America’s role in patronizing

UNO
Introduction
• The history of United States of America (USA) and the
United Nations (UN) is long and complex.
• The United Nations owes a lot of what it is today to the US.
It was the US that breathed life into the UN with its power
and resources.
• However, contrary to popular myth, there never was a
golden age in the relationship between them.
• It is not very surprising to see multilateralism in the UN
under crisis, nor is the ambivalence of USA towards it.
• This ambivalence has been there for a long time. Despite
that, the UN does hold an important position in US foreign
policy.
• Mostly when UN and its agendas are in line with the future
• To put this in theory, the famous realist Morgenthau said:
“The statesman must think in terms of the national
interest, conceived as power among other powers. The
popular mind, unaware of the fine distinctions of the
statesman’s thinking, reasons more often than not in the
simple moralistic and legalistic terms of absolute good and
absolute evil.”
• Realists believe that a hegemon like the United States
leads the game for international organizations such as the
United Nations. A great power does not follow rules set by
others.
The UN and USA
• In 1945, after the second World War, the leaders of the world came
together to form the United Nations with the aim of maintaining peace,
stability and order in the international society. The aims of the United
Nations today are broadly listed as:
– facilitating cooperation in international law,
– international security,
– economic development,
– social progress,
– human rights, and
– achievement of world peace.
• American President Franklin Delano Roosevelt first coined the term United
Nations for an international organization meant to replace the flawed
League of Nations.
• The UN officially came into existence on 24 October 1945 upon ratification
of the Charter by the five permanent members of the Security Council;
France, the Republic of China, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and
the United States and by a majority of the other 46 signatories.
• The UN is not a single unit, but a group of institutes. Some
are completely independent like the International Labour
Organization (ILO) and World Health Organization (WHO).
• Some are dependent on it or related to it, such as United
Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the United
Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF).
• The core of UN and international politics is made up of
three entities: the Security Council, the General Assembly
and the Secretariat.
• The Security Council is the club of aristocrats and the only
organ of the UN that has authoritative power. It comprises
of five permanent members: USA, China, Russia, United
Kingdom and France who exercise tremendous power
over international politics both formally and informally.
• The United States holds great economic, political, and military influence on
the entire world and, for the time being, is an indispensible part of the UN.
• The political system of the United States is that of a constitutional republic
and representative democracy, “in which majority rule is tempered by
minority rights protected by law.”
• The head of government cannot take foreign policy decisions without at
least two third support of the Senate.
• The president is allowed to enter into treaties with foreign states through
executive agreement without the senate’s approval but such agreements
are rarely long standing.
• It is the Congress that has the power to conduct commercial activities with
other states as well as go to war.
• Bureaucratic organizations within the US government include Office of the
President, National Security Council, State Department, Defence
Department, Central Intelligence Agency, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Embassies,
Consulates, Federal Reserve, Treasury Department, etc.
• Foreign Policies of the United States, pertaining to the UN and other global
issues, are greatly influenced by the domestic political environment. In the
case of use of force, it is even more sensitive.
• When talking about US-UN relationship it is difficult to coin
out, the US perception of the latter.
• As, the self declared guardian of international order the US
projects a certain view at times. Other times it is too busy in
aligning its foreign policy decisions with domestic agendas.
Domestic politics makes foreign policy decision very sticky
for America.
• It can be said that the smaller states, especially the third
world view the United Nations, today, as an institute that
can help them bring forward their case and upgrade their
position in international society and help them against
international forces over which they have no control.
• The Europeans, especially the large countries who were
once colonial leaders, view the UN as forum where they can
enjoy the power and status they once had over the world.
• As said by John Ikenberry, the United States has been the
greatest champion of multilateralism in the 20th century, but it
has also been reluctant to tie itself too closely to these
multilateral institutes and rules.
• It is not that US has never stood by the UN. On many
occasions, the United States has been a supporter of the UN.
• Starting from Roosevelt in 1945 USA has been instrumental in
most matters regarding the United Nations.
• Not only is USA a permanent member of the Security Council
but many of UN’s agencies are headquartered in the US as
well.
• During the 1990s USA pioneered many multilateral treaties
and arrangements such as the completion of the Uruguay
Round of GATT and formation of WTO, negotiation of NAFTA
and creation of the APEC.
• Still, it did not take much for US to turn its back on its own
baby- the UN. In 2000, former Chairman of the US Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, Jesse Helms said in a speech
to the UN Security Council that no institution, be it the
security council or the ICC, is competent to judge the
foreign policy and national security decisions of the
United States.
• The United States has been very selective in assuming new
international commitments with the United Nations in
recent times.
• It has even on some occasions, retreated from past
commitments with the UN. In December 2001, the United
States retreated from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM)
Treaty, which allowed them to go ahead with their own
missile defence system but started a new surge of
American Unilateralism.
• The United States has refused to be subject to jurisdiction of
international legal bodies like the International Criminal Court
(ICC) and refrained from embracing key human rights regimes
with the United Nations, despite its support for the international
rule of law.
