Great Achievements of the US in the UN Security Council

After the depressing bipolar struggle, the leadership or strong support of the United States led to Council innovation in several areas, including international laws and institutions governing the use of force, the establishment of international criminal tribunals, peacekeeping and the use of economic sanctions.¹⁵⁴ These actions would be unimaginable during the Cold War. As mentioned above, from the mid-1960s to mid-1980s, the UNSC could not adopt any meaningful actions in the security area with the US frequent use of veto, though the USSR often played a leading role. The end of the Cold War has made the United States the only superpower in the world, and Russia has given up the bipolar competition. Here I will briefly introduce the major achievements of the US in reviving its leadership in the Security Council from two aspects: establishing international criminal tribunals for promoting human rights and the US dominance in the UN Security Council’s peacekeeping operations.

After the Cold War, the United States has promoted several important innovations through the Security Council aiming at spreading democracy and human rights. The US played a leading role in the establishment of the Rwanda Tribunal by the UN Security Council, and has often been at the forefront of international efforts to bring the suspected war criminals to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY).¹⁵⁵ In response to Serbian atrocities in Bosnia and Croatia, the Council in Resolution 808 designated “violations of international humanitarian law” as a separate, independent threat

151 George Weigel, “War, Peace, and the Christian Conscience”, see James Turner Johnson and George Weigel, Just War and the Gulf War, Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1991, p.41.

152 Donald J. Puchala, “World Hegemony and the United Nations,” International Studies Review, No. 7, 2005, p. 575.

153 Joseph S. Nye, Jr., “Still Top Dog,” The Economist/The Globe and Mail Report on Business: The World in 1991, January 1991, 48.

154 Davidson Nicol, “The United Nations Security Council: Towards Greater Effectiveness,” p. 358.

155 Human Rights First, “Rwandan Arrested in the US is Convicted in Rwandan Genocide Court,” at the Website of Humanrightsfirst, http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/international_justice/w_context/w_context_07.htm.

to international peace and security. The Security Council decided “that an international tribunal shall be established for the prosecution of persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991.” “The Council took the action by adopting unanimously resolution 808 by which it also requested the Secretary-General to submit a report on all aspects of the matter, including specific proposals for the organization and operation of such a tribunal.”¹⁵⁶ In May 1993 the Council passed Resolution 827, which called for the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.

Considering that the ICTY might exert too much pressure on the negotiation of the Dayton Accords, the United States was not obviously supportive at the very beginning. However, it has not taken much time for America to turn to be an active supporter for this new institution, warning the government of the former Yugoslavia that it would suspend the economic assistance if the latter failed to surrender Sobodan Milosevic to the ICTY. In 1994 the United States played a key role in securing the passage of Resolution 955, establishing the International Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). “The International Tribunal for Rwanda shall have the power to prosecute persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of Rwanda and Rwandan citizens responsible for such violations committed in the territory of neighbouring States, between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994, in accordance with the provisions of the present Statute.”¹⁵⁷ The establishment of these two tribunals has greatly contributed to the respect for human rights and liberty, the definition of rape as a war crime, and the refinement of the doctrine of state responsibility. Furthermore, they have promoted the development of international law related to sovereignty. During the Cold War, it was almost impossible that these innovations could happen.

Actually, spreading the liberal ideology and promoting human rights is clearly stated as the US policy objectives after the Cold War. It has partly secured its goal through the Security Council.

Besides the establishment of the international criminal courts for human rights, the United States has also played a critical role in the UN peacekeeping operations. The UN peacekeeping operations are actions taken as a result of mandates established by UN Security Council resolutions designed to further international peace and security.¹⁵⁸ There was a sense in the early 1990s that UN military peacekeeping had reemerged as the tool of choice for the resolution of international conflict. In the wake of its successful engagement with the Council during the Gulf War, the first Bush administration committed 28,000 U.S.

troops to a Security Council—mandated operation in Somalia (the Unified Task Force [UNITAF]) and issued a National Security Strategy that encouraged the United States to take “an active role” in the “full spectrum” of UN peacekeeping operations.¹⁵⁹ Bill Clinton succeeded to promote the peacekeeping

156 The UNSC, “Security Council Resolution 808 on Yugoslavia,” at: http://www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/reports/808.html.

