The Trump Administration’s Policy toward the United Nations

A far-reaching revision of US policy instruments toward the United Nations has been underway since Donald Trump took office. The policy, featuring a pronounced inclination toward unilateralism and pragmatism, is closely linked to the domestic trend of thought and will add to the uncertainty in the development of global governance.

Sinternational institutions, saying that “we can only realize the promsince Donald Trump took office, a far-reaching revision of US policy instruments toward the United Nations has been underway, replacing the “assertive multilateralism”1 approach of the Obama era. On the one hand, the Trump administration has taken a series of drastic measures against international institutions, especially the UN. Trump unabashedly called into question the UN’S effectiveness, terminating or slashing its funding to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, the UN Population Fund, the Green Climate Fund and the UN Office of Counter-terrorism. He also announced the United States’ withdrawal from multilateral institutions and agreements such as the UN Human Rights Council, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the Universal Postal Union, the Paris Agreement on climate change, the Global Compact on Migration and the Iran nuclear deal. On the other hand, the Trump administration has made the advancement of US international leadership one priority of its foreign policy, and has vigorously promoted UN reform that serves US interests. The policy of the Trump administration regarding the United Nations has developed into a significant factor of uncertainty affecting the direction of global governance, thereby arousing the international community’s concern

about the prospects of the post-war global order.

The Trump Administration’s Policy Adjustment toward the United Nations

Compared with his predecessor, Trump’s UN policy has a pronounced inclination toward unilateralism and pragmatism in the following three aspects.

First, it emphasizes the autonomy of the United States and shows Washington’s refusal to be constrained by international organizations and international norms. The notion of national sovereignty has been the basic principle for international relations since modern times, while international organizations have become an indispensable institutional platform for sovereign states to coordinate positions and respond to global challenges. Trump’s predecessor Barack Obama attached great importance to achieving US policy goals through international cooperation, and expressed willingness to accept the constraints on the state’s power and intention brought by international multilateral mechanisms. In his speech to the UN General Assembly in September 2016, Obama called on all countries to abide by the rules of international institutions, saying that “we can only realize the promise of this institution’s founding — to replace the ravages of war with cooperation — if powerful nations like my own accept constraints … I am convinced that in the long run, giving up some freedom of action — not giving up our ability to protect ourselves or pursue our core interests, but binding ourselves to international rules over the long term — enhances our security.”2 During the Obama administration, the US fully paid its arrears to the UN, supported the strengthening of UN peacekeeping operations, and participated in the UN Human Rights Council for the first time.3

In contrast, Trump repudiated the authority of international

organizations by prioritizing the principle of national sovereignty and rebuffing the concept of multilateralism as represented by the United Nations. On his campaign trail for the presidency, Trump declared that “we will never enter America into any agreement that reduces our ability to control our own affairs.”4 In his first speech to the UN General Assembly in September 2017, he made the defense of national sovereignty his core argument, when he proclaimed that “strong, sovereign nations let their people take ownership of the future and control their own destiny.”5 In October of the same year, Trump stated in the Presidential Proclamation on United Nations Day that the UN’S “success depends on a coalition of strong sovereign nations.”6 On this basis, the Trump administration put forward its arguments against global governance and multilateralism. In his speech to the UN General Assembly in September 2018, Trump declared: “America is governed by Americans. We reject the ideology of globalism … Around the world, responsible nations must defend against threats to sovereignty not just from global governance, but also from new forms of coercion and domination.” He continued to point out: “As far as America is concerned, the International Criminal Court has no jurisdiction, no legitimacy, and no authority … We will never surrender America’s sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable global bureaucracy.”7 In December of the same year, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered a speech in Brussels entitled “Restoring the Role of the Nation-state in the Liberal International Order,” defending the Trump administration’s policy on international organizations and openly questioning the idea of multilateralism. “Multilateralism has too often become viewed

as an end unto itself,” he said, “they claim America is acting unilaterally instead of multilaterally, as if every kind of multilateral action is by definition desirable… This is just plain wrong.”8 The Trump administration’s emphasis on American autonomy in action and its rejection of the authority of international organizations contrasts sharply with the Obama administration.

