Obama vs. McCain on U.S.-U.N. Relations
Howard Salter
June 17, 2008
By Josh Rovenger
At the beginning of his quest to become president, then-governor George W. Bush wrote, "The world seeks America´s leadership, looks for leadership from a country whose values are freedom and justice and equality. Ours should not be the paternalistic leadership of an arrogant big brother, but the inviting and welcoming leadership of a great and noble nation. We have a collective responsibility as citizens of the greatest and freest nation in the world."
Nearly a decade later, the irony of such a statement from the president that took the country in the exact opposite direction is overwhelming. After all, this was the president whose foreign policy doctrine was steeped in unilateralism; the president that went into Iraq without a real international consensus to do so; and the president that allowed roughly $2 billion in debt to the United Nations to accumulate.
As a result, over the past seven years U.S. relations with the U.N. and the world have been strained. This is precisely why many people are looking at the November presidential elections with the hope that a President Obama or McCain would spawn a new relationship between the U.S. and the U.N. While it is true that both Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain represent a strict departure from the current unilateralism, examining each candidate´s record on the U.N. makes it apparent that Obama reflects a better chance for a revived, sustained relationship.
The first place where the two candidates diverge is on their understanding of the U.S.´s role in the U.N., and what a U.N.-U.S. relationship should look like. Obama believes that, "we need effective collaboration on pressing global issues among all the powers," and as such he intends, "to rebuild all alliances, partnerships and institutions necessary to confront common threats and enhance common security." Although he doesn´t limit this solely to the U.N., he does contend that, "the U.S. should play a leading role in the United Nations." Part of this responsibility includes fulfilling our financial responsibilities. "I will insist that Congress provides funds to pay our dues on time, in full and without improper conditions."
He also recognizes the need for reform within the institution, and the importance of the U.S. in helping to facilitate such reform. For instance, on the U.N. Security Council he believes that, "The Security Council´s structure and composition are not reflective of 21st Century realities. European nations´ representation requires some modernizing…while Japan and India, two very large and important countries in Asia, feel underrepresented. Africa, Latin America and the Middle East should also gain adequate representation in any reform process." More over, he has promised that "As president, I will carefully consider proposals to update the composition, structure and rules of procedure of the Security Council that will enable it to function effectively while preserving the U.S. veto. I would not favor proposals that increase the number of members to unworkable levels or that enable more countries to block critical UN Security Council actions."
As for Obama´s opponent, McCain paradoxically recognizes that, "The United Nations always plays an important role," yet argues for a new coalition that would virtually sidestep the U.N. His institutional grand vision involves, "linking democratic nations in one common organization: a worldwide league of democracies." He hopes that such an organization could handle major global problems that other institutions could not. He tries to mitigate the appearance of undermining the U.N. by saying, "As president, I will seek the widest possible circle of allies through the league of democracies, NATO, the UN and the Organization of American States." Moreover, while he argues that the U.S. should "pay arrears to the UN after the UN implements reforms," he does not list the reforms he would introduce to the U.N. Rather, he only makes promises relevant to his league of democracies. He guarantees, "If I am elected president, during my first year in office I will call a summit of the world's democracies to seek the views of my counterparts and explore the steps necessary to realize this vision." This illustrates the elevation of his new coalition over long-standing ones.
In addition to their general outlook on the U.N., the candidates differ on specific issues as well. One such example is the U.N.´s Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) which seek to "reverse the grinding poverty, hunger and disease affecting billions of people." Obama has said, "The United Nations has embraced the Millennium Development Goals, which aim to cut extreme poverty in half by 2015. When I´m president, they will be American goals." In the U.S. senate he is a sponsor of the Global Poverty Act which would, "require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day." Although five of McCain´s Republican colleagues have also co-sponsored this legislation, McCain has not. Obama has also pledged to "double our foreign assistance to 50$ billion to achieve that goal."
Although McCain has not fully addressed the MDGs, he has "consistently supported the President´s emergency plan for AIDS relief in Africa." In dealing with countries that need aid, he would, "also press nations on the critical importance of good governance and a commitment to legal reform because no amount of assistance can succeed when government fail their people."
Another issue that underpins the candidates´ positions on the U.N. is their stance on the new Human Rights Council. Obama has generally been supportive of the idea of the council, yet he has questioned its execution. "The new Human Rights Council has passed eight resolutions condemning Israel, a democracy with higher standards of human rights than its accusers, yet only with difficulty adopted resolutions pressing Sudan and Myanmar." McCain however has not been as open on this issue. He voted to withhold funding for the council in 2007, and has claimed that the council suffers from the same problems that plagued the Human Rights Commission that it replaced.
Citizens for Global Solutions believes that the United Nations is critical for international stability, and that it is of the utmost importance that the U.S. cooperates with the organization. It is vital that the next president prioritizes reestablishing relations with the rest of the international community via the U.N. He cannot simply take the current administration´s approach and bypass the organization to achieve his own goals.
