The Presidential Candidates and the U.N.

On April 15, 2008 Executive Vice President Don Kraus spoke to the United Nations Association of the National Capitol Area and revied the 2008 presidential candidates views towards the United Nations.  The following is the transcript of this presentation:

THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES:
WHAT ARE THEIR VIEWS TOWARD THE UNITED NATIONS?

By Don Kraus

Thanks to Richard, Ed and Paula for inviting me and arranging today’s session on this very important topic. Let me begin by sharing some thoughts from my colleague Howard Salter who has recently written an in depth article on the candidates positions regarding global cooperation. Howard noted that when George W. Bush first campaigned for the presidency, his foreign policy plans hinged on building a stronger economic and political relationship with Latin America, especially Mexico, and reducing U.S. involvement in small-scale military engagements in general, and “nation building” in particular. When he took office 2001, he inherited a nation at peace, with a record budget surplus.

When Bush steps down next January, he will leave a vastly different foreign affairs legacy, as well as a major to-do list for his successor. The next president will run a nation at war. He or she will contend with America’s standing around the world in decline, questions about our use of torture, genocide in Darfur, fraying relations with international institutions including the United Nations, with which the U.S. now owes a record $2.8 billion in accumulated debt, and insufficient efforts to halt nuclear proliferation.

Despite saturation coverage of the presidential campaign, we have rarely had the opportunity to learn where the candidates stand on the important global issues of our day. Today I will focus on where candidates stand in regards to the United Nations.

While candidates often campaign on a certain platform, and then do a complete 180-degree turn away from those promises once in office, we have collected enough information and comments made by Senators Clinton, McCain, and Obama to offer glimpses of their worldviews. In addition, this year we have a rare situation. We can not only compare their remarks but we can also compare the voting records of 3 sitting senators. So today I will review their U.N. related voting records, their responses to Citizens for Global Solutions’ (CGS) candidate questionnaire, the United Nations Association/Better World (UNA/BWC) campaign questionnaire, and other comments that give insight into their positions on the U.N. and their world view.

Let’s begin by reviewing not what the candidates have said, but how they have acted. The three candidates have served together in the senate since 2005. During that time they weighed in on 3 votes that we have compared in Citizen for Global Solutions’ Congressional Report Card which gives a good window into their positions regarding the United Nations. The report card covers a good deal more than the U.N., so it’s useful to start with what kind of grades they have been receiving.

From 2005-2007 all three candidates have received pretty decent grades in terms of their voting record, with Senators Clinton and Obama averaging A’s and Senator McCain scoring slightly lower with a B average. However this year both Clinton and Obama received an A while McCain dropped down to an F. But this is a bit deceptive since all 3 candidates missed 7 of the 10 votes that we scored and voted with their party on the ones that they did make.

Now I want to give you some examples of how the candidates’ voted on specific bills over the past few sessions. In 2001, before Senator Obama was in office, during the 107th Congress an amendment to the Helms-Biden bill came before the Senate which allowed the release of $582 million in back dues to the U.N. and temporarily increased the U.S. assessment rate for U.N. peacekeeping from 25 percent to 28/15 percent. Both Senators Clinton and McCain voted in favor of passing this amendment, which of course we liked very much. Of course with Senators Helms and Biden supporting it, every other senator supported is as well.

Then in 2005, another bill came to the floor which would have amended Fiscal 2006 Foreign Affairs Authorization and U.N. Peacekeeping Assessments to raise the U.S. share of assessments for U.N. Peacekeeping operations from 25 percent to 27.1 percent, which is the amount the U.S. had agreed to pay. Unfortunately voting on this bill was largely divided by party lines. Senators Clinton and Obama voted in favor of this resolution, while Senator McCain voted against it. This bill was rejected by the Senate.

The same year the senators voted on a motion to close the debate on the nomination of John Bolton for U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. If the motion had passed the Senate would have confirmed Bolton. Senators Obama and Clinton opposed Bolton’s nomination and voted against cloture, while Senator McCain voted for it. Again the voting was largely along party lines. The motion was rejected and Bolton was denied Senate confirmation.

In 2006 during the 109th Congress, an amendment to withhold funding for the U.N.’s new Human Rights Council came before the Senate. Senators Clinton and Obama voted against this proposal while McCain voted in favor of it.