Second, it emphasizes the United States’ direct dominance in the United Nations and advocates seeking leadership in a competitive manner. Unlike the “leading from behind” approach adopted by the Obama administration,9 the Trump administration uses its influence in the UN without much pretense to push the US agenda forward through unilateral actions such as direct threats, issue linkages, and even funding cutbacks and withdrawals from international institutions. The first US National Security Strategy released by the Trump administration in December 2017 clearly stated that the US would “compete and lead in multilateral organizations so that American interests and principles are protected.”10 Nikki Haley, Trump’s first US Permanent Representative to the UN, told at a Senate hearing in January 2017 that the President asked her to keep a high profile and have a strong voice in the United Nations.11 In her first public address to the United Nations, Haley declared more bluntly: “Our goal with the administration is to show value at the UN, and the way to show value is to show our strength … For those who don’t have our backs, we’re taking names, and we will make points to respond to that accordingly.”12

Such blatant use of the “power of the purse” is an effective means for

the Trump administration to advance its policy objectives. In September 2018, Trump complained publicly at the United Nations that US foreign aid had not been rewarded in return, and declared that he would only contribute to countries and institutions that respect and value the interests of the United States.13 In terms of budgetary allocation, the Trump administration is making it a precondition for funding whether or not an international organization promotes the US foreign policy interests. The 2017 US National Security Strategy stated: “The United States will prioritize its efforts in those organizations that serve American interests, to ensure that they are strengthened and supportive of the United States, our allies, and our partners.”14 When explaining its budget report to the Congress in March 2019, the Trump administration went on to declare that it would “fully fund international organizations critical to our national security, but makes cuts or reductions to other organizations and programs whose results are unclear or whose work does not directly affect our national security interests.” With regard to the international organizations whose funds are reduced, it specifically mentions that “some of the UN’S programs, such as its Regional Economic Commissions, provide unclear results or accomplishments, or as in the case of some of its human rights mandates, do not advance US national interests or are biased or critical of the United States or close US allies.”15 By introducing this entirely US preference-oriented funding standard, the Trump administration intends to dampen those international organizations that are considered incompatible with US interests, thereby reshaping the UN structure to serve US foreign policy objectives.

It is noteworthy that after World War II, a general pattern emerged with regard to the United States’ attitude toward the United Nations, where the executive branch ordinarily played an active role in advocating support for the UN’S work, paying its contributions in full and providing

funding, while the Congress often played a negative role of questioning and resisting. However, with Trump taking office, the situation reversed. In order to safeguard US interests, the Congress refused the budget request of the executive branch to substantially reduce funding for international organizations, and maintained the previous level of funding. In Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019, the actual appropriations approved by the US Congress for contributions and donations to international organizations were 178% and 157% of the White House budget requests, respectively.16 Nonetheless, the Trump administration decided to obstruct the distribution of congressional appropriations by administrative means, even after the relevant appropriation bill had been passed by the Congress. In July 2018, a senior advisor on international organization affairs in the US Department of State claimed in an internal email that the administration had the latitude to eliminate funding for programs that clash with White House priorities, and that the administration could use a number of bureaucratic levers, such as imposing onerous accounting and reporting requirements, to kill off programs the White House opposes while Congress was still funding them.17

Third, it gives priority to promoting UN reform and advancing conservative social values. The Trump administration regards UN reform as a deserved result of US financial contributions. Haley once indicated that the interests of the United States would be better served through a reformed United Nations, and attributed the UN’S reform to a “return on investment,” that is to say, US financial contributions should be reciprocated by a desired response from the UN,18 while achieving so-called fair financial burden sharing is a major objective of reform. In February 2018, the US State Department and the US Agency for International Development jointly issued the Joint Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2018-2022, proposing that by 2022 US financial

contributions to international organizations should be below those of 2017.19 In addition, the US believes that the inertia, waste, corruption of the United Nations and its mistreatment of Israel constitute the basis of reform.20 To this end, the Trump administration advocates a comprehensive assessment of current UN peacekeeping operations to decide whether to retain them, promotes the establishment of an independent UN monitoring body, proposes the stipulation that all international organizations protect whistleblowers, and calls for a reform of the UN Human Rights Council and the UNESCO to correct alleged prejudices and excessive concerns about Israel.

