I have heard Boutros Boutros-Ghali, UN Secretary-General from 1992 to 1996, justify peacekeeping neutrality despite violent conflict with a clear oppressor to retain the UN's status as an impartial mediator. Although frustrating to see violence continue amidst peacekeeping troops, the UN peacekeepers can lend stability to post-conflict areas, especially when coupled with other UN programs that monitor the evolution of political and judicial power and foster economic development.

To successfully implement its peacekeeping and humanitarian programs, the UN must have adequate funding. Member states that withhold dues until the UN proves its effectiveness create an inane irony--the UN cannot prove its effectiveness if it cannot afford food and medical supplies to equip peacekeeping troops or to pay its technical and administrative staff.

The United States has been one of the most delinquent donors to the United Nations, in part because of opposition within the Congress. This past June, the Senate finally approved almost $1 billion for arrears to the United Nations. While this is an important step to reestablish our credibility within the United Nations, it is still short of the almost $1.5 billion that the UN claims the US owes.

To argue that the United States should devote less financial and political capital to the UN is to shortsightedly confine the definition of American national interest to the present domestic agenda. While health care policy, campaign finance reform, social security surpluses and tax cuts deserve public discussion, we cheat ourselves if we believe that these issues are the only ones affecting America today. The true challenge for policy makers is not how to escape the entangling alliances of international institutions, but how to bring events in other parts of the world into the daily consciousness of the American people.