DIMOFF: There’s been a lot of, I think, debate in Congress, particularly over the past several years, as to whether we ought to be engaged in the world through the UN, or we ought to try to take the lead ourselves in dealing with some of the difficult problems, civil conflict overseas.

And I think there’s a fundamental, fundamental difference here between the term isolationist and unilateralist. Unilateralists essentially want the United States to take the lead, make its decisions, and based on the decisions that it takes, have the rest of the world follow. And if it decides to do nothing, then that’s the U.S.’s decision, and then the world could theoretically be left to deal with problems on its own.

Isolationists, I think, on the other hand, simply deny that there’s any useful role for the U.S. to play in a lot of these, in dealing with a lot of these problems, and therefore they just as soon not be involved. So there is a fundamental difference.

BAKER: And do you believe that the current inward political climate in this country, as many view it, has something to do with the American leadership, or is there a leadership issue here? I mean, when we see Senator Helms calling the shots, is there someone defining exactly what our national security interests are?

DIMOFF: Well, I think there’s, you know, a serious problem ever since the end of the Cold War, we’ve not really had a kind of overarching foreign policy that takes account of the nexus of the U.S. role in the world.

We have all of these kinds of problems that have resulted, as kind of - in the end of the communist era, in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, and elsewhere. And we haven’t really come to grips with how we as a country would want to re-engage countries in a kind of a new dialogue, if you will, through the UN or on our own, actually.

I have found that for the most part, Members of Congress tend to be looking to the administration to provide the kind of leadership that enables number one, the Congress to understand the basic tenets of American foreign policy, and in turn, to allow the public to be able to decide whether that’s appropriate or not.

So there’s a, I think, fair amount of confusion about what is in our national interest these days.

BAKER: This is sort of simple, but why today, does the United States need the UN?

DIMOFF: Well, I think we need the United Nations because a lot of the challenges that the United States faces in the world are challenges which it can’t really solve or deal with on its own. I mean, if you look at the agenda of the kinds of issues that we as a country are concerned about, whether it’s nuclear proliferation, the spread of disease, environmental degradation, international crime -- the fact is that we’re not going to be able to solve those problems on our own; we have neither the resources to do so, and even if we did, we can’t really hope to find solutions unless we work with other countries to do so.

Working with the United Nations, you bring countries together, to work on these problems, you increase accountability across the board, and you have, I think, a greater possibility of achieving results. And I think there are significant results in, you know, the record shows that, that in terms of dealing with transnational issues of this sort, the UN has a great track record.

BAKER: What are some examples of the successes?

DIMOFF: Well, I think if you look at the, for example, Ambassador Holbrooke recently had the month of Africa in the Security Council, he was serving as its president. And he made a major push in support of fighting AIDS in Africa. And it’s clear, I think, to most Americans that AIDS is a very difficult problem. They may not understand the extent to which it’s ravaging parts of Africa.

At the same time, there are probably Americans that are not aware that the UN has a major AIDS control program underway throughout the world, which brings together the expertise of organizations like the World Health Organization and others, to try to find a cure -- to also try to deal with some of the health problems that are endemic to this situation.

But ultimately, I think Americans understand in a kind of a basic common sense way that there’s no way to deal with these kinds of problems unless countries cooperate with one another through multilateral institutions - through international organizations.

If you look at, in the environment, for example, some of the activities that the UN environment program undertook in support of cleaning up the Mediterranean Sea, just ten years ago, that’s had a major impact on that region.

And there are countless others; in the nuclear proliferation area, or even take closer to what would be narrowly described as our national interest -- after Iraq invaded Kuwait, ten years ago, the fact is that the U.S. has been able to, through the United Nations, maintain an effective sanctions regime. There are some who disagree with it, but the fact is that this is the only way to mobilize, it’s been the only way to mobilize international support for U.S. policy in this area.

BAKER: You make it sound like the UN works, and yet we hear U.S. politicians complaining about how inefficient it is, and how it needs reform. What exactly does the U.S. Congress have in mind when they talk about reform at the UN?

DIMOFF: Well, the United Nations is not an easy institution in which to function. When you bring the 189 countries together, you’re obviously going to have different points of view. The United States, of course, is the single largest contributor to the UN, and it has quite substantial leverage as a result. For the most part, the United States has an opportunity to set the agenda at the United Nations, but in recent years, I have to say it’s not been clear on what this agenda ought to be.

Part of the reason is the difficulty, I think, of our own foreign service, our State Department, to function in the multilateral context. If you look recently, it took eleven months to get Ambassador Holbrooke confirmed. We, that means we did not have a permanent representative, we had able people there, to be sure, but we didn’t have a permanent representative there who could really articulate America’s interests with authority to the other member states.