The Trump administration has made António Guterres, Secretarygeneral of the United Nations, a primary channel for promoting reform in the course of building an alliance of the so-called “like-minded.” Under tremendous pressure from the Trump administration, Guterres frequently visited Washington to hold close consultations with the US on issues about UN reform.21 In July 2017, the US convened a number of UN member states to draft the Declaration of Support for United Nations Reform, which clearly requires the Secretary-general to play a leading role in the process of UN reform and take responsibility for its results. Pushed by the US, over 130 countries signed the Declaration. In September of the same year, Trump personally chaired a high-level event “Reforming the United Nations: Management, Security, and Development,” attended by signatories to the Declaration.22 China, Russia, Brazil, South Africa and several other countries did not join the Declaration. Russia pointed out that it regarded such practices by the US as contrary to the principle that any UN reform should

be based on negotiations among member countries, but not by forcibly rushing them through.23

The Trump administration has an additional essential policy objective, namely, to advertise conservative values in UN consultations on population, health, gender and other social issues. During the Obama administration, the US adopted a liberal stance on social issues, held a relatively tolerant position on issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion, advocated the protection of women’s rights and the rights of LGBTI groups in the UN, and resumed funding to the UN Population Fund. Shortly after taking office, however, the Trump administration stopped funding to the organization on the grounds that it violated the Kemp-kasten Amendment.24 In relevant discussions within the UN and other international organizations, the Trump administration called for the prohibition of the use of such terms as “sexual and reproductive health” and “comprehensive sexuality education” with the justification that these expressions escalate the occurrence of abortions and lead to the normalization of sexual behavior among minors. In October 2018, at the Global Conference on Primary Health Care in Astana, Kazakhstan, the US requested that the term “sexual and reproductive health” be deleted from the final document of the conference. Although this demand was not supported by the participating countries, the US insisted that it would only sign the Astana Declaration if it affirmed in the footnote that “in no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning.”25 At the end of 2018, the US boycotted relevant passages of a number of human rights draft resolutions in the UN General Assembly.

On gender issues, the Trump administration has also taken stringently restrictive measures to oppose the granting of equal rights to homosexuals at the UN. In September 2018, the US announced that it would stop granting

G-4 visas to same-sex partners of UN employees and diplomats unless their marriage was officially recognized. During a UN deliberation on family issues in October of the same year, the US proposed adding a statement in the resolution that “marriage is the foundation of family and society” and that children would benefit most from “a family made up of a father and a mother.” The US suggested that families of heterosexual couples reduced poverty and obesity rates of children, and diminished the likelihood of children suffering from violence and mental illness.26 In terms of the protection of women’s and children’s rights, the Trump administration has also vigorously introduced conservative values into the consultation process of relevant resolutions of the UN General Assembly. In November 2017, in the course of consultations between the Second and Third Committees of the General Assembly on two resolutions dealing with the protection of women’s and children’s rights, the Trump administration, despite opposition from other countries, moved to change the expression in the resolution condemning “all forms of violence” against women and children into “illegal violence.” The US representative notified the committee that some forms of violence against women and children were legal in the United States, and that it was therefore a matter of safeguarding American rights.27

Background of the Policy Adjustment

Trump’s United Nations policy is impacted by his personal style, but it is also closely linked to the domestic trend of thought.

The United States’ long-standing isolationism and the American exceptionalism both exert their peculiar influence on the situation. The geopolitical environment protected by the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, and

the belief that the US represents a unique and higher form of governance, or “exceptionalism”, make the US unwilling to be obligated by international organizations or to accept multilateral mechanisms as the basis for its foreign policy-making. In addition, its international status and superiority as the sole superpower after the Cold War, as well as the powerful alliance system it has established with itself in the center, have enabled the US to take unilateral actions without the authorization of the United Nations. In this sense, the Trump administration’s notion of “America First” is not a new concept, but instead a vigorous and long-standing expression of America’s nature of diplomacy. Unlike the post-world War II American foreign policy tradition however, the Trump administration’s aversion to multilateralism has reached an unprecedented level.28

