In what was widely seen as an effort at midcourse correction, the Bush administration last week decided to seek broader help in Iraq from the United Nations. In the face of rising human and financial costs in Iraq, the administration has circulated a draft resolution to U.N. Security Council members in the hopes of securing more troops, money and support. The resolution also calls for the creation of a multinational force under a unified command, with the United States still in charge. France and Germany -- the two nations on the Security Council that most strongly opposed the Iraqi engagement -- rejected the resolution, but negotiations are continuing.

U.N. Undersecretary for Communications Shashi Tharoor, who wrote an article in the current Foreign Affairs magazine arguing that the organization is indispensible to the United States, talked with Perspective editor Deborah Jerome-Cohen.

In what ways do the French and German objections to the U.S. proposal for U.N. help in Iraq point to some of the difficul ties critics cite about trying to work with the United Nations?

It seems to me that any time one has a legislative proposal before any legislative body you expect to have other legislators make comments and contributions. The fact that you're making a proposal to a legislative body with 15 members would suggest that you anticipate a certain amount of comment and debate from the other 14. This is exactly how it's supposed to work. You make a strong case in your Foreign Affairs article for the United Nations as the premier forum for multinationalism. And the U.N. is widely regarded as successful in dealing with humanitarian and aid issues. But the U.N.'s track record with peacekeeping and nation-building is spottier.

What are the selling points of that record?

The U.N.'s overall record is far better than the adjective spotty would suggest. Essentially, that record is overwhelmingly positive. What are the selling points? The U.N.'s involvement permits a burden-sharing that is indispensable. When you're going through the U.N. you involve a whole host of countries, bringing broad global legitimacy. The U.N. also has a terrific record of doing things on the cheap. It is the least expensive way of conducting peacekeeping operations. In a typical year, the U.N. spends less on peacekeeping worldwide than the budget of the New York City police and fire departments.

In terms of our track record, it's largely one of success. Whereas critics will point to the negative examples of Bosnia, the genocide in Rwanda, Somalia, the U.N. has 40-odd other operations where it can point to great success. Among them, we had great success in Mozambique, where we ended a civil war as brutal as that in Bosnia. The government now is one of the success stories of Africa. The transformation of El Salvador is a success story. In Cambodia, we held free and fair elections that ended a decade-long war. But I guess good news is no news.

Where you talk about nation-building, I prefer to talk about state-building. The nations often exist, but we need to help build the institutions of a working state for them. We have done this effectively in East Timor, and while the situations there are not idyllic, we have had a largely positive impact on Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan. In both Afghanistan and Iraq the security problems are an obstacle to state-building efforts. In Kosovo we had a clear division of labor. Security was provided by NATO. The U.N. dealt with state-building. In East Timor we did both. In the case of Afghanistan, the U.N. is not involved in security. In Iraq, one issue that's currently being discussed is the transformation of the present U.S. occupation to U.N.-mandated international coalition. If the framework of that security presence changes from an occupation into a mechanism for devolving sovereignty, a lot more countries would be willing to participate and contribute.

How much would a U.N. presence bring in terms of additional troops and funding?

That's impossible to say. I don't know what the final text of the resolution will be, whether the language adopted by the Security Council will sufficiently appeal to countries that have been hesitating to contribute. Many countries that have refused to join the occupation have said they would consider offering troops and resources in a different sort of international presence under U.S. command. The question is whether the new resolution, when it's adopted, gives them the legal and political cover they need in their own countries. The United Nations is often criticized for being unwilling to deal firmly with tyrants. The charter itself strongly upholds the sovereignty of each nation and shuns interference in their internal affairs.

But what muscle is the United Nations willing to bring to dealings with the likes of, say, North Korea's Kim Jong Il?

Sometimes, carrots and diplo macy don't work. The United Na tions seems loath to bring out the baseball bats. It's absolutely true the U.N. is an organization of sovereign member states. That's one of its bedrock principles. Certainly the United States would not be a member if that principle were changed. The U.N. doesn't threaten sovereignty of nation-states. But that's not necessarily an impediment to decisive action. When the U.N. takes such action the world accepts it, because the U.N. alone is allowed to approve derogations from the principles it upholds, including sovereignty.

And when the U.N. advocates human rights, it does so despite sovereignty. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has used his bully pulpit to argue that sovereignty cannot serve as a shield for tyranny. It is the U.N.'s responsibility sometimes to step in if sovereignty is being abused.

The question is, who decides that outsiders can intervene? And here the U.N. has a mechanism in the Security Council itself, or the Human Rights Commission.

By the way, all diplomacy is a combination of carrots and sticks. Annan likes to say that you never hit a man on the head when you have your fingers between his teeth. You can't attack someone today if you have to work with him tomorrow. There might be a momentary satisfaction in grandstanding. But there are more effective ways of getting the same result.

What about the fact that a country like Libya heads the Human Rights Commission?

What does that suggest about the U.N.'s commitment to human rights? This has been grossly misunderstood. The chairmanship of the Human Rights Commission goes by rotation, and it was Africa's turn. They chose Libya, and no one objected. In any case, the chair is for an individual ambassador -- in this case, a well-regarded woman. Many people were attracted to the notion of having an Arab woman as the head of the commission. Beyond that, the chairmanship involves procedural responsibilities. Decisions are made by majority vote and not by the chairman alone.

But the question seems to imply that some countries should be left out of the human rights process. You don't advance human rights by preaching only to the converted. The ship of universal human rights cannot set sail by leaving human beings from some countries on the shore.

What is the strongest argument for the United States to continue to work with and through the U.N.?

The world is full of problems the U.S. cannot deal with alone, problems that if left unattended would become the U.S.' burden. The U.N. helps bring the legitimacy that comes from the universality of its membership. U.N. actions are often actions in the U.S.' interest -- and they are more palatable to other countries when the U.N. is able to universalize that interest. For example, after the attacks of 9/11, the Security Council's two resolutions provided a global framework, binding on all members, for battling terrorism. Resolution 1373 required nations to report on terrorist groups, interdict arms flows and financial transfers to terrorist groups, and update national legislation to fight terrorism. This is the kind of thing the U.S. would not have been able to do retail with 191 countries. As a result, Americans are safer today because the U.N. exists.