So the multilateral process can be cumbersome, but on the other hand, the United States, because of its power in the world, because of the prestige associated with a lot of its programs and initiatives, there’s a great deal of potential. It’s a question of exercising it, using it.

BAKER: I understand that they have streamlined, they’ve cut back, they’ve -- have there been substantial reductions on personnel, and in bureaucracy already at the UN?

DIMOFF: There have been major reforms underway in the United Nations since the late 1980’s, and they include everything from consensus-based budgeting, which means that all countries have to agree on the budget - during each part of the process, so that at the end, there’s a consensus on the budget. There have been significant cuts in UN Secretariat staff, 1,000 posts abolished over the last several years -- The UN has been under a zero-nominal growth, that’s a no-growth budget now, for over five years.

This is the kind of reform that speaks to the concern of many Members of Congress who would perhaps want to see the UN’s expenses reduced. But it doesn’t take account of the kinds of programs and challenges that the United Nations has to meet in the future years.

So to the extent that we’re cutting the budget, cutting staff, we still don’t have a clear sense of what it is that the UN ought to be doing, and whether the amounts of money that it’s receiving are actually appropriate in order to do the job.

BAKER: When Senator Helms went up there, he made quite a sensation, some of the things he said in his speech -- He said Americans are tired of being called a deadbeat nation, and among other things, and they resent it, and “they have grown increasingly frustrated with what they feel is a lack of gratitude.” What is Senator Helms talking about, and is it a true reflection of American public sentiment?

DIMOFF: Well, the United Nations has had as its major defaulter on assessments over the last seven to eight years the United States, and as a result, the U.S. has been in arrears, and has had significant problems in paying those dues, due to congressional intransigence.

Well, let me start that over. I want to rephrase that. Repeat that and I’ll--

BAKER: Yeah, when Senator Helms says that Americans have become increasingly frustrated with the lack of gratitude from the UN, what does he mean by it, and is he correctly reflecting American public sentiment about the United Nations?

DIMOFF: Well, the United States has owed the United Nations over a billion dollars since 1995, and much of that money is actually owed to countries that have contributed troops to peacekeeping operations. So those, this, this, these funds, these arrears that are owed by the United States to the UN, first of all, they’re not actually owed to the United Nations. The United Nations will simply serve as a pass-through in order to reimburse countries that have already contributed troops and military equipment to peacekeeping operations, for which the U.S. voted in the Security Council. And as you know, the Security Council, the U.S. is one of five permanent members with a right of, to veto any peacekeeping operation that’s proposed.

I have not heard countries refer to the United States as a deadbeat at the UN; however, the fact of the matter is that the U.S. delinquency has put a damper on the ability of the UN to mobilize in the peacekeeping area. It’s very difficult to try to convince countries to participate in new peacekeeping operations when they haven’t been reimbursed for the ones in which they participated in the past.

And to that extent, the U.S. is responsible, I think, for a major crisis in confidence in UN peacekeeping. And to the extent that the U.S., having voted for these operations in the Security Council, is prepared to back them up by funding them, or funding its share of those operations, then the rest of the world, it’s been shown over the past 40-some years, has been willing to follow -- provide troops, and to use this function in a way which, which tends to reduce conflict.

But that’s, the bottom line, though, has been that we’ve owed this money, and it’s been a source of frustration, there’s no question about that.

BAKER: In talking about the money, Helms said that last year, the American people contributed more than $1.4 billion to the UN system, plus an additional, what is it, $8.8 billion from the U.S. military budget, to support various UN resolutions and peacekeeping operations. I mean, is that really how much the U.S. has spent in support of the UN?

DIMOFF: There’s been a lot of controversy over the past decade concerning the amount that the United States contributes to the United Nations. We make our regularly assessed contributions, those are in the neighborhood of a billion dollars a year. There has been some concern or question as to whether or not the kinds of military support and security that we provide around the world ought to be added to that contribution and seen to be, and then actually making it much larger than it would be.

In this particular case, Senator Helms cited the fact that the U.S. contributed $8 billion additional funding in military support to the United Nations in 1999. The bottom line is that the United States undertook, on its own, these operations. Some of them may have been supportive of UN Security Council resolutions, but the rest of the world is not involved in making any of these decisions.

For example, in terms of the situation in Iraq, the U.S. has maintained a northern and southern no-fly zone for some time now, and Senator Helms would add that into the cost of our U.S. contribution to the UN as being supportive of the UN Security Council resolution on Iraq.

