Leadership in the UN, 1997: The Secretary-General and the U.S. — A Symbiotic Relationship under Stress

Abstract

THE SECRETARY-GENERALSHIP As Kofi Annan settles into office as the seventh secretary-general of the United Nations, the challenge he faces is not merely to cope with 'the most impossible job' -- which is how Trygve Lie, the first secretary-general, described his position nearly fifty years ago -- but to keep the United Nations from becoming irrelevant. His predicament does not reflect on him personally, but on the state of the United Nations in 1997 and on its relationship to the United States which occupies a unique position vis-a-vis the world body. As the sole superpower, the United States fills the role in the United Nations that exists within all multilateral organizations that of the catalytic dominant power that provides the leadership which is 'necessary for the institution to function. This leadership, referred to in the literature as hegemonic, calls for a moral commitment supported by significant human and financial resources.(f.1) In the United Nations, the United States has occupied this role from the beginning. Although other nations were involved in the Dumbarton Oaks and San Francisco conferences which produced the United Nations Charter, the primary inspiration came from Franklin D. Roosevelt's 'four freedoms -- of speech, of religion, from want, and from fear' -- infused with American ideals and organizational principles. It was not only a reaffirmation of Wilsonian internationalism, but it carried Roosevelt's New Deal into the international arena by broadening the idea of collective security to include the 'promotion of social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.'(f.2) Trygve Lie did not explain why he thought his position was 'the most impossible job in the world,' but over the years his judgement has been shared by most of his successors. The secretary-general's task has become increasingly difficult as the office is called upon to deal with increasingly complex issues: reconciling disparate and conflicting views among the member sovereign states whose number has grown from 511 to 185; balancing East-West and North-South divisions; managing an unwieldy bureaucracy under the inhibiting recruitment principles of state sovereignty and equitable geographic distribution; undertaking operations under vague mandates; promoting and defending multilateralism in a resistant world; and maintaining United Nations impartiality.(f.3) Any one of these problems is vexing enough; how much more so when a number of them have to be dealt with simultaneously. For the last two secretaries-general, Javier Perez de Ceullar and Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the impossibility of the secretary-generalship was compounded by the gnawing financial crisis brought on primarily by the failure of the United States to live up to its treaty obligations to pay its dues and clear up its arrears. This remains the new secretary general's most formidable challenge. To lead the United Nations in its multifaceted activities -- conflict management, peacekeeping, economic development, promotion of human rights, humanitarian assistance, environmental protection, and so on -- a wide range of financial and human resources is required. The secretary-general does not command such resources. He is answerable to the member-states of the organization. They decide the policy direction, and they have to provide the resources. The policies of the member-states, each essentially pursuing its own national interest, 'constrain the development of the United Nations as a much more central organization in international politics.(f.4) The secretary-general may propose but the other principal organs of the United Nations, notably the Security Council, the General Assembly, and the Economic and Social Council, dispose. Clearly, the leadership capability of the secretary-general is much more circumscribed than that of chief of state or government who is responsible to an elected legislative body. Nor does the secretary-general have a political party or direct access to a public to rally to his side. …