The Trump administration’s UN policy caters to the wave of populist thought in which some Americans harbor strong doubts toward international organizations. Some Americans have long blamed globalization for industrial transfer and income imbalance, which increasingly fostered their distrust in global governance and international organizations. According to a public opinion poll released by Gallup, since the UN Security Council refused to authorize the US to invade Iraq in 2003, the percentage of respondents who held that the UN did a good job in meeting difficulties has been less than 50%, and it dropped even further to 34% in 2018. In the same poll Republicans and Democrats in the US showed divergent attitudes toward the UN, namely, 54% of Democratic supporters thought the UN was performing well, compared with only 19% of Republican supporters.29 As a Republican president, who won the general election on a wave of populism, Trump’s reason to target the UN is to portray himself as defending American interests and pursuing a tough foreign policy.

On the issue of UN reform, the Trump administration is also driven by

domestic conservative forces. During the transition period before Trump was inaugurated, the American Heritage Foundation put forward reform proposals primarily aimed at the United Nations.30 These recommendations have been mostly implemented since Trump took office. In October 2018, the author of the proposal, the Heritage Foundation researcher Brett D. Schaefer, was nominated by Trump as a member of the United Nations Committee on Contributions, an important organization under the UN General Assembly which is responsible for making recommendations to the General Assembly on the proportion of national contributions to be paid. This proves once again the influence of conservative think tanks on the Trump administration. In addition, John Bolton, former US Permanent Representative to the UN, has been pressing for taking a hard stance against the UN, since he is of the opinion that the work of the UN in formulating international norms and implementing global governance constrains the US. In February 2017, Bolton declared at the US Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), where Trump also attended, that “our leaders should not expect nor should they seek approval of the international high-minded.”31 Trump himself apparently accepted this position. In March 2018, Bolton replaced H.R. Mcmaster as the Trump administration’s National Security Advisor.

Trump’s perception of international institutions influences his policy choices toward the United Nations. International institutions have been an important supporting instrument for Washington’s hegemonic status after World War II. Strengthening control over the affairs of the United Nations is a priority and a fundamental goal of the Trump administration’s UN policy, in an attempt to ensure US hegemonic status under the idea of “America First.” The Trump administration’s passive UN policies stem from the conflict between its desire to consolidate America’s hegemonic status

on the one hand, and its marginalization inside the UN and its inability to dominate UN affairs on the other. To this end, the Trump administration has a strong incentive to reshape the political structure of the UN and reverse the declining American leadership in UN affairs.

The Trump administration regards international institutions as a key area of great-power competition, and arranges its UN policy in accordance with its purpose of promoting American influence at the global level. The 2017 National Security Strategy pointed out that American competitors have long recognized the authority of multilateral institutions and used them to advance their national interests. If the US would transfer leadership in these institutions to its rivals, it would lose the momentum of shaping a favorable development for itself. On this basis, the report clearly states that the US would “exercise leadership in political and security bodies,” such as the UN, and that “if the United States is asked to provide a disproportionate level of support for an institution, we will expect a commensurate degree of influence over its direction and efforts of that institution.”32 Subsequently, the State Department-usaid Joint Strategic Plan for the Fiscal Years 2018-2022 in February 2018 further set “advancing American international leadership” as one of its four objectives, and argues that a continuation of its leading role in international and multilateral organizations would provide the US with an opportunity to advance American values, and would contribute to its goals in the fields of security, economy and development. The report additionally proposes active participation in multilateral forums to enable the US to use its leadership to influence the rules and norms of the international order, and prevent bad actors from advancing ideas and policies which are opposed to US interests.33 It can be seen from this that the Trump administration recognizes that in order to achieve the goals of American foreign policy, it needs “a direct, robust and meaningful engagement with the world.”34 The

Trump administration regards the UN and other international organizations as a potent instrument to advance US foreign policy objectives, and makes it a major diplomatic objective to constantly guard against any rising influence of competitors in international multilateral mechanisms.