Now that we’ve looked at each candidate’s position in terms of what they voted on, let’s now turn to their responses to candidate questionnaires to get a feel for their stated policy. Both CGS and UNA/BWC sent out candidate questionnaires to the presidential candidates to get a better understanding of their policies on global issues. Only Clinton and Obama replied to the questionnaire, so I will share with you some excerpts from their replies. Then I will share with you a compilation of Senator McCain’s quotes from various speeches and press releases to get a feel for his point of view. You can compare the candidates’ positions on the U.N. and other global issues at Citizens for Global Solutions’ 08 or Bust website.

These questions are from Citizens for Global Solutions’ candidate questionnaire:

Sen. Barack Obama		Sen. Hilary Clinton

What specific policies would you implement in order to make the global security environment more stable and hospitable?

Obama: I will open a new era of diplomacy. I have made clear that I will not be afraid to conduct aggressive and principled diplomacy with friend and foe and in so doing get back to the pragmatic foreign policy of using all the instruments of our power to advance our interests. I am not afraid I will lose a propaganda battle with a petty tyrant.

Clinton: Contrary to what many in the current administration appear to believe, international institutions are tools that advance America’s aims, rather than traps…When I am President, the United States will once again engage, not disparage, the international system so that it reflects the principles an earlier generation of Americans enshrined in the U.N. Charter.

What would your administration do to ensure that the Millennium Development Goals are met?

Obama: The United Nations has embraced the Millennium Development Goals, which aim to cut extreme poverty in half by 2015. When I’m President, they will be America’s goals. The Bush Administration tried to keep the U.N. from proclaiming these goals; the Obama Administration will double foreign assistance to $50 billion to lead the world to achieve them.

Clinton: I support the Millennium Development Goals, which were developed by the United Nations… I am concerned that we are not on track to meet these targets, and I believe that we need to work with our global partners to do so… As President, I will work with the United Nations to push these goals, and I will ensure that the United States demonstrates international leadership on this issue.

In what ways can the United States work to support international post-conflict peacebuilding efforts?

Obama: To succeed in post-conflict peacebuilding, we must improve our civilian capacity. The finest military in the world is adapting to the challenges of the 21st century. But it cannot counter insurgent and terrorist threats without civilian counterparts who can carry out economic and political reconstruction missions -- sometimes in dangerous places. As President, I will strengthen these civilian capacities, recruiting our best and brightest to take on this challenge. I will increase both the numbers and capabilities of our diplomats, development experts, and other civilians who can work alongside our military. We can't just say there is no military solution to these problems.

Clinton: U.N. peacekeeping of all kinds is experiencing an unprecedented surge. Expected expansion of U.N. peacekeeping operations is likely to boost the number of UN-commanded troops to record levels.

U.S. condemnation of the genocide in Darfur is an empty gesture if the administration is unwilling to provide the money necessary to fully fund the operation intended to stop the atrocities, and without taking money away from other U.N. operations that Washington also voted for and authorized.

The United States working with NATO should also increase capacity in the developing world to conduct UN-authorized or UN-mandated peacekeeping operations. The United States and NATO should expedite their commitments under the Global Peace Operations Initiative to train 75,000 peacekeepers, principally in Africa.

Do you support the creation and funding of the United Nations Emergency Peace Service?

Obama: I do not support the creation and funding of the United Nations Emergency Peace Service.

Clinton: The enduring weakness of U.N. peacekeeping is the inability to field forces in sufficient numbers when it counts. The UNEP Service is one of several proposals intended to plug this gap. As President it will be a priority to build bipartisan support for an approach to U.N. peacekeeping that can both address U.S. concerns, while making it possible for U.N. peacekeeping to be as effective as possible.

Will you work to operationalize the “Responsibility to Protect,” an emerging international norm, in response to humanitarian crises around the world? How?

Obama: The Responsibility to Protect is an important and developing concept in international affairs and one which my Administration will closely monitor.

Clinton: Yes. In adopting the principle of the responsibility to protect, the United Nations accepted the principle that mass atrocities that take place in one state are the concern of all states. It is essential that the new Secretary General of the United Nations begin to bridge the gap between these words and the institution’s deeds through a series of reforms intended to operationalize this concept.