– President Clinton signed the Rome Statute for the ICC in 2000 but it has still
not been ratified. Clinton did not submit it to US Senate for ratification
because apparently the court had to be assessed first. But as is evident from
Helms speech, the US does not consider the UN competent enough to judge
themselves.
– In 2002, when President Bush came into office, he sent a note to the
Secretary General of the UN suspending the signature of the US and
informed the Secretary General that the US recognized no obligation toward
the Rome Statute.
– President Obama has re-established a working relationship with the court,
but there still has not been any ratification.
• We are yet to see if the great power will subject itself to the
jurisdiction of the international criminal court.
• Also United States is one of the only two
countries that have not ratified the UN
Convention on the Rights of Child, and one of
few who have not ratified the Convention on the
Elimination of Discrimination Against Women.
• Similar to the ICC, the Kyoto Protocol on climate
change was signed by President Clinton but has
not yet been ratified. The Bush administration
backed out from this protocol claiming it to be
fatally flawed.
• President Obama agreed to ratify the Paris
Agreement but Trump backed out
• Although the United States has not ratified the conventions, it has
on many occasions, used variety of unilateral sanctions and annual
certification processes to punish nation-states that have not
conformed to U.S. standards in areas like human rights and
narcotics enforcement.
• The most controversial are extraterritorial sanctions like Helms-
Burton that penalize foreigners doing business with what the
United States considers rogue states.
• Since the 1980s, the USA has held back in paying its assessed dues
to the United Nations, leading to arrears totalling some $1.7 Billion
by the end of 2000.
• The primary reason given by the USA was that the UN had become
a bloated bureaucratic institute needing immediate reform.
However, there is much more to it than just US seeking reforms in
the UN.
• Domestic politics and budget planning play an important role in US
spending on UN peace missions etc.
• For 2020, the United Nations assessed the U.S.
share of U.N. peacekeeping budgets at 27.89%;
however, since 1994 Congress has capped the
U.S. payment at 25% due to concerns that U.S.
assessments are too high.
• For FY2021, the Trump Administration
proposed $1.07 billion for U.N. peacekeeping,
a 29% decrease from the enacted FY2020 level
of $1.52 billion.
REASON BEHIND THE AMBIVALENCE
• Hegemons like the United States create and finance
international organizations like the United Nations to spread
their ideals and values through out the international system
and to solidify their grasp on power.
• The realist focus on relative power explains why the United
States has acted unilaterally at times. Some realists
completely disregard the importance of international
institutions, and talk about the power of the state alone.
• However, it is the classical realist argument of balance of
power that can explain the US support for the UN. By being
part of a multilateral system such as the UN, the US could
prevent counterbalancing by projecting a benign intent
towards the world.
• Stephen Walt and many other realists argue, U.S. policy makers
have demonstrated support for international institutions such as
the UN, to show their satisfaction with the status quo and
dampen other countries’ security fears, thus preventing the
emergence of a counterbalancing coalition.
• Walt argues that “the United Nations and other international
institutions help the United States exercise its power in a way
that is less threatening and therefore more acceptable to others.
• Also, the USA over the years, from its civic culture and political
mindset, has assumed a role of “reformist” of international
order and “custodian” of peace and stability in world.
• The hegemon is not dependant on the
international system and does not have to
comply with all its rules.
• Unilateralism and multilateralism are both
tools to achieving foreign policy objectives and
a hegemon can chose either depending on
which one will suit its benefits best at the
moment.
• The United States of America has the power,
resources and capability to move ahead alone
but when it feels the need it can go along with
a multilateral system as well.
• In the case of Iraq and Kuwait in 1990 it went with its
allies. On August 3, 1990, the UN Security Council
passed Resolution 660 condemning the Iraqi invasion
of Kuwait and demanded Iraq to unconditionally
withdraw all forces deployed in Kuwait.
• After series of failed negotiations between major
world powers and Iraq, the United States-led
• coalition launched a massive military assault on Iraqi
forces stationed in Kuwait in mid January 1991.
• On the other hand, the US did not wait for UN negotiations or
decisions during the 2000s post the 9/11 incident. The US
government paid little attention to international politics and
attacked Iraq in 2003 without the approval of UN Security
Council.
• President Bush and allies decided to invade because domestic
politics demanded so at the time.
• In March 2003, the US government announced they will use
military force to get rid of Saddam Hussein as well as weapons
of mass destruction allegedly being produced in Iraq.
• Prior to this decision, there had been much diplomacy and
debate between the member states of the United Nations
Security Council on how to deal with the situation but a
majority consensus had not been reached to approve the
military attack.
• The Secretary General of United Nations at that time, Kofi Annan
said in an interview to BBC the decision to take action in Iraq
should have been made by the Security Council, and not
unilaterally.
• In response to Annan’s opinion, Randy Scheunemann, a former
advisor to US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said “I think it is
outrageous for the Secretary-General, who ultimately works for the
member states, to try and supplant his judgement for the
judgement of the member states.”
