In a startlingly blunt manner, French President Nicolas Sarkozy today demanded that the United Nations be reformed and argued that key international issues could not be resolved by negotiations among 192 U.N. member countries. According to the AFP account, Sarkozy announced that “The UN is absolutely indispensable and yet at the same time, it’s not working … I am certain that we need to reform the United Nations, otherwise the United Nations will end up in an impasse.”
He went on to criticize the practice of negotiating agreements among all member states simultaneously – the default process at the U.N. – wondering “who can believe that this can work?” He concluded that a better strategy would be for a “representative” group of countries to do the essential haggling. This makes eminent sense if the “representative” group of countries is composed of those that are going to be expected to bear the burden of whatever is being negotiated. The fundamental flaw of including all countries in U.N. negotiations is the tendency of a majority of countries to seek agreements that garner benefits to themselves and shift the lion’s share of costs to a relative few countries. All too often the U.S. is among the few.
As Sarkozy observes, this dynamic crippled the climate change negotiations in Copenhagen this past fall. But it also applies to a broad range of activities and responsibilities on the U.N. docket. As stated in the conclusion of ConUNdrum: The Limits of the United Nations and the Search for Alternatives :
No compelling reason dictates that multilateral action to advance human rights should be the exclusive purview of the United Nations… Moreover, some purportedly global problems are clearly not global or may in practice be better addressed through selective participation. Including nations with little at stake or minimal ability to effect a solution to a problem—which is the default process in the U.N.—can impede international action. Such was clearly the case with the Kyoto Protocol. Why should land-locked nations be considered essential parties to the Law of the Sea Treaty? Or nations with no outer space capabilities strongly influence deliberations of the U.N. Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space by constituting an overwhelming majority of its sixty-nine members?
…. The United States must be flexible in its approaches to international cooperation. If the United States and other nations operate only through the U.N., they hand the spoilers the means to frustrate their efforts. Multilateralism is a tool, not an end in itself. The United States should be open to working through the U.N. and other international organizations to address joint concerns, but the United States must not allow solutions to be held hostage by an irrational adherence to past practice or theoretical jurisdictions.
Although it must be said that Sarkozy’s proposed solutions (like expanding the U.N. Security Council) are not well thought out and would probably make the problem even worse, it is edifying that even France recognizes the fatuousness of the U.N. obsession of seeking a “consensus” solution to all problems and the need to explore alternatives.
Contrast this to the strange reluctance of the Obama Administration to press for reform of the U.N. Instead of demanding increased transparency, accountability, and oversight at the U.N. and calling for budgetary restraint, the U.S. has gone along with U.N. budget increases and allowed the U.N. member states to charge U.S. taxpayers even more to support the organization. Even other U.N. member states and U.N. officials have quietly expressed puzzlement over U.S. silence on U.N. reform issues that have characterized U.S. policy for decades.
America’s experience over the years shows how hard it is for any one nation to impose reform on the U.N. It would seem that another country may finally be fed up with the status quo at the U.N. It’s a shame that just as France is stepping up; the Obama Administration and Congress are stepping down.
Russian President Dmitri Medvedev arrived in Paris on Monday for a three-day visit and to launch a new strategic partnership with France. The new Franco-Russian embrace is marked by major arms sales, a space deal, lucrative energy contracts and greater market access—all under the banner of a blossoming personal relationship between President Nicolas Sarkozy and Medvedev. But the blossoming Franco-Russian friendship appears poised to come at the expense of European security.
We’ve been to this show before. The historical connection between France and Russia dates back before World War I. France and Russia consummated an alliance in 1894. This was a military pact, based on mutual protection guarantees, and aimed against the rising Germany. It did not survive World War I, nor did the 1935 Franco-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance. This time, Paris is playing catch-up with Germany for a privileged relationship with Moscow.
Seemingly oblivious to NATO members’ objections and Russia’s continued violation of the August 2008 ceasefire agreement in George (brokered by President Sarkozy), Paris is moving ahead with the sale of four Mistral-class assault ships to Russia. The Mistral is one of the most advanced helicopter carriers in the world and would be a formidable power projection tool for Russia. Building two Mistrals under the license in Russia will also boost the Russian industrial capabilities. This dynamic should concern the U.S. as well as Europe.
In addition to arms sales, the two leaders presided over the signing of an important accord between Gaz de France Suez and Gazprom. GDF will acquire a nine percent stake in the Nord Stream gas pipeline, and in exchange, Gazprom will provide France with up to an additional 1.5 billion meters of gas annually from 2015. This follows a close pattern in Russia’s diplomatic playbook: Moscow grants selective access to Russian energy resources as a reward for political cooperation—and often times lobbying on behalf of the Kremlin.
The two countries are also venturing into space: France will spend about $1 billion to buy 14 Soyuz carrier rockets from Russia. The new deal marks another step in cooperation between Russia and France in the space sector after Arianespace signed a contact with Russia’s space agency in 2008 for the launch of 10 Russian Soyuz-ST rockets.
There may be an internal Russian political angle to the visit as well. Medvedev may be jealous of his mentor and ex-boss Russian Premier Vladimir Putin in pursuing a close relationship with Sarkozy. Putin has strong ties with Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi and was close to the German Chancellor Gerhardt Schroeder and French President Jacques Chirac when the two were in office. Until now, personal relationships and lucrative business deals were reserved to Putin. The trajectory of Medvedev’s and Sarkozy’s friendship appears to be a new dynamic which signals Medvedev’s “coming of age.”
One can only hope that Sarkozy will use his leverage to counter dismemberment of Georgia and promote the rule of law. Paris would also be wise to remember that its gains from a Franco-Russian business ties should not come at the expense of European security. Unfortunately, judging from Paris’s business-better-than-usual approach, the future for Russia’s expand clout in Europe never looked better.
C0-authored by Ariel Cohen, Ph.D., Senior Research Fellow in Russian and Eurasian Studies and International Energy Policy and Owen B. Graham, Research Assistant at the Katherine and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Policy at The Heritage Foundation.