The United Nations, says Richardson, provides "the best vehicle" for handling, "some of the major problems faced by the United States and the world...nuclear proliferation, international terrorism, drugs, environmental degradation, regional conflicts." Richardson became the chief U.S. envoy to the United Nations and a member of President Clinton's Cabinet in February 1997. Previously, he was a member of Congress from New Mexico for 14 years. He has also served as Clinton's special envoy on sensitive diplomatic missions to Iraq, North Korea, Cuba, Haiti, and Myanmar, and has led U.S. observer teams to elections in Guatemla, Nicaragua, and the former East Germany. The interview was conducted by Contributing Editor Judy Aita.

Question: Why is the United Nations of vital interest to the United States?

Richardson: The United Nations is a very important tool for advancing American foreign policy interests and building international support for U.S. foreign policy goals.

Specifically, the United Nations is an arena for handling some of the major problems faced by the United States and the world -- problems such as nuclear proliferation, international terrorism, drugs, environmental degradation, regional conflicts based on tribal or ethnic differences, economic competition.

We feel that the United States can best advance its interests, and save taxpayer money, by approaching these transnational problems in a multinational fashion, building support for American goals multilaterally. And the United Nations is the best vehicle to achieve these goals.

In addition, the United Nations is the venue for advancing American interests in promoting human rights, supporting democracy, dealing with refugees, and furthering the causes of women. For these reasons the United Nations is a very important venue in which to deal with our problems.

Q: Of the many issues you've listed, are there some that will be particularly important for the United States in the coming year?

Richardson: U.N. Security Council issues are still the most important for American interests, mainly in areas such as preserving sanctions on Iraq and helping to enforce the Dayton peace accords in Bosnia. Both of these are United Nations-related initiatives that involve important participation by the United States.

In addition, the United Nations is a vehicle for advancing our goals on sustainable development, on the environment, and on the promotion of human rights. We just had what, in my judgment, was a successful session in Geneva of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, dealing with a variety of issues relating to that very important principle in our foreign policy.

Where I do believe we have to move ahead, in terms of preserving American interests, is in the payment of U.S. back dues to the United Nations. The issue of U.S. arrears hurts America's interests. Our credibility is low at the U.N. I have seen directly how we lose leverage on issues important to us within the Security Council -- in the area of peace and security, for instance -- when we don't pay our dues. You can see it in some of the speeches of my colleagues on the council.

I think the sooner we deal with our arrears, the better off our foreign policy interests are going to be. Right now they are jeopardized by this lack of agreement on an arrears package that will also contain some significant reforms for the United Nations.

Q: I realize that it is up to the Congress to approve U.S. payments to the United Nations, but do you have a sense about where that payment issue might be headed?

Richardson: In the next 60 days I'm leading, on behalf of the administration, a negotiating effort with the Congress that will seek a comprehensive, one-time grand bargain arrangement -- one that will include arrears and reform concurrently, paid out over a period of years. I am confident that we will reach some type of agreement.

Right now we're down to the nitty gritty on some of the tough demands that Congress is making on reforms, which we, in principle, support. But we also have to make sure the United Nations doesn't feel the United States is guiding and dictating rather than cooperating and finding ways to work together on reform.

Q: You have been talking to groups around the United States about the United Nations. Have you found the American people's perceptions and attitudes toward the United Nations differ from those of Congress?

Richardson: In my talks around the country -- with young and old, in university settings, among business groups, grass roots groups of all types -- there is genuine support for the United Nations.

Many don't follow all the issues directly, but basically the American people are internationalists. There is a vocal minority that stirs up a lot of misperception that is very active in the Congress. But I don't believe that their position is reflected around the country. Most polls show American support for the United Nations.

Q: If U.N. assessment rates are revised to make them more equitable, what the United States doesn't pay under the reassessment, other countries are going to have to pick up. How long do you think it's going to take to get other countries to accept that fact?

Richardson: I believe it will be another two years before all American accounts are stabilized and we can be fully paid up and back on track. There are other nations in arrears, but that doesn't mean the United Nations should not dedicate itself to reform, regardless of American interest and pressure. Reform is good for everybody and the United Nations right now has a reform-minded secretary general, which is good for the prospects for reform. But the secretary general still has to get the support of the member states, and some are not very eager to change.