• United States considers the UN no more than a platform for the
member states to arbitrate, not a body with any authority,
especially over itself.
• So it can be concluded, the UN in many occasions is nothing but
mediators between head of governments.
• Foreign policy decisions are ultimately taken by the head of
governments with consideration to both domestic and
international agendas. Especially, when the government in
question if that of a super power like the USA.
• Neorealist such as Mearsheimer, believe international
society and politics is one of anarchic realm, where no
agency or institution exists to protect states from each
other. Contrary to classical realist belief, Mearsheimer
argues that there is no such thing as status quo of power.
• The ultimate power lies with the state and its decisions
are always made to protect own sovereignty and national
interest.
• As a result, states must ultimately rely on their own
resources and strategies to survive. It is, in other words,
a “self-help” world, where self interest is first and
foremost. For large states self interest does not always lie
with multilateralism.
• Often unilateral foreign policy decision makes more sense in
terms of domestic agendas.
• All states do not have the resources to pursue self interest as
do great powers.
• Great powers can use international institutes for advancement
of their ideals while smaller states can only hope for help from
such institutes.
• According to realist theory, a really powerful state will be less
constrained by the power of others and be able to indulge all
sorts of foreign policy whims. It can decide that it has “vital”
interests on every continent.
• It can declare itself to be “indispensable” to almost every
important issue, and it can convince itself that it really knows
what is good for everyone else in the world. Many believe,
such is the case with the United States of America.
• None of this is to say that the United States has
ruthlessly trampled all other in the name of national
interest.
• The US has been invaluable in the creation of the UN,
which if not everything one would like it to be, is
something.
• Regardless of its flaws, it is better to have some sort of
platform of international politics, rather than none.
• I would argue that the US has had positive influence on
international politics on many accounts
• The scale of American dominance provides positive
justifications for it acting outside multilateral
institutes like the United Nations.
• As the world’s most powerful country, the United
States has assumed “responsibilities” to preserve
global order. The United States raised this claim in
demanding special exemptions from the ICC and the
land mines ban which other countries refused to give
it.
• To some extent US feels a threat to its sovereignty
from United Nations. USA fears losing freedom of
action abroad, as well as domestically if there is
continued involvement from the United Nations.
• It is feared that if international regimes like the UN
become too strong then the country’s domestic legal
framework, constitutional traditions, and political
institutions will become subordinate to it.
• Defenders of American sovereignty claim that
domestic institutions and law take supremacy over
international commitments and obligations and
those domestic standards of political legitimacy may
require opting out of certain international initiatives
at times.
• What really makes it difficult for the United States to maintain
multilateralism with the UN is its constitutional separation of powers
that grants the executive and legislature joint control over foreign
policy.
• This shared power often complicates domestic approval of multilateral
commitments, particularly when the two branches are controlled by
different parties.
• Because the ratification of treaties requires approval by atleast two-
thirds of the Senate, political minorities frequently block U.S.
participation in proposed conventions.
• As the debates over the League of Nations in 1918–19 demonstrated,
the separation of powers can complicate America’s assumption of
multilateral commitments.
• The United States is ultimately a rational actor in world
politics. It is rational for any major power to try to
minimize external constraints on its freedom of action
generated by multilateral institutes and processes.
• Many other nation states wish that they had such an
option, but few have the power to defy the will of
international community.
• From the origins of the interstate system, no strong
power has allowed itself to be subject to rules set by
weaker nations, unless those rules benefit it also.
• The United Nations was built upon the assumption that with the co-
operation of the great powers along with smaller states, an
international society of peace and economic prosperity will be created.
• But without the support of US, UN loses its legitimacy and effectiveness
to a great extent.
• International politics on the whole gets effected by the withdrawal of
US from multilateralism.
• The weakening of the UN, and international system makes smaller
states very unsafe and vulnerable.
• They need the protective umbrella of the UN and a code of ethics for
behaviour in the international arena, which protects their sovereign
rights and ensures their existence as independent states
Recommendations
• The American people must recognize that the United Nations is
an association of states.
• It can do only what its member states direct it to do.
• The United States is the most important member of the United
Nations and the greatest single contributor of funds.
• The U.S. veto in the Security Council and the requirement for
consensus in the adoption of the budget by the General
Assembly mean that the United States can prevent most U.N.
actions to which it objects.
• When the United States has exerted strong influence and
leadership, it has almost always persuaded the Security Council
to take the actions that the United States desired. Thus, the
United States must and can take the lead in deciding what kind of
United Nations will exist.
• Although the United States, of course, retains the right to act in
self-defense without the concurrence of the U.N. Security
Council and must maintain that prerogative, the right of the
Security Council to authorize the use of force by member states
to deal with threats to international security is the single most
important responsibility of the United Nations.
• This authority of the Security Council is also a highly significant
tool for the United States in promoting U.S. security objectives
by facilitating effective support of many nations for the actions
that the United States believes must be taken to protect its
security.
• The United States should thus work to strengthen this capacity.