Republicans in Congress want to defund the United Nations. And at the same time, they also want to get tough with Iran. A senior State Department official advised them today that the former would undermine the latter. “Quite frankly, we should not unfund the U.N.,” said Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman when pressed for concrete steps Congress should take to pressure Iran. Sherman, responding to a question from Rep. Connie Mack (R-FL) while testifying at the House Foreign Affairs Committee, defended the work of the IAEA and multilateral sanctions in bringing pressure on Tehran for its alleged nuclear weapons program.

While Democratic and Republican lawmakers on the committee were adamant that tougher measures were required against Iran following the allegations that the Iranian government was linked to a convoluted plot to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador in a D.C. restaurant, Sherman found herself defending the administration’s efforts to bring tighter multilateral sanctions on Iran.

The committee was quick to call for harsher measures against Iran and repeatedly criticized the Obama administration’s efforts to utilize multilateral bodies, such as the U.N., to bring pressure on Tehran.

“The little fellow from the desert — Ahmadinejad — has to be replaced by his own people,” said Rep. Ted Poe, (R-TX), and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) warned that efforts to get countries like Russia and China to support new sanctions in the U.N. Security Council is “foolhardy and dangerous.”

Sherman’s defense of U.S. participation in the U.N. comes one day after the House Foreign Affairs Committee, under the leadership of Ros-Lehtinen defunded the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), a program which delivers aid to children around the world. Here’s the exchange between Mack and Sherman:

MACK: We don’t hear any concrete steps that you’re asking the Congress to do. What tools do you need to really have an impact with Iran?

SHERMAN: [...] Quite frankly, we should not unfund the U.N. because we need the oversight bodies to know where facilities are, to monitor what’s going on, to be able to act when we need to act.

MACK: So you would rather us be part of an organization that works against our own interests at times?

SHERMAN: I understand that it doesn’t do everything we want them to do but the IAEA has been a valuable tool in our ability to stop nuclear proliferation.

Watch it:

Under the leadership of right-wing Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), the House Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday defunded United Nations aid to children across the globe.

On a party-line 23 to 15 vote, the committee passed a bill restricting funds for the U.N. that would likely forbid the U.S. from giving any money to the 55-year old United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). It’s unclear when the legislation will come before the full House.

Yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that the bill endangered U.S. troop withdrawals from Afghanistan and Iraq, and urged President Obama to veto it. The legislation would cut the U.S. contribution to the U.N. by half — from $500 billion to $250 billion — unless the world body submitted to a system where most of its programs were voluntarily funded.

Mark Leon Goldberg of U.N. Dispatch checked out the fine print and found a provision in the bill that would put such onerous demands on U.N. agencies that they’d be unlikely or even unable to meet them:

Several UN agencies like UNICEF and the World Food Program are already funded on a voluntary basis. In other words, donors pay what they can, when they can. Presumably this legislation would not touch these popular UN agencies. And after all, it would be deeply immoral and politically un-savvy to take food out of the mouths of starving children, right?

Or at least that’s what I thought until I read the fine print.

In fact, there is provision tucked into the United Nations Transparency, Accountability and Reform Act of 2011 which would effectively end all American contributions to UNICEF. Section 202 reads “no funds made available for use as a United States Contribution to any United Nations Entity may be obligated or expended if—(1) the intended United Nations Entity recipient has not provided to the Comptroller General within the preceding year a Transparency Certification.”

A “transparency certification” would guarantee access for Congress and the GAO to the nuts-and-bolts business of each agency. But, Goldberg writes, “neither UNICEF, nor any UN agency would ever agree to such a provision. Once you start privileging one country, other countries are going to want the same level of access and treatment.”

According the Associated Press, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is also against the legislation, probably because he knows it could drive the U.N. right out of New York. Earlier this yeah, Ros-Lehtinen took a similarly provocative step when she proposed the U.S. break some of its hosting treaty obligations to the U.N.

On Wednesday Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned congressional Republicans that their plan to slash funding for the United Nations will have serious consequences for the armed forces. The proposed budget cuts could jeopardize the return of U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, she said in a letter:

“We cannot depend on United Nations missions … to help American troops return home safely and successfully, while taking actions that will decimate the budgets that underpin those important missions,” Clinton wrote to Rep. Ileana-Ros Lehtinen (R-Fla.), the chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “In the end, engagement through the United Nations comes at a fraction of the cost of acting alone.”

Democrats have warned before that they oppose Ros-Lehtinen’s bill on United Nations reform but have not until now warned the bill could threaten troop safety overseas.

