The UN's sticky veto issue.

• Author: Howell, Llewellyn D.

Specially since Ronald Reagan's ascendancy to the presidency, the United Nations has been subjected to increasingly virulent criticism in the U.S. on three counts: that it is inefficient; exhibits a collectivist ideology that it forces the U.S. to fund; and there is a lack of democracy and representativeness in the Permanent Security Council member structure.

The first two complaints are generated and supported mostly by the right (led by the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute), while the third comes primarily from the left. The three problems are interrelated, but the Security Council issue is one that pits its American supporters and opponents most strongly against one another.

At present, the five permanent members of the Security Council (the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, and France) never are to be subject to challenge as to their permanence, and each of the five can exercise veto power over UN resolutions that fall within its purview. Critics from the left, both in the U.S. and globally, argue that the permanence which was a function of World War II preeminence on the victorious side no longer has relevance in a world that has changed politically, economically, and demographically. They further argue that the existence of veto power makes the UN operationally an oligarchy, allowing a few single and minority members to control all critical outcomes. Much of the argument is directed at America's use of the veto to deflect criticism of Israel, thus hitting on a very sensitive internal matter in the U.S.

The right argues that the U.S. never can subject itself to the whims of a sometimes peripatetic and irresponsible world democracy that would bite the hand that feeds it for the sake of emotional, ideological, and temporal situations. Actions by the General Assembly have lent credence to some of these claims, but is that the issue?

The Clinton Administration has argued, with some effectiveness, that democratic processes encourage and engender transparency and efficiency, at least at a national level. Conservatives have supported this argument when applied to governments other than the U.S., but seem not to understand the implications of democratic responsibility in international organizations.

The Clinton Administration reflects a different position when the question of democracy is applied to the UN. It supports additional permanent members, but makes no mention of extension of the veto power to them. Most importantly, the...