Toward a New Multilateralism

When President Barack Obama steps onto the podium at the United Nations on September 23, 2009, he will have a chance to reaffirm that U.S. commitment to multilateralism.  The speech will ensure that the ideals of 1945 are still alive: a commitment to a strong international legal order that is also in America’s best interest, and to the universality of UN membership that gives legitimacy to the decision-making power of the organization. 

When the UN was founded it was conceived as a community of nations, but not a community of democracies.  This provides a mechanism to talk to both friends and foes alike and that is why it has endured.  It may offer us the best forum for what the President has called direct diplomacy since it places little demand on its members.  Whether the President can engage with both friends and foes at Turtle Bay will depend on how we choose to use the UN as a space for this type of diplomacy.

It is also the most convenient forum for the President to lay out his vision of how an institution created at the end of World War II can remain effective to fit the needs of 21st century.  And here lies the challenge.  With U.S. leadership can the UN be transformed to embrace the rise of economic powers such as India and Brazil on the Security Council, not to mention Japan, Germany or South Africa?  And how can the U.S. work with the UN to address threats that our nation faces not only from states but from forces that do not respect borders?

On the first question, Security Council expansion remains the greatest challenge, and one that will require a complete shift in what has become a very delicate political dance among member states.  While there is guarded optimism about possible new configurations of the Security Council to allow a more accurate representation of global economic and political power, chances are that this type of tectonic change will take time to achieve.  That Security Council reform is being discussed, however, offers hope to those who seek a Security Council that can meet today’s challenges.  It is also smart diplomacy on our part. 

On the second question, how the U.S. can work with the UN, President Obama has the opportunity to articulate specifics about how our relationship must be grounded on issues where the U.S. cannot be successful unless it works with others.  Almost a decade into the 21st century, the United States is just beginning to think strategically about a new multilateralism that will address the threats our nation faces.  These so-called transnational threats–including the spread of infectious disease such as HIV/AIDS or the HIN1flu virus; the perils of organized crime that can destabilize states; the increased tangible impact of global warming on development and sustainability of agriculture; the unchecked proliferation of nuclear weapons; and the ongoing conflicts that negatively affect regional development–are all areas where the global mechanisms provided by the UN agencies can be used to expand our national capacities to address them.  These threats alone make the UN essential to the diplomatic and operational tool kit of the United States.

Four areas where the U.S. and UN interests converge are peacekeeping, global health threats, climate change and humanitarian assistance.   For example, seventeen UN peacekeeping missions multiply the U.S. capacity to confront instability and fragile states.  The UN-managed Copenhagen process in December gives the U.S. an opportunity with other nations to craft a new framework to manage global warming and green house gases.  The World Health Organization that has sounded the global alarm about spread of the infectious diseases provides the U.S. with an invaluable partner to protect our citizens from risks of pandemics. UN humanitarian assistance programs that collaborate with U.S. agencies, civilian and military, to supply emergency aid to refugees and victims of natural disasters around the globe also form an invaluable partnership that saves lives.  While the U.S. can never subordinate its national interests to any institution or other state, it can certainly make a greater progress working together on problems that need solutions beyond our reach and our means. 

Building that trust at Turtle Bay has already begun.  Just by our commitment to again pay our dues, thanks in no small part to Ambassador Susan Rice’s skillful efforts and work on Capitol Hill, coupled with Presidential leadership that values the strengths of the UN,  we closed a serious rife between our government and other member states.

As a pragmatic politician President Obama will make certain that he reiterates what has been true about the U.S. – UN relationship since its founding:  that the U.S. needs the UN and the UN needs the U.S.  As part of our diplomatic tool kit it can provide one of the best means of convening nations to address peace and security, and transnational threats beyond our borders.  And right now it is the only institution we have in our toolkit that can deliver some of the most important types of messages about relationship with the community of nations.

Johanna Mendelson-Forman is a Senior Associate in both the Americas Program and the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy.  Most recently she served as an advisor to the UN Mission in Haiti

Johanna Mendelson Forman