But again, here, the basic difference is, the United States made this decision, to have these no-fly zones over the northern and southern Iraq, on its own, without consultation of the UN Security Council and the member states -- And therefore, it’s expected that it will pick up the cost of these operations on its own.

There’s also the other side of the coin, and that is, other countries providing the same kinds of support to UN peacekeeping operations, and it’s not only the United States that does this. In Somalia, the Italians in 1992 provided $800 million in this kind of support capacity as well. The British, the French, and others have done so in the former Yugoslavia.

So yes, the United States provides these kinds of, this kind of military security, but the bottom line is, other countries do it as well. They don’t expect to be reimbursed by the United Nations. They don’t expect credit to be given by the United Nations, and frankly, the magnitude of the sum is such that the United Nations could not afford to reimburse the U.S. for these kinds of expense that it undertakes on its own.

BAKER: So Helms is saying unilateral U.S. actions that he wants to count as, towards the --

DIMOFF: Right. Senator Helms, Senator Helms is citing unilateral actions taken by the United States government, that are based on its own national security considerations -- and assuming that these ought to be charged off against the UN, or that the UN ought to issue a credit to the United States for its involvement in these kinds of operations.

BAKER: Another issue: many American political figures are suspicious of the UN’s potential encroachment on American sovereignty. The Constitution, giving Congress the exclusive power to declare war, and yet they fear that Americans may be sent into hostilities at the behest of international collective security organization. Is this a valid suspicion or fear?

DIMOFF: It’s a tough question to answer, because under the United Nations charter, countries have joined together to be able to act collectively when there is a threat to international peace. And there’s no question that the United States would be involved in these kinds of activities, as it has been in the past, in the Korean conflict, etcetera.

The bottom line is, though, that in terms of our involvement in the UN, our consultations in the Security Council with other countries, this government has in place a kind of consultative process with the U.S. Congress. And to the extent that Congress is on board, the administration will support initiatives in the Security Council, which might involve the use of U.S. military forces. To the extent that the Congress is not on board, or public opinion is not willing, I just don’t see it happening. There is not a willingness, even to, for the U.S. to participate actively in standby arrangements, which would enable the UN to be able to deal on a much more timely basis with the kinds of crises that require an immediate response.

So we haven’t had really a lot of thinking about this in the U.S. government, although there’s a clear need to give some thought to it.

BAKER: And there are even those that are suspicious of UN intentions with regard to U.S. national park lands. Can you, I’m not sure I understand it. Can you sum up for our viewers exactly what, what that’s about, and whether that notion has any merit?

DIMOFF: The United Nations has a program which brings together many countries to consider how to best preserve what are considered to be world heritage trust sites. And there are many here in this country, there are many around the world. The countries are justifiably proud of sites which are designated to be of world heritage importance.

The fact of the matter is, in this country, the United States federal government has oftentimes cited this convention in opposing the claims of states rights groups to lands within their own states. And this has caused a backlash against international treaties that really don’t do anything but provide for a forum in which to discuss how best to preserve and maintain the heritage of these sites. That is to say that there are no overriding regulations that prohibit the United States federal government, or any state governments, from doing what they wish to do with park lands, or public lands within their boundaries.

There is a consultative process that brings together experts and individuals from other countries, to decide on guidelines on how to best preserve and maintain these kinds of places.

BAKER: So it seems to me you’re saying that these fears of this amorphous international body, reaching its hand into the United States and somehow, you know, dictating what’s done with our territory, is misguided or conspiratorial.

DIMOFF: In terms of the world heritage trust site, I’ve seen the Statue of Liberty designated as under the control of the United Nations, and I think that shows the extent to which this has become wildly blown out of proportion. The fact is, this particular arrangement allows the United States to support activities which enhance tourism. One of the main activities of the world heritage trust site is to be able to increase tourism, at the same time that places of interest are kept in their natural state.

So, for example, certain parts of our federal government, such as the U.S. Parks Service, are very supportive of this UN program. It provides a lot of guidelines for them, determining how best to allow for tourism for these important sites.

BAKER: I want to finish up with looking at the role of the Clinton administration. There was an interesting piece that you directed me to, by Michael Hersch of Newsweek, and Foreign Affairs, that kind of cited how the Clinton administration had blamed the UN for some of its own failings - and that may have led to the declining stature of the UN from the U.S. Congress or with the American public. What responsibility does, or should the Clinton administration hold for the state of the U.S. - UN relationship?

DIMOFF: Well, the Clinton administration came into office with a policy of, which was called Assertive Multilateralism. And there was a sense that the administration work through the UN to deal with many of the kinds of crises that we see unfolding around the world today.

