was for the House to pass legislation allowing the release of the $582 million. But Republicans allowed the bill to die. Bush never turned over the $582 million to the United Nations, even though it was promised. Even GOP Congressman Henry Hyde, the chairman of the House International Relations Committee, acknowledged that the deal reached under Clinton would save the United States more than $2 billion over the next decade. By reneging on the promise, world powers looked at the United States as an unreliable partner. (New York Times)

U.N. AMBASSADOR JOHN BOLTON

In March 2005, Bush appointed career diplomat John Bolton, an outright adversary of the United Nations, to head the international body. He was infamous as a right-wing ideologue and unilateralist opposed to anything and everything that smacked of United States cooperation with or support for the United Nations.

For four months, Democratic senators threatened to filibuster his appointment. Finally, after Congress recessed in early August, Bush appointed Bolton while Congress was in recess. Bolton was the first United States ambassador to the United Nations to hold office without Senate confirmation.

Immediately, Bolton set out to undermine United Nations reform efforts. He demanded a drastic renegotiation of the draft reform plan weeks before world leaders from 170 countries were to convene to discuss sweeping changes.

Bolton hoped to scrap provisions that called for action to halt climate change. He urged nuclear powers to make greater progress in dismantling their nuclear arms. He opposed language that urged the five permanent members of the Security Council not to cast vetoes to halt genocide, war crimes, or ethnic cleansing. (Washington Post, June 25, 2005)

Bolton introduced more than 750 amendments that would eliminate new pledges of foreign aid to impoverished nations. His amendments also called for striking any mention of the Millennium Development Goals. He hoped to eliminate any language that mentioned hunger, child mortality, and combating pandemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. The Bush administration publicly complained that the document’s section on poverty was too long. Only after weeks of strenuous lobbying and numerous concessions did he agree to include references to the Millennium Development Goals in the final document. (Washington Post, June 25, 2005; September 15, 2005)

Bolton also told foreign delegates that he was concerned about a provision of the agreement that urged wealthy countries, including the United States, to contribute 0.7 percent of their gross national product in assistance to poor countries. (Washington Post, June 25, 2005)

When Bush addressed the General Assembly on September 14, he contradicted Bolton’s earlier proposals. The president declared that “the United States is determined to help nations that are struggling with poverty. We are committed to the Millennium Development goals.” (Washington Post, September 15, 2005)