157 Security Council, “Resolution 955 (1994) on establishment of an International Tribunal and adoption of the Statute of the Tribunal,” at: http://www.un.org/ictr/english/Resolutions/955e.htm.

158 United States General Accounting Office (GAO), “U.N. Peacekeeping: Estimated U.S. Contributions, Fiscal Year 1996-2001, ” at the Website of GAO, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02294.pdf.

159 White House, “The National Security Strategy of the United States, August 1991,” at the Official Website of Federation

operations since his presidential campaign. His enthusiasm has led to the Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali’s call, in An Agenda for Peace, for a permanent UN “rapid deployment force.”¹⁶⁰ When Clinton finally took office, his first ambassador to the United Nations, Madeleine Albright, announced a policy of “aggressive multilateralism,” which included extensive the US engagement with the Council on the issue of peacekeeping (partly in the hope that it would help limit the US military involvement overseas).¹⁶¹

As commander-in-chief, the President of the United States has been reluctant to give up command authority over the US troops. When large numbers of US troops are involved and when the risk of combat is high, operational control of the US forces will remain in American hands, or in the hands of a trusted military ally such as a NATO member.¹⁶² However, the Clinton administration in 1994 released Presidential Review Directive (PRD) 13, which among other things endorsed the idea of subordinating the US peacekeeping troops to the UN operational command. “A central aim of PDD-13 is to boost the prestige, staff and resources of the U.N. military headquarters staff, long hobbled by the U.S.-Soviet deadlock and unaccustomed to operational responsibility. The initiative seeks to more than double the peacekeeping headquarters with 100 new staff members, 20 of whom would be supplied by the State and Defense departments.” “There is a definite change of mood and [a] willingness from the United States to be partners,” said Kofi Annan, U.N. undersecretary general for peace-keeping operations. “As U.N. operations become ever more complex and cumbersome to manage, U.S. participation becomes ever more important.”¹⁶³ The fact that the United States was willing to behave in multilateral way and even subordinate the US troops to the UN command embodied that the hegemon was confident to play a critical role in such actions.

According to scholar Puchala, “The predominant impression within the Secretariat and among many member state delegations is that almost everything the United Nations does or does not do is conditioned by the will, whims, and resources of the United States.”¹⁶⁴ For example, one European diplomat in 2002 explained that few peacekeeping operations move ahead without financial contributions from Washington;

even after the US administration approves a mandate, “we must simply sit and wait until Congress decides on the money.” “Nothing can be done without the concurrence of the United States,” a French diplomat acknowledged in 2002. “It reflects the reality of the world.”¹⁶⁵ The United States directly contributed an estimated $3.45 billion to support the UN peacekeeping, from fiscal years 1996 through 2001.The United of American Scientists, http://www.fas.org/man/docs/918015-nss.htm.

160 Boutros-Ghali, “An Agenda for Peace, Preventive Diplomacy, Peace-making and Peace-keeping,” at the Official Website of the United Nations, http://www.un.org/docs/SG/agpeace.html.

161 Botswana Gaborone, “Rule of Law and the Legacy of Conflict, ” at the Official Website of Transnational Institute:

http://www.tni.org/archives/bennis/law.htm.

162 Wiki, “Peacekeeping,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peacekeeping.

163 White House, President Review Directives, PRD-13, “Peacekeeping Operations,” at the Official Website of Federation of American Scientists: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd13.htm.

164 Donald J. Puchala, “World Hegemony and the United Nations,” p. 574.

165 Ibid.

States provided 26% of the UN peacekeeping budget in 2006. The Kosovo War again manifested the US dominance in the multilateral peacekeeping operations. At the very beginning, the European powers were against the participation of the United States, but the following process showed the inability of them. After the hegemon exterted its highly efficient forces and attack the Serbans, the Kosova Crisis was resolved in a very short time. The revival of the US power and the relative decline of other great powers’ status had led to the obvious increase of American influence in the Security Council.