As President I will adopt a policy that recognizes the prevention of mass atrocities as an important national security interest of the United States, not just a humanitarian goal. I will develop a government-wide strategy to support this policy, including a strategy for working with other leading democracies, the United Nations, and regional organizations. I will authorize my Secretary of State to institutionalize atrocity prevention into the work of the State Department, and I will direct my Secretary of State to strongly support the mission and activities of the office of reconstruction and stabilization, which plays an increasingly critical role.


The U.S. has signed, but not ratified many international treaties, including the ICC treaty, Law of the Sea, Kyoto, Women’s convention, and the Test Ban treaty. Which treaties, if any, would you support and urge the Senate to ratify?

Obama: There are a number of meritorious treaties currently pending before the Senate. Some of these are clearly in the national interest, such as the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. As president, I will make it my priority to build bipartisan consensus behind ratification of such treaties.

Clinton: As President I will seek Senate approval of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban treaty.

One of the worst messages the President sent was when he took office and rejected completely Kyoto. When I am President I will change that by leading the process to develop a new treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which is set to expire in 2012. I will engage in high-level meetings with leaders around the world every three months, if that’s what it takes to hammer out a new agreement. My goal will be to secure a deal by 2010. We can’t wait for two more years.

What reforms would your administration propose to help the United Nations better meet the challenges of the 21st century?

Obama: To renew American leadership in the world, I intend to rebuild the alliances, partnerships, and institutions necessary to confront common threats and enhance common security. Needed reform of these alliances and institutions will not come by bullying other countries to ratify changes we hatch in isolation. It will come when we convince other governments and peoples that they, too, have a stake in effective partnerships.

We must heed first the call of former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan for major reforms at the United Nations. U.S. leadership and determination are essential if the U.N. is to achieve its promise as an institution of collective security. But United Nations reform will be difficult; it will take time; and even with substantial reform, the U.N. will remain a meeting place of all the world’s governments, be they democratic or authoritarian, rights-protecting or rights-abusing.

Clinton: Reform of the U.N. is needed to adapt the institution to the security challenges of the 21st century, and to undertake a series of management reforms to make it more efficient and effective. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has made a promising start on management reforms. A lot of important work has also been done by the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change.

I believe an effective United Nations is strongly in American interests. The United States must be prepared to act on its own to defend its vital interests, but effective international institutions, including the UN, make it much less likely that we will have to do so.

The U.N. needs to reform the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. The human rights apparatus of the U.N. is not performing as it should. We need to have a structure at the United Nations that is strong and principled in advancing human rights. The Human Rights Council was established to address the weaknesses of the Human Rights Commission as part of a broader set of U.N. reforms. So far, the Council has not fulfilled the promise of reform. The Bush approach of standing aside and not engaging to improve the Human Rights Council has only made the job of reform more difficult. As President, I will make reform of the human rights system a priority of the United States.

Would your administration support the full and timely payment of U.S. assessments to international institutions, including the United Nations?

Obama: The United States should play a leading role in the United Nations, including by pushing to implement important reforms. I believe our ability to effectively lead the U.N. is undermined when we do not fulfill our financial obligations at the U.N.

Clinton: Yes, it will be a priority of my administration that we meet our financial obligations to the UN, as doing so is essential for the U.N. to fulfill the mandates we ask it to undertake, and for the United States to be credible in our efforts to promote reform there.

Now let me switch over to the United Nations Association / Better World Campaign candidate questionnaire:

Do you support Security Council reform? What would you do to take account of the influence and contributions of regional powers, i.e. India, Brazil, Japan and South Africa, among others, in order to enhance the effectiveness of the United Nations and its Security Council?

Clinton: United Nations reform remains a priority. American policy towards the United Nations should encourage it to adapt to transforming power realities in order to be as effective as possible; a strong United Nations can help the United States in a range of areas, from international public health to poverty alleviation to peacekeeping.

Obama: As President, I will carefully consider proposals to update the composition, structure and rules of procedure of the Security Council that will enable it to function effectively while preserving the U.S. veto. I would not favor proposals that increase the number of members to unworkable levels or that enable more countries to block critical UNSC action.

Do you support the efforts of U.N. peacekeeping operations as a ‘force multiplier’ that can complement U.S. efforts to prevent and/or contain conflict? Would you support paying our full assessments for peacekeeping operations on time and in full? Would you support permanent repeal of a 25%, congressionally-imposed cap on peacekeeping assessments given that the U.S. executive branch has negotiated and agreed to pay a 26% rate?

