A Changing Relationship Between the US and UN
By Paris Nguyen, UNA-NCA Advocacy Fellow, Edited by Raphael Piliero and Charmine Osore
After World War II, the United States played an integral role in establishing the United Nations, an international body with the primary purpose of mediating disputes and preventing violent conflict. Six main bodies comprise the UN and enable it to effectively operate. One of these bodies is the UN Security Council where the United States serves as a permanent member. Through the Security Council, the UN can authorize military action to maintain international peace and order. Today, the United States’ degree of involvement with the United Nations has greatly changed due to the US departing numerous UN organizations while reducing funding for certain programs. The past several years have been characterized by shifting relations with allies and the international community at large. Many observers have wondered what the context for these changes are historically, and what are the current and future implications of the United States’ shifting relation with its allies and the United Nations.
US Isolationism in Context
Before WWI, the US maintained a strict policy of isolationism, the practice of non-involvement with foreign affairs and foreign alliances. The Monroe Doctrine of 1823 played an integral part in solidifying US isolationism because the doctrine deemed any European intrusion into the US’s sphere of influence an act of war. No European country dared to challenge the doctrine, allowing the US to remain isolated from Europe. Furthermore, the US maintained its strict isolationism into the start of WWI as President Woodrow Wilson promised to keep the US out of the war. The first change to the US isolationist policy did not occur until 1917, towards the end of WWI, during President Wilson’s second term when he asked Congress for a formal declaration of war. While there were a variety of factors that led to this decision, the most prominent were the Germans’ use of unrestricted submarine warfare that led to the sinking of the British-owned Lusitania steamship as well as the interception of the Zimmerman telegram, a secret message from Germany that offered full financial and military aid to Mexico to invade the US.
It was evident that Germany posed a great threat to American commerce and sovereignty, forcing President Wilson to act. Promptly after Germany’s WWI defeat, the US returned to its traditional isolationism, rejecting the Treaty of Versailles and effectively blocking President Wilson’s proposal for a League of Nations. Wilson believed that an international diplomatic body was necessary after WWI as a means of resolving disputes before they erupted into war, but joining this League would prevent the US from returning to isolationism. Primarily due to the heavy financial and emotional toll of WWI, the general public as well as the US Senate was fixed on returning to isolationism, against Wilson’s wishes. The US ultimately decided against interfering with future European affairs, resulting in the League of Nations moving forward without US support. While the League was successful in mediating minor international disputes, it was often disregarded by major powers like Germany and Japan and ultimately failed to assert its authority.
US Isolationism Continues
The League of Nations’ inability to enforce the Treaty of Versaille combined with Europe’s practice of making concessions to avoid conflict enabled Germany to rebuild its military with little international opposition. Germany’s Chancellor, Adolf Hitler, was emboldened by the belief that the West was so traumatized from WWI that they did not want to engage in new conflict. To push the limits of Europe’s appeasement, Hitler violated the Treaty of Versaille by remilitarizing the Rhineland, an area of West Germany that was mandated to be unoccupied after WWI. In the Pacific theater, Japan similarly strengthened its military and seized territory.
The US responded by implementing economic sanctions but took no military action. Despite more wars breaking out in Europe after Hitler invaded Poland and in the Pacific after Japan invaded China, the US still attempted to remain relatively uninvolved due to strong isolationist and anti-war sentiment within the country. The desire not to go to war was so prominent that Japan even believed that the US would seek peace after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Had the US been more active in preventing international conflict early on, perhaps Germany and Japan may have not been as bold in their territorial expansion.
Creation of the United Nations
After WWII, a consensus formed that an international body with real authority was necessary to prevent further violence and large-scale conflict. Unlike the League of Nations, the United Nations received overwhelming support from the US; isolationism was no longer an option for the US after enduring two catastrophic world wars. After a total of 50 countries ratified the charter, the United Nations was officially established on October 24, 1945. Since then, the UN has provided a forum for diplomacy that helps mitigate international and domestic conflict:
- The review of 5,143 UN General Assembly voting records from 1946 through 2011, found that the process of nations working together over time builds trust and facilitates fast, transparent communication that raises the chance of resolving crises peacefully.
- International: During the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, the UN was used as a podium by the US to challenge the Soviet Union’s placement of nuclear missiles in Cuba. The embarrassment of the public indictment was instrumental in forcing the Soviets to remove the missiles.
- Domestic: President Blaise Compaore of Burkina Faso resigned in 2014 amid growing public opposition. During the transition of power, Compaore sympathizers organized an attempted coup d’état against the new transitional government. The UN stepped in to peacefully restore the transitional authority through negotiation, deployment of a UN envoy, and an effective partnership with regional organizations.
The UN and the US
The historical relationship between the US and UN can be described as collaborative and mutually beneficial. Analyzing the UN’s global response to terrorism helps illustrate the benefits of collaboration between the US and UN. In the post 9/11 era, the UN has helped the US in its fight against terrorism by promoting international cooperation to defeat organizations such as Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and others.