Q: The U.N. General Assembly, which will convene in September, will receive the final package of key reforms from the secretary general. Will that be the dominant issue at the 53rd Assembly?

Richardson: We believe the secretary general will have enough support for his reform package. We hope it is broad and aggressive. We are working with him on it. My view is that he is strong enough to get support for broad reforms -- including staffing cuts that are needed, which will be the most contentious.

So far the secretary general has done well in the reforms he's announced that can be done through his secretariat. The others that remain have to be approved by the member states. We believe he will do well in that area.

Q: What is the U.S. position on the issue of Security Council reform?

Richardson: Our position is very clear. We favor Germany and Japan becoming members of the Security Council. We don't believe, however, that our veto right should be diluted under any circumstances. We're also ready to increase the Security Council membership to 20 or 21.

There are a lot of proposals floating around that increase the Security Council more than what we would like to see. We want a Security Council that is transparent; that operates more efficiently. We're ready to give voice to more countries, but we have to preserve our strength and our rights, and that's what we're doing.

Q: How does the United States view the role of the U.N. humanitarian agencies?

Richardson: We would like to see the humanitarian agencies more efficiently run, consolidated. There have been problems with some of the major refugee operations around the world. We'd like to see progress on reform so that refugee assistance is more efficient. We'd like to see the U.N. Department of Humanitarian Affairs be more aggressive and run more efficiently; we'd like to see some consolidation. We're very pleased with the work of Mrs. Sadako Ogata, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees.

We would also like to see a five percent cut in all the major U.N. agencies -- the ILO (International Labor Organization), the World Health Organization, IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), and the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization).

Q: What is the role of the United Nations in development and economic issues? Do you feel U.N. agencies should continue to undertake projects for the sake of development alone, or do you think they should only be undertaken in support of peacekeeping or democracy-building programs?

Richardson: Developed nations and international agencies have to find ways to deliver development assistance more effectively and more efficiently. By that I mean we need to find new ways to help other countries. That doesn't necessarily mean direct grants; we need to find ways to involve the private sector, provide loans, make more use of the international financial institutions, and develop programs that involve training of executives.

We support the general view that the secretary general has to move some of the funds saved from reform into development projects. We don't think development projects within the United Nations should be politicized. U.N. giving and financial assistance is based on need; we think it should stay that way.

The resources are not that vast, but what is needed is for major donor countries like Japan and the United States, U.N. agencies, and the international financial institutions to better coordinate their assistance so that duplication is avoided and there are comprehensive joint strategies, rather than separate strategies as exist today.

Q: The United Nations has been involved in longstanding disputes -- such as Afghanistan, Cyprus, and even the Middle East and Palestine -- that have, at times, turned the world organization into a debating society. Do you feel there is a role for the United Nations -- not necessarily in helping to settle these disputes, but in helping to bring the sides closer together on the issues?

Richardson: I think the United Nations has a very strong record of effectiveness, specifically in two instances that advanced American interests. First with Iraq, when a "coalition of the willing" was formed to support the United States in forcing Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. This wasn't just a U.S. issue; it helped many countries. And secondly with North Korea, when the threat of sanctions by the United Nations made the North Koreans come to the negotiating table. This eventually produced a nuclear accord with the United States that freezes their nuclear development.

I think there are many more success stories. Some peacekeeping functions that work very well -- Mozambique, El Salvador, Guatemala, to name a few. Bosnia, on the whole, has worked well. Somalia is the one that is most questioned; but on the whole, although there were some problems, a lot of lives were saved in Somalia by the U.N. operation. Angola has just been completed successfully. I suspect that there will be a United Nations presence in Zaire to bring stability in elections to that country.

I think the successes far outweigh the problems. There are some long-standing operations. Cyprus has, no question, been a nagging one for many years. In Cyprus the presence of U.N. troops has brought stability there, has brought a certain passiveness to a very contentious dispute. On the whole I think the presence has been helpful.