Ros-Lehtinen’s committee will markup the bill today. It would require the U.S. to withhold 50 percent of its funding to the U.N. until the international organization moves to a voluntary funding arrangement for most of its programs.

Clinton said that if the bill is presented to President Obama, she will recommend that he veto it.

Today, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas formally asked that Palestine become a full member of the United Nations despite staunch opposition from Israel and the U.S. On cue, Republicans are attacking the U.N. for even considering such a request. Joining House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) reissued his call to pass his bill — the Solidarity with Israel Act — which would eliminate U.S. Funding for the U.N. if the Security Council or the General Assembly changes Palestine’s current status, and thus “votes to harm our trusted ally,” he said.

But in a somewhat surprising turn, former Vice President Dick Cheney dismissed such measures. When Pajamas Media asked whether he agreed that defunding the U.N. was warranted in light of the Palestinian Authority’s effort, Cheney said “I don’t think that’s necessarily the right response”:

CHENEY: I’ve never been a great fan of the United Nations over the years…I’ve felt that they didn’t exercise they’re authority they way they might. But in terms of the basic notion that we are going to defund the U.N., I haven’t given it any thought. People get severely agitated about what’s going on at the United Nations, they used to up in Congress….There are a lot of Americans who look askance at the United Nations and probably would in a heart beat vote for defunding. I don’t think that’s necessarily the right response here. We’ll see what happens.

Watch it:

There’s good reason to question the move. As Center for American Progress’s Sarah Margon notes, such bills set “a dramatic precedent that far exceeds previous anti-U.N. initiatives.” Not only would it force the U.N. to adopt a voluntary budget model, it would “end funding for Palestinian refugees, restrict the use of U.S. funds to the goals outlined by Congress, and stop U.S. contributions to U.N. peacekeeping operations” until reforms are made.

What’s more, these measures ignore the U.N’s recent successes in “galvanizing international action” that aligns with U.S. interests — be it in Libya, Syria, or Iran. Along with providing a more cost effective way to face and coordinate on global challenges, Margonn also notes that U.N. participation “enhance[s] our ability to promote our agenda by leveraging key actors.”

Nonetheless, right-wing conservatives seem wedded to their dogmatic campaign against the U.N. As GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich summed up last night, any U.N. action that may work against U.S. interests sparks their question, “Why are you giving them anything?”

In a statement released yesterday, House Foreign Affairs Committee chairwoman Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) called for the U.S. to violate its own laws and ratified international treaties governing the U.S. role as host to the United Nations.

In the statement, which focused on sanctioning officials from the Iranian government, Ros-Lehtinen said the U.S. should deny Iranian and Syrian officials access to the U.S. for the upcoming U.N. General Assembly:

And with the U.N. General Assembly convening in New York in weeks, the U.S. must unequivocally deny all Iranian and Syrian regime officials access to U.S. soil.

It’s impossible to read this statement as anything but a call from the top foreign policy official in the House of Representatives for the U.S. violate its own laws, specifically those enacted by the Congress in 1947 that established New York City as the host of the international body.

The U.S. and the U.N. signed the “Headquarters Agreement,” also known as U.S. Public Law 80 – 357, in June 1947 and both Houses of Congress subsequently passed the measure and the President signed it into law.

Article IV of the Headquarters Agreement outlines several provisions with regard to travel to New York by representatives of Member States:

Article IV — Communication and Transit
Section 11
The federal, state or local authorities of the United States shall not impose any impediments to transit to or from the headquarters district of (1) representatives of Members or officials of the United Nations [...]
Section 12
The provisions of Section 11 shall be applicable irrespective of the relations existing between the Governments of the persons refereed to in that section and the Government of the United States.
Section 13
(a) Laws and regulation in force in the United States regarding the entry of aliens shall not be applied in such a manner as to interfere with the privileges referred to in Section 11. When visas are required for persons referred to in that Section, they shall be granted without charge and as promptly as possible.

While Ros-Lehtinen has long been an opponent of the U.N. — she introduced a bill this week that would withdraw much of the U.S. funding for the organization — her call yesterday demonstrates that her anti-U.N. ideology trumps even respect for established U.S. law.

Our guest blogger is Sarah Margon, associate director for sustainable security at the Center for American Progress.