Clinton: I will make meeting our financial obligations to the United Nations a priority to enable the United Nations to fulfill the mandates we ask it to undertake. U.N. peacekeeping operations can act as a “force multiplier,” complementing U.S. national security interests.

Obama: The President and Congress need to support the UN’s peace operations with the resources they deserve and abide by the commitments we have made.

Would you work toward having a U.S. representative on the United Nations Human Rights Council in order to influence its actions? How would your Administration ensure that American values are represented and U.S. foreign policy interests are served by the work of the Human Rights Council?

Clinton: We need to have a structure at the United Nations that is strong and principled in advancing human rights. As President, I will make reform of the human rights system a priority of the United States.

Obama: We need our voice to be heard loud and clear to shine a light on the world’s most repressive regimes, end the unfair obsession with Israel, and improve human rights policies around the globe.

Now I would like to share with you some quotes taken from Senator McCain's statements over the years as well as the current campaign.

Sen. John McCain

McCain on the United Nations:
"We should link democratic nations in one common organization: a worldwide League of Democracies… The organization could act when the U.N. fails -- to relieve human suffering in places such as Darfur, combat HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa, fashion better policies to confront environmental crises, provide unimpeded market access to those who endorse economic and political freedom, and take other measures unattainable by existing regional or universal-membership systems.

This League of Democracies would not supplant the U.N. or other international organizations but complement them by harnessing the political and moral advantages offered by united democratic action… If I am elected president, during my first year in office I will call a summit of the world's democracies to seek the views of my counterparts and explore the steps necessary to realize this vision -- just as America led in creating NATO six decades ago."

"As president, I will seek the widest possible circle of allies through the League of Democracies, NATO, the UN, and the Organization of American States… Working multilaterally can be a frustrating experience, but approaching problems with allies works far better than facing problems alone." Council of Foreign Relations – 11/15/07

International Criminal Court:
“U.S. and allied intelligence assets, including satellite technology, should be dedicated to record any atrocities that occur in Darfur so that future prosecutions can take place. We should publicly remind Khartoum that the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction to prosecute war crimes in Darfur and that Sudanese leaders will be held personally accountable for attacks on civilians.”...

Poverty and the Millenium Development Goals:
While McCain hasn’t weighed in on the Millenium Development goals he has said that he “will establish the goal of eradicating malaria -- the number one killer of African children under the age of five -- on the continent. In addition to saving millions of lives in the world's poorest regions, such a campaign would do much to add luster to America's image in the world.”

Nuclear Weapons:
Regarding nuclear weapons he believes that the "nuclear nonproliferation regime is broken for one clear reason: the mistaken assumption behind the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) that nuclear technology can spread without nuclear weapons eventually following. The next U.S. president must convene a summit of the world's leading powers -- none of which have an interest in seeing a world full of nuclear-armed states -- with three agenda items. First, the notion that non-nuclear-weapons states have a right to nuclear technology must be revisited. Second, the burden of proof for suspected violators of the NPT must be reversed. Instead of requiring the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) board to reach unanimous agreement in order to act, as is the case today, there should be an automatic suspension of nuclear assistance to states that the agency cannot guarantee are in full compliance with safeguard agreements. Finally, the IAEA's annual budget of $130 million must be substantially increased so that the agency can meet its monitoring and safeguarding tasks."


In conclusion, Obama and Clinton would seem to embrace a more cooperative U.S. foreign policy than McCain. Obama’s view of diplomacy stands out as holding the greatest potential for what he calls “change.” It would be unique – and refreshing – for the president of the United States to speak directly with not only our “friends,” but also our “enemies.” This open door-type of diplomacy, with our nation’s commander-in-chief leading the way, would be a bold new model in today’s interconnected world.

While McCain appears to propose a less “cooperative” foreign policy than Obama or Clinton, it’s certainly much more multilateral than the Bush administration’s track record. McCain recognizes that our nation’s image has been tarnished, and has proposed various ways for the United States to not only be viewed as a “super power” but to been seen as a “super partner,” especially in regards to increasing funds for the IAEA and support for the ICC’s investigation into the genocidal acts in Darfur.

Bush will leave his successor many daunting foreign policy challenges due to his eight years unilateralist foreign policy. Thankfully, the three contenders left standing recognize what is in front of them and are all proposing an array of more cooperative foreign policy solutions.

Why don’t I stop here and take your questions. Thank you for your attention.