After the end of the first World War, the losses incurred made the people realize the need for cooperation among nations of the world. It was recognized that war was dangerous to the human community and action needed to be taken to prevent in future, after what had happened between 1914 and 1918. Thus, various nations came together to build the ‘League of Nations,’ an organization to maintain world peace and resolve international conflicts. An interesting point here, is that the United States never became a member of the league.
Although the idea stemmed from the result of a war, the League failed to prevent the outbreak of a Second World War which broke out in 1939. When the Second World War ended in 1945 it was a Deja-vu moment for most of the countries and the need for peace and cooperation among all the nations of the world was recognized again. This time 50 countries gathered in San Francisco, to sign a document which led to the creation of a new organization called The United Nations organization. The League of Nations was done away with and the United Nations organization inherited most of its objectives (which were later rectified suitably) and material possessions. The term United Nations was coined by president of the United States Franklin D Roosevelt.
How far has the United Nations come since its inception in 1945 could be a separate discussion on its own but this article concentrates on the role of the United States as a world leader in the United Nations organization. The USA is home to the headquarters of the UNO (in New York). The headquarters houses some of the principal organs of the UN, like the General Assembly and the Security Council. The US is one of the five permanent members of the Security Council with veto-power. The nation has made significant monetary contribution to the peacekeeping operations and the UN budget. Therefore, the USA has been an important member to the UN.
However, all is not well with the US-UN relationship. The USA is known for its refusal to pay the assessments levied on it by the UN Charter. It is estimated that the US owes an estimated $1.3 billion to the UN. In a landmark decision, the USA withdrew its membership from the UNESCO in October 2017 and from the UN Human Rights Council, in July 2018 respectively – both being important organs of the UN. There have also been proposals from within the country, to completely terminate its membership from the world peace organization. Are these moves good for the country? Are they good for the world?
The US was a country that lobbied against the establishment of the UNHRC in the first place. After coming into existence, the organ faced heavy criticism from the US, the main reasons being over-scrutiny on Israel. The organ is known to be biased towards Israel, while comfortably ignoring countries whose human rights violations are far more atrocious than Israel’s. Also, the Council faced flak for granting membership to countries that disregard human rights in the name of protection of religious sentiments and political structure.
In 2017, the US issued an ultimatum to the UNHRC to make reforms. When none were made, the US withdrew its membership. But the timing of withdrawal was as interesting as the decision itself. While US envoy Nikki Haley told that US has always worked for the protection of human rights within and outside the UNHRC, the Trump government was busy separating thousands of children from their families in an immigration enforcement along the Mexican border.
Although the ideas and proposals regarding withdrawal were present for a long time, action largely started only after the Trump government was voted to power. The government has not been particularly negotiation-friendly, within or globally. However, an US-less UN is seen by some experts as a good move for the world. US’ refusal to pay assessments was to force UN to comply with its policies. As long as the US is a member, the UNO is bound to work unilaterally, with US trying to influence the UN to enforce policies that suit the country’s economy. Is that how a world peace organization is designed to work? US’ decision to quit two organs of the UN could be seen as positive news for the world, irrespective of whether or not the organs were working perfectly.
Another reason for the withdrawal could be that, just days before the decision, the US nominee to the UNHRC, Pierre Richard Prosper was defeated. This was the first time, a US candidate faced rejection. As a self-proclaimed ‘world leader’ that plays big brother, maybe the rejection of their nominee was too much to digest.
Also, they didn’t just walk out of the UNESCO, they left with large unpaid dues. In 2018, The Trump government also withdrew support to the UN Population Fund. It looks like the gap between the US and the UNO is only widening.
The US cited similar reasons for walking out of the UNESCO – its anti – Israel moves. When some Palestinian sites acquired the UNESCO world heritage site tag, it angered the USA. Its withdrawal inspired Israel to leave too. However, this isn’t new. The US has been in and out of the UNESCO and even when it was a member, its funding towards the UNESCO was somewhat reluctant.
In the future, if at all the US terminates its membership in the UNO, it would leave a vacant permanent seat in the UN Security Council and it would be interesting to see which country would be assigned the coveted position(with the veto-power). The fact that the two organs of the UN which the US walked out of, are carrying on with their work the same way, if not better, definitely shows that they remain largely unaffected. Maybe it is time America learnt that quitting when things don’t their way, doesn’t raise eyebrows anymore. People who can sit together and talk about resolving conflicts could help better achieve and maintain the UN’s objectives than countries with the attitude ‘their way or the highway’. Maybe, we don’t need our ‘big brother’ at all times anymore. Doesn’t the sun rise even if the rooster doesn’t cock-a-doodle-do???
Leave a Reply