Less than a week after a car bomb devastated the United Nations’ headquarters in Nigeria and killed more than 20 employees, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) has decided to introduce legislation that, if passed, would defund and significantly damage U.S. engagement with this important international institution. The bill is meant to coincide with the Palestinian Authority’s push for statehood recognition at the U.N. A spokesman for Ros-Lehtinen explained:

“The text includes a section that follows in the successful precedent set by the George H.W. Bush Administration in 1989 by withholding U.S. funding to any UN entity that upgrades the status of the Palestinian mission. It contains other provisions conditioning U.S. funding to the UN on the implementation of concrete reforms. The bill will be introduced with the support of several dozen original co-sponsors.”

Ros-Lehtinen’s bill sets a dramatic precedent that far exceeds previous anti-U.N. initiatives. It would require the U.N. to adopt a voluntary budget model in which countries selectively fund U.N. agencies rather than use the current formula for assessed (required) dues, which is determined for each member state based on the country’s gross national income, as well as factors like population and levels of debt. It would also end funding for Palestinian refugees, restrict the use of U.S. funds to the goals outlined by Congress, and stop U.S. contributions to U.N. peacekeeping operations until major management reforms are made.

The introduction of this bill comes at a time when the United States has had notable success in galvanizing international action through the United Nations, whether in Libya, where the Security Council adopted a resolution authorizing a NATO military campaign to protect civilians or at the U.N. Human Rights Council, which recently called for an international inquiry into potential crimes against humanity by the Syrian government. Back in May, CAP expert Matt Duss also noted the U.N.’s success in Iran — where the multilateral sanctions, adopted under a June 2010 Security Council resolution — have begun to significantly impact Iran’s ability to proceed with its nuclear program. In fact, the expert panel noted that new measures constrain “Iran’s procurement of items related to prohibited nuclear and ballistic missile activity and thus slowing development of these programs.”

In general, the United Nations reflects the commitment of its member states to tackle enormous global challenges. The institution itself represents a shared understanding that it is cheaper and more effective for countries to work together toward the same ends. Continuing our engagement at the U.N., while pressing for greater reform to make it more effective, will enhance our ability to work collaboratively with other partners — both traditional and not. As I wrote in an op-ed in the Hill, it will also promote our agenda by leveraging key actors.

There is little question that the U.N. needs to undergo significant reforms, but one of the best ways for that to happen is to ensure the United States remains actively engaged and at the helm of such efforts. An April 2010 CAP report reminds us that:

[…] [H]istory shows that robust U.S. engagement is actually the best way to reform the institution. Ironically, cutting funds now also means we are shifting our obligations onto future generations since U.N. membership still requires dues even if Congress cuts the budget. Restricting U.S. support for the United Nations ultimately has a much higher price tag than it does savings as doing so substantially decreases our political legitimacy while costing America money and jobs.

Today’s threats to our national security are constantly evolving. If we are to address them systematically, we need to marshal all available resources to do so. Unilateral approaches are certainly one option to do so, but as the war in Iraq indicates, they are dramatically less effective and more expensive.

In only the latest episode of a long line Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin‘s uncritical stenography of her ideological comrades — even when they’re obviously wrong — comes today’s comment from Brookings Institution pundit Robert Kagan that there is no domestic constituency for defense spending. In a post attacking the “Gang of Six” debt plan, Rubin quotes an e-mail from Kagan:

[The proposed cuts are] utterly irresponsible and dangerous to national security. Also cowardly, since defense has no domestic constituency, while entitlements — the real source of our fiscal crisis — do.

Leaving aside the fear-mongering bit about how cutting the U.S.’ massive defense budget might suddenly bring the caliphate flooding into America, the notion that defense spending has no domestic constituency seems fantastical at even a moment’s glance. Writing for the security blog InkSpots, pseudonymous defense analyst Gulliver dashes out five of such constituencies: “1. The U.S. and global defense industry;” “2. Communities dependent on defense dollars;” “3. Members of Congress;” “4. the Defense Department and the military services;” “5. commentators, advocates, and pseudo-scholars.”

Those broad and obvious categories are what makes Kagan’s assertion so baffling. The defense industry alone pours tons of money into politics. In the last presidential election cycle, individuals and PACs associated with defense gave about $24 million and, for each of the past three years, the defense industry has spent about $150 million a year on lobbying efforts.

Naturally, members of Congress from both sides of the aisle react well to this cash and get behind pet defense projects for their districts exactly because that money brings jobs and therefore, the idea goes, more votes. So not only is the constituency there, but they’re well represented on the Hill, too.

Defense’s domestic constituency is so painfully obvious that one wonders what Kagan was thinking when he typed out the e-mail. And he’s often thought of as the “smart neocon.”