I think in 1993, with the murder of the 18 servicemen in Somalia, that the administration then itself became concerned about its ability to, to interact in these kinds of operations. And there was a lot of criticism on Capitol Hill, and almost immediately, U.S. involvement in that operation came to an end.

Now it’s a fact that at the time the American servicemen were killed, they were under United States command; they were not under UN command. But it prompted the administration to undertake a total review of American participation in UN peacekeeping. This resulted in the publication of a presidential directive on U.S. policy toward peacekeeping, and in the end, it, it, the policy was a kind of series of objective proposals, or excuse me, objective kinds of considerations - for U.S. involvement in UN peacekeeping operations, and strictly limited, I think, the kinds of operations in which the U.S. could be involved.

BAKER: You were talking about PDD 25.

DIMOFF: Well, after the death of the 18 Rangers in Somalia, the United States took a complete review of its policy toward participation in peacekeeping, and this resulted in a presidential directive, which I think, while it stated conditions for U.S. involvement, necessarily limited U.S. involvement in the future in UN peacekeeping operations.

And probably one of the most important aspects of that presidential directive was to involve Congress much more in a kind of a much more comprehensive way, in terms of its input and consultation, before the U.S. would even vote to establish a new UN peacekeeping operation in the Security Council. And if you’ll recall, the U.S. did not participate, or did not heed the calls for the need for a peacekeeping operation in Rwanda. That followed the release of presidential directive 25, and was, and the situation in Rwanda was largely -- Well, I’m getting off on a tangent, I think.

BAKER: You can start off again, maybe, if you want to start with--

DIMOFF: I think --

BAKER: -- the genocide in Rwanda, reflected U.S. reticence that came out of that, or something like that, I don’t know.

DIMOFF: I think, okay, I think after the administration completed its review of U.S. policy toward UN peacekeeping, the first crisis that it was faced with was the situation in Rwanda. It was reluctant to go to Congress, after having set up all these objective criteria for U.S. involvement. And so it deliberately tried to stay out of the situation, and minimize the need for a peacekeeping operation.

And as a result, PD 25 became the real reason that the U.S. was not able to engage in the UN in order to help Rwanda. Even today, the United States cannot vote in the Security Council for an operation to establish, peacekeeping operation, unless the Congress has been consulted 15 days in advance. And this has become commonplace, this is a kind of a consultative process which has become standard now, and Congress expects to be jointly consulted throughout the decision-making process, about U.S. involvement in UN peacekeeping.

BAKER: Would you like to see that directive rescinded, or revised in some way to loosen the way they could do that?

DIMOFF: PDD 25, Presidential Directive 25 is not a bad document, insofar as it attempts to lay out the kind of criteria that merit U.S. involvement in UN peacekeeping operations. The problem is, I think that it, it places too much emphasis on trying to delineate specific instances where the U.S. might not be able to be involved. And it specifically puts a great deal of emphasis on getting approval from Congress. And I don’t necessarily believe -- while I think congressional input is very important, the fact of the matter is that Congress, even the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House International Relations Committee, look to the administration to articulate the policy -- And to, in most cases, try to support and provide advice to make certain that the U.S. is able to participate effectively.

But in this case, in PDD 25, the presidential directive, I think does put too much emphasis on trying to make sure that Congress is on board, that the American public is on board, without fully accounting for the need to play, you know, a leadership role in a way that, that it’s understood by all parties what’s, what the reason for the peacekeeping operation is.

BAKER: That’s all I have. Do you, would you like to add anything to that? We sort of covered the waterfront.

DIMOFF: Yeah, let’s see. Well, I think there’s a lot of debate about what the U.S. gets out of the UN for the money that we put into it. And I think that’s --

BAKER: There’s a lot of debate --

DIMOFF: There’s a lot of debate about what it is that we as a country get out of the United Nations and how much influence we have in the UN. You know, the United States contributes 25 percent of the United Nations regular budget, and that’s about $300 million a year. Our total contributions to international organizations account for one tenth of one percent, one tenth of one percent of our federal budget. In a sense, they’re insignificant to the kinds of programs that the federal government is involved in across the board, whether it’s in national defense, and many other areas.

But the bottom line is it really represents an effective burden sharing arrangement, it represents a place where the U.S. can exercise leadership in a world in which there’s a lot of new challenges facing us, and in a world where everyone agrees, we have to have the cooperation of other countries in order to succeed. It’s a place in which the U.S. can promote its values, it can work with other countries on issues of mutual concern.It is a wise investment for the United States, and it’s a relatively, I would have to say very inexpensive investment for the United States, based on all that we’re able to achieve there.

BAKER: Mr. Dimoff, thank you very much.