Reflections on the Eightieth UN General Assembly

A walk through Midtown offers a window into the frenzy that the UN General Assembly brings: myriad flags draped from stately townhomes; dignitaries in finely embroidered dishdashas, kaftans, and pinstriped suits; long motorcades escorted by heavily armed security personnel; anxious protocol officers with UN badges frenetically directing delegations; and endless gridlock up and down Manhattan’s avenues. Even French President Emmanuel Macron tried in vain to persuade an NYPD patrolman to let him cross a street blocked for President Donald Trump’s motorcade.

This year, if there were a theme, it would have been the recognition of a Palestinian state, with several countries taking that step in the context of a convening organized by France and Saudi Arabia. But the zeitgeist was focused less on policy than on relevance. As Trump asked the assembly of world leaders: “What is the purpose of the United Nations?”

Trump delivered a much-reported stem-winder of a speech. When you cut through the noise—about the sabotaged escalator and faulty teleprompter, the lost construction bid, and the partisan shots at prior presidents—he did articulate some essential truths.

Does anyone disagree with Trump’s assessment that the UN has not lived up to its potential? Does anyone dispute his criticism of the UN’s lack of impact on ongoing wars? The UN does seem long on strongly worded letters or resolutions and short on action. This UN is not the UN of Kofi Annan or even Ban Ki-moon. Trump is right to demand more.

Of course, the UN is only as strong as the consensus among the major powers. That consensus is weak at best and non-existent at worst, and the United States hasn’t been particularly constructive in trying to strengthen the institution. If Trump is serious about supporting the UN in achieving its potential, his administration might spend more effort on building that consensus than on cutting its budget. There is no doubt room for reform and potentially cost savings, but it is hard to cut your way to greater relevance.

There is much discussion about reforming the UN Security Council to expand the cadre of permanent members with a veto. The critics of the existing system, which reflects the situation as it was at the end of World War II when the UN was created, are right that the permanent five (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) are hardly representative of the world as a whole. That said, it is not obvious that adding more members with a veto is going to make the system more efficient or effective.

Whether the United States will look to the UN as an avenue for pursuing its foreign policy objectives remains very much in doubt. And what the UN and its member states can achieve in the absence of U.S. engagement, amid persistent great-power gridlock on the Security Council, is equally uncertain.

The Trump administration wants the UN to get “back to basics.” To the degree that the UN plays a more active role on issues that align with the Trump administration’s priorities, including Trump’s new push on biosecurity and global peacemaking—particularly in ways that add value and alleviate the burden on the United States—there’s some hope for progress and stronger U.S. engagement. I’m not holding my breath, but these days, anything is possible.

One notable gap in Trump’s speech was any mention of the specialized UN agencies. The UN is really two organizations—a political institution embodied in the Security Council and General Assembly and a number of operational institutions delivering critical services on the ground in developing countries and elsewhere. Organizations like UNICEF and the World Food Program do lifesaving work in some of the most difficult environments in the world. They deserve the full support of the United States (as do the U.S. programs along the same lines). If Trump is sincere about wanting to save lives, cutting their budgets is counterproductive at best.

As the UN General Assembly extravaganza in New York comes to a close, one thing is clear: it remains an important opportunity for leaders to spend time with each other, even on the fly. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s thirty-nine seconds with Trump as they passed in the UN hallway secured a commitment to a follow up meeting next week where the United States’ 50 percent tariffs are sure to be in focus. Trump’s meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy saw Trump shift his stance on the war. And on Gaza, Trump had an opportunity to lay before Arab leaders a plan for a permanent ceasefire, the release of all hostages, and the deployment of stabilization forces.

Bottom line: despite the snarled traffic and exorbitant hotel rates, the UN General Assembly meeting on balance continues to serve a valuable purpose. The question now is whether and how the UN more broadly can demonstrate its continued relevance.

Let me know what you think about the future of the United Nations and what this column should cover next by replying to [email protected].

Source: https://www.cfr.org/article/reflections-eightieth-un-general-assembly