Gambling With Prestige

A SCARY THING happened in New York last month. The Moscow newspaper Sovetskaya Rossiya declared. "The United States has demonstrated to the world its incompetence as the country responsible for the headquarters of the United Nations." And at the U.N., many an American friend had to admit that for once, the commentary in this polemical journal struck a faint chord of truth. How could the Soviets put the United States on the defensive before the international community just three weeks after a Russian jet ruthlessly destroyed a passenger airliner with 61 Americans aboard? The answer lies in the unfortunate actions and words of the Reagan Adminsitration following the KAL shooting, and their repercussions on Capitol Hill.

The Reagan response to the airline tragedy first went astray two weeks later on September 16 when the State Department told the Soviet Embassy that Foreign Minister Gromyko could not arrive in the United States on an Aeroflot plane and would have to land at a military airport. Gromyko promptly cancelled his annual address to the General Assembly's opening session and attacked the United States for violating its treaty obligations with the United Nations in an attempt to humiliate unjustly the Soviet Union. Score I for the Soviet propaganda machine, 0 for the Reagan effort.

By failing to overrule the Governors of New York and New Jersey in their desire to prevent Gromyko from landing at Kennedy and Newark International Airports. Reagan opened the Unites States to heavy, and just, criticism. Besides the ethical issue of whether or not the United States is living up to its treaty responsibilities as the United Nations' host (it's not in this case), the decision to harass Gromyko makes for bad politics. It permits other countries, all too eager to find fault with Number One, conclude that the United States is taking unfair advantage of its position as U.N. host to further its parochial interests.

What's more, the decision serves Soviet interests by giving Gromyko an excuse to get himself off the hook. Gromyko wanted nothing less than to be subjected to a barrage of criticism from the assembled delegates at the United Nations, especially after his hostile reception at the Madrid Conference a week earlier.

As the focus of the General Assembly's attention shifted from Soviet responsibility for the airline crash to the question of American responsibility to the United Nations, the second-ranking U.S. delegate to the United Nations. Charles Lichtenstein, made matters worse by "strongly encouraging" U.N. member-states who feel unwelcome "to seriously consider removing themselves and this organization from the soil of the United States." Lichtenstein concluded icily. "We will put no impediment in your way and we will be at dockside bidding you a fond farewell as you set off into the sunset."

A few days later, even though the State Department had discounted Lichtenstein's comments as representing a personal view. President Reagan gave them an official blessing by saying that they had "the hearty approval of most people in America." Score 1 for American chauvinism, 0 for American magnanimity.

THE PRESENT LOCATION of the United Nations does more than just bolster America's prestige and its claim to be the world's premier power, the New York site also draws to the United States all the world's leaders and top diplomats, enabling them to see American pluralism firsthand. The United Nations' proximity to the nation's capital gives the United States an unqualified edge in the diplomatic world; a short hop to Washington, D.C. allows foreign dignitaries visiting the United Nations to meet their American counterparts for important bilateral consultations. And contrary to the President's appraisal of American public opinion, a recent New York Times CBS News Poll showed that by a 3 to 1 ration. Americans favor keeping United Nations headquarters in New York City.

Statements such as Lichtenstein's could become dangerously self-fulfilling. Sure enough, the evening that Reagan's expression of disdain for an American-based United Nations appeared in the media the Senate voted by a lopsided margin of 66 to 23 to cut by half the U.S. contribution to the United Nations and its agencies. The United Nations depends on the United States for 25 percent of its budget, or a contribution that was set at $363 million for fiscal year 1984. As a founding member and the biggest monetary supporter of the United Nations system, the United States must make good on its full financial commitment, which is assessed in careful negotiations, if the United Nations is to remain a financially viable organization and if other countries are to pay their bills. While Congress has long criticized the United Nations for high salaries and exhorbitant expenditures, the United Nations has recently undertakes a substantial budget austerity proram that has earned the praise of even the Reagan Administration. The Senate stand sent another bad signal to the world during a period of tension and uncertainly.

As a result of those actions, President Reagan was forced to abandon for a time his rhetorical attacks on Soviet brutality and go on record as "reaffirm[ing] strongly the U.S. support for the U.N." Fortunately, the Administration came out against the Senate move, which could have eventually cost the United States its vote in the international body, and the House did not back it either. So the Senate vote did not lead to an actual reduction in U.S. funds for the United Nations, despite the harsh claims of some, like Sen. Steve Symms (R-Idaho), that "taxpayers are sick and tired of playing host to our enemies and critics abroad."

BUT THE ADMINISTRATION and Senate, during this week of miswords and misdeeds, had already caused damage to the American international reputation. Perhaps more important, the politicians in Washington, by displaying scorn for the United Nations, gave way to, and fostered, the isolationist bent that lies just below the surface of many Americans' views and all American foreign policy. This reluctance to assume a leading role in world diplomacy, a role that should have been natural for a major power, contributed to the deterioration of international relations preceding World Wars I and II. Immediately after World War II, the U.N. Preparatory Commission concluded that one way to keep the United States from withdrawing should our traditional isolationism arise once again would be to situate U.N. Headquarters in the United States. In the present context of the airline shooting, isolationism would lead us to ignore our obligation to condemn despicable actions such as those of the Soviets'.

If we slight the United Nations, either by violating our guarantee to diplomats of umimpeded entry to the United States through normal travel channels, by suggesting the United Nations move elsewhere, or by threatening to slash funds earmarked for the organization, we undercut international cooperation and harm the American national interest. Aside from its work in fighting world hunger and keeping the peace in embattled nations, the United Nations best serves as a forum for international discussion. The Reagan Administration found it very profitable to use the United Nations in this context in bringing world opinion to bear upon the Soviet Union for its disregard of civilized standards in destroying the Korean passenger plane. By perverting the special relationship we have with the United Nations, Reagan only sets back U.S. interests. In other words, we undermine what we are seeking, which currently is a clear indictment by the world community of the Soviet Union for the murder of 269 innocent civilians.