The UN Security Council went on to require that all countries deny terrorists safe haven and financial support and to cooperate in bringing them to justice. By creating an international Counter-Terrorist Strategy, the UN globalized the counterterrorism effort to aid the US in its fight against terrorism. This collaboration on counter terrorism is just one of many instances where the US and UN have worked together to solve a common international problem. The US cannot take on the world’s problems alone, nor does it have to. The UN has been a long-standing, reliable organization ready to aid the US in its international engagement.
The economic gain between the US and UN further exemplifies the mutually beneficial relationship. The UN receives roughly a fifth of its entire budget from the US, meaning without US support, it would be near impossible for the UN to maintain its current level of international peacekeeping. In return, American companies have received close to $10 billion in procurement contracts to support the UN in areas such as health services and cybersecurity. Furthermore, it is eight times more cost-effective for the US to fund UN peacekeeping efforts than to deploy US military forces. While at face value, it may appear as if the US carries a great financial burden for supporting the UN, the economic gains quickly demonstrate the importance and necessity of a strong US and UN relationship.
President Trump and the United Nations
The US has long been a leader within the UN, serving as a permanent member of the Security Council. But under the Trump administration, the US has drastically changed the way America conducts its foreign policy, as well as its relationship with the UN by reducing funding and involvement for certain programs. The UN relies heavily on the US to effectively carry out its mission and a reduction in US funding negatively impacts programs that help refugees, ensure food security, and advance peacekeeping. The Trump administration has continued its attempts to reduce UN funding and involvement:
- The United States withdrew from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization in 2017. Director-General of UNESCO Irina Bokova stated that the move was a loss for multilateralism. The US withdrawal left a power vacuum allowing other countries to possibly push their agenda that is not necessarily in US interest.
- The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees has stopped receiving contributions from the United States as of 2018. These funding cuts could have potentially prevented 140,000 people from receiving food aid and more than 70,000 people from having access to clean water.
- The World Health Organization (WHO) has lost all funding and connection to the United States after the Trump administration withdrew in early 2020 during the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic. This move eliminates the US’s strong influence over the WHO while depriving the organization of almost a billion dollars biennially.
To make matters worse, the US proposes future funding reductions in 2021. These funding cuts are detrimental to the United States’ reputation within the United Nations because they signal a slow US departure from the international organization.
Selective Engagement
The US has developed a “cherry-picking” approach, where it utilizes the United Nations as a tool when needed and sidelines the organization otherwise. While the Trump administration was reducing the budget of certain UN programs in 2018, it was also leading an effort within the organization to increase sanctions on North Korea. These sanctions would ban North Korean cargo ships from docking at almost all ports, attempting to completely shut down North Korea’s illegal smuggling activities.
Former US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley stated that the US would “use every tool at [their] disposal, including working with [their] allies and through the UN” to put pressure on North Korea. Ambassador Haley’s response represents the United States’ overall approach to the United Nations. Although the US is attempting to establish order, it needs to refocus on integrating the UN into a long term strategic plan for lasting peace.
Long Term Consequences
The Trump Administration’s changes to foreign policy will not benefit the United States in the long run. While the budget cuts to the UN may appear to benefit short term American interests and financial goals, it produces the negative long term effect of degrading international relations. President Trump has made it a priority to reject globalism, and the more he focuses on US sovereignty and unilateral actions, the more he harms the United States’ diplomatic relations with other countries. Strong diplomatic relations between the US and its allies will play a vital role when a situation arises where international support is necessary.
While the US needs to prioritize its own interests, it must simultaneously be ready to accept trade-offs when dealing with allies because the US cannot effectively command the international stage alone. During the 2018 G-7 summit, Trump received criticism for his unilateral trade tariffs and failure to compromise. The constant dispute with allied countries not only diminishes US credibility but also creates doubt towards the US as a reliable diplomatic partner. International reputation is crucial to diplomacy, and pursuing unilateral foreign policy greatly hinders the US’s ability to maintain international peace and order in the long run.
A New Way Forward
International involvement is more important than ever for the United States, in part due to China’s growing influence. Britain recently dismissed the Trump administration’s security concerns and allowed the Chinese company Huawei to begin developing its 5G cellular network within the country. On top of China’s development of 5G, its Belt and Road initiative invests over a trillion dollars into more than 60 countries’ infrastructure. China’s rapid expansion and investment into the international community poses a direct threat to the US’s international influence. As China expands its international involvement while the US decreases theirs, countries may begin questioning the reliability of the United States as an economic or even military ally.
However, there is still time to reverse this dangerous course. Despite the recent string of budget cuts, the US remains a prominent world leader with enormous international influence because it provides more foreign aid than any other country and alone funds 22% of the 2020 UN budget. Should the US continue to further withdraw from the United Nations, it will send a clear message of isolationism to US allies and adversaries. To ensure long term peace and American dominance of the international order, the United States ought to reaffirm its role as a world leader by restoring funding and rejoining organizations such as UNESCO and WHO. More importantly, the US needs to demonstrate its commitment to its international partners and the United Nations by accepting globalism and taking part in multilateralism.