The Trump administration’s discontent with the UN originates primarily from the decline of US dominance within the UN. On the one hand, the Trump administration is convinced that the US has paid vast amounts of money to the UN, but did not enjoy corresponding influence, and that the inefficiency and other management problems in the UN bureaucracy are the result of its long-term neglect of US requests. On the other hand, it attributes the decline of American dominance to the decision-making mechanism of the UN, and it is emphatically convinced that the decision-making of the UN on financial and human rights issues inclines to the preference of developing countries. To this end, the Trump administration intends to use its influence on financial contributions, agenda setting and bilateral relations to reverse the United States’ disadvantaged position in the UN and to strengthen its control over UN affairs. In December 2018, Secretary Pompeo said during a speech in Brussels: “International bodies must help facilitate cooperation that bolsters the security and values of the free world, or they must be reformed or eliminated.”35

According to Trump’s judgement, demonstrating toughness at the UN helps carry out the will and realize the intended policies of the US. Trump criticized his predecessor’s UN policy for undermining the world leadership of the US, arguing that the “leading from behind” strategy in the UN was a sign of a “weak, chaotic and hesitant” US, which was “often totally appeasing American rivals.”36 In particular, during a UN Security Council vote in December 2016 condemning Israel’s illegal settlement construction in the occupied Palestinian territory, the Obama administration abstained, enabling the Security Council to adopt the resolution by 14 votes for, 0 against and

1 abstention. This was the first time since the Security Council adopted a similar resolution 36 years ago, and it has aroused strong discontent from Trump and the US Republican Party who criticized Obama’s approach as “a betrayal of Israel.”37 Consequently, the Trump administration committed itself to a harsh “Make America Great Again” posture, in the assumption that a tougher US position and more unilateral actions toward the UN would help raise other countries’ attention to the position of the United States and thus win “respect.”38

Implications of the Trump Administration’s UN Policy

The Trump administration’s negative standpoint toward the United Nations has sparked widespread discussions. Some have assessed that this is a sign of the United States’ global retrenchment strategy, which would ultimately result in Washington’s abdication of its global leadership,39 while others have concluded that this is the Trump administration’s shirking of US responsibilities worldwide, and a reflection of its nationalist policies.40 Furthermore, still others are pointing out that there is a huge gap between Trump’s egoistic political style and the UN principles of collective and consultative decision-making.41

Trump’s unilateralist and pragmatist policies are posing great challenges to the UN’S future development, and have worsened relations among major

powers, weakened the international community’s ability to meet global challenges through cooperation, and have further aggravated the isolation of the US in the UN.

First, as far as the impact on the UN is concerned, the Trump administration still focuses on promoting UN reform in its UN policy, and has not withdrawn from international institutions under the UN system on a large scale, while the US Congress has resisted the White House’s budget request for substantial cuts in funding for international organizations. Therefore, the disruptive impact of the Trump administration on the UN is controllable. When Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov spoke of the US position on UN reform, he welcomed the fact that Trump was still interested in the UN itself, because it would have been much worse if the United Nations was ignored.42 Nevertheless, guided by a narrow view of national interests, Trump’s policy has intensified antagonism among countries within the UN and weakened the authoritative position of the UN as the core mechanism of global governance.

Trump’s unilateralist approach has led to intensified competition among major powers in the UN, and has increased the risk that the UN might fall into a deadlock. Since Trump took office, the number of draft resolutions that were rejected in the voting process of the UN Security Council has increased dramatically, revealing the manifest disputes among members of the Security Council, as well as the weakened effect of internal consultations usually held before the voting. In 2017, the Security Council failed to adopt seven draft resolutions, a significantly higher number than that in previous years. Among them, the US vetoed one, Russia vetoed four, Russia jointly vetoed one with China, and one failed to reach the required majority due to joint opposition of the US, the UK, France and other countries. In addition, China and Russia abstained in voting on two other resolutions. Among the nine controversial resolutions, neither Russia nor China supported the US position. Russia and the US voted in opposite ways in seven of the

resolutions, and only voted the same in 11% of Security Council votes. China voted opposite from the US in three resolutions and abstained in six others, and the two countries voted the same in 33.3% of Security Council votes.43 In 2018, the number of draft resolutions that failed to be adopted increased to 10, among which one was vetoed by the US, three vetoed by Russia, and six failed to summon a required majority.44

The effectiveness of the UN in addressing global challenges has also been weakened by the Trump administration’s policies. In the domain of peacekeeping, the US advocates so-called “responsibility to protect” measures by the governments concerned toward their citizens, and simultaneously reduces the size of existing UN peacekeeping operations drastically for the purpose of spending cuts. However, in the absence of a workable withdrawal mechanism, premature retreat or excessive reduction risks triggering a resurgence of conflicts and exacerbating turbulence in the world at large. In the field of counter-terrorism, the US policies are also undermining the consensus on international cooperation. The Office of Counter-terrorism, a new institution set up after António Guterres became UN Secretary-general, is put under the leadership of a Russian Under-secretary-general. However, accusing the head of the Office of being under tremendous pressure from the Russian government and disregarding US demands, in June 2018, the US withdrew its financial commitment to the Office and lowered the level of diplomats attending the UN High-level Conference on Counterterrorism.45 In addition, in the social sphere, the firmly held conservative convictions of the Trump administration have done considerable damage to the international community’s efforts to protect women’s rights and interests. The shortage of funds of international institutions such as the UN Population Fund and the World Health Organization has complicated the

efforts to reduce reproductive mortality rate and prevent the spread of AIDS. In the future, more UN agencies and projects might face similar crises if the Trump administration adds more pressure.

Second, as far as the impact on the US is concerned, in the view of the Trump administration and conservative groups, the unilateralist actions taken by the US toward the UN have maintained US leadership on the world stage and have earned the US more respect,46 whereas in fact Trump’s UN policy has made the US more isolated within the UN.

An important indicator of the United States’ status inside the UN is the voting consistency between the US and other member states, as a reflection of the extent to which the US is supported by other countries. During Trump’s first year in office, voting consistency rate between the US and other members in the UN General Assembly fell sharply from 41% in 2016 to 31%, substantially lower than during the Obama years.

Another benchmark for Washington’s status in the UN is the proportion of occasions where the US casts the opposing vote in the General Assembly, which indicates whether or not UN resolutions reflect US desires. According to the UN voting report submitted by the State Department to the Congress over the past years, the US has voted against 71% of the resolutions in the 72nd session of the General Assembly in autumn 2017, more than any other member of the UN. At that session, the US was the only country to vote against two General Assembly resolutions, A/RES/72/72 (sustainable fisheries) and A/RES/72/238 (agricultural development, food security and nutrition). It voted against another 16 resolutions with only one other country, specifically, against 15 with Israel and against one with the UK.47 By contrast, at the 71st session of the General Assembly in autumn 2016, the US voted against 44.6% of General Assembly resolutions. The US did not cast the opposing vote alone

in the session, and only twice did so with another country.48 Compared with the Obama administration, the frequency of the US voting against in the General Assembly since Trump took office has increased significantly, which proves that Trump’s tough stance has not in fact enhanced Washington’s status in the UN, but has in turn made it more isolated.

Conclusion

The Trump administration’s United Nations policy performs the dual function of being a prominent manifestation of its unilateralist foreign policy, and at the same time a core component of the US national strategy to regain world leadership. Trump’s pessimistic policies toward the UN not only are intended to cater to certain domestic groups who feel frustrated and resist US involvement in international affairs, participation in global governance and compliance with international norms, but also serve as “corrective” actions taken against the decline of American hegemony. It is noteworthy however, that despite calls in the US for the country to withdraw substantially from the United Nations, the Trump administration has not made a political decision to fully retreat from multilateral cooperation mechanisms and it still acknowledges that the UN plays an indispensable role in meeting increasingly complex international challenges.49 At present, the US still regards the UN as an important platform to achieve its foreign policy objectives and prioritizes the strengthening of US dominance in the UN through reform. The Trump administration’s UN policy has increased uncertainty in the development of global governance. It is an urgent task for the international community to step up policy coordination in order to safeguard the principle of multilateralism and effectively confine the unilateralist tendencies of the United States.