Obama appears to better grasp this idea, as he has recognized the importance of the U.N. in preserving America´s relationship with the world, as well as its ability to ameliorate global problems. While McCain claims to believe in the importance of the U.N., the creation of a league of democracies would only downplay its relevance. His insistence on this new coalition illustrates his preference to deal with American allies rather than countries that may not share the U.S.´s view. Regardless of the practical hurdles of such a coalition, McCain´s rhetoric on its prominence is somewhat troubling for the future of U.S.-U.N. relations. While the current president may not have kept his campaign promises, it is possible that a president McCain or Obama will come closer to fulfilling their pledges, and in doing so profoundly alter U.S.-U.N. relations in the future.
At the beginning of his quest to become president, then-governor George W. Bush wrote, "The world seeks America´s leadership, looks for leadership from a country whose values are freedom and justice and equality. Ours should not be the paternalistic leadership of an arrogant big brother, but the inviting and welcoming leadership of a great and noble nation. We have a collective responsibility as citizens of the greatest and freest nation in the world."
Nearly a decade later, the irony of such a statement from the president that took the country in the exact opposite direction is overwhelming. After all, this was the president whose foreign policy doctrine was steeped in unilateralism; the president that went into Iraq without a real international consensus to do so; and the president that allowed roughly $2 billion in debt to the United Nations to accumulate.
As a result, over the past seven years U.S. relations with the U.N. and the world have been strained. This is precisely why many people are looking at the November presidential elections with the hope that a President Obama or McCain would spawn a new relationship between the U.S. and the U.N. While it is true that both Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain represent a strict departure from the current unilateralism, examining each candidate´s record on the U.N. makes it apparent that Obama reflects a better chance for a revived, sustained relationship.
The first place where the two candidates diverge is on their understanding of the U.S.´s role in the U.N., and what a U.N.-U.S. relationship should look like. Obama believes that, "we need effective collaboration on pressing global issues among all the powers," and as such he intends, "to rebuild all alliances, partnerships and institutions necessary to confront common threats and enhance common security." Although he doesn´t limit this solely to the U.N., he does contend that, "the U.S. should play a leading role in the United Nations." Part of this responsibility includes fulfilling our financial responsibilities. "I will insist that Congress provides funds to pay our dues on time, in full and without improper conditions."
He also recognizes the need for reform within the institution, and the importance of the U.S. in helping to facilitate such reform. For instance, on the U.N. Security Council he believes that, "The Security Council´s structure and composition are not reflective of 21st Century realities. European nations´ representation requires some modernizing…while Japan and India, two very large and important countries in Asia, feel underrepresented. Africa, Latin America and the Middle East should also gain adequate representation in any reform process." More over, he has promised that "As president, I will carefully consider proposals to update the composition, structure and rules of procedure of the Security Council that will enable it to function effectively while preserving the U.S. veto. I would not favor proposals that increase the number of members to unworkable levels or that enable more countries to block critical UN Security Council actions."
As for Obama´s opponent, McCain paradoxically recognizes that, "The United Nations always plays an important role," yet argues for a new coalition that would virtually sidestep the U.N. His institutional grand vision involves, "linking democratic nations in one common organization: a worldwide league of democracies." He hopes that such an organization could handle major global problems that other institutions could not. He tries to mitigate the appearance of undermining the U.N. by saying, "As president, I will seek the widest possible circle of allies through the league of democracies, NATO, the UN and the Organization of American States." Moreover, while he argues that the U.S. should "pay arrears to the UN after the UN implements reforms," he does not list the reforms he would introduce to the U.N. Rather, he only makes promises relevant to his league of democracies. He guarantees, "If I am elected president, during my first year in office I will call a summit of the world's democracies to seek the views of my counterparts and explore the steps necessary to realize this vision." This illustrates the elevation of his new coalition over long-standing ones.
In addition to their general outlook on the U.N., the candidates differ on specific issues as well. One such example is the U.N.´s Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) which seek to "reverse the grinding poverty, hunger and disease affecting billions of people." Obama has said, "The United Nations has embraced the Millennium Development Goals, which aim to cut extreme poverty in half by 2015. When I´m president, they will be American goals." In the U.S. senate he is a sponsor of the Global Poverty Act which would, "require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day." Although five of McCain´s Republican colleagues have also co-sponsored this legislation, McCain has not. Obama has also pledged to "double our foreign assistance to 50$ billion to achieve that goal."
Although McCain has not fully addressed the MDGs, he has "consistently supported the President´s emergency plan for AIDS relief in Africa." In dealing with countries that need aid, he would, "also press nations on the critical importance of good governance and a commitment to legal reform because no amount of assistance can succeed when government fail their people."
Another issue that underpins the candidates´ positions on the U.N. is their stance on the new Human Rights Council. Obama has generally been supportive of the idea of the council, yet he has questioned its execution. "The new Human Rights Council has passed eight resolutions condemning Israel, a democracy with higher standards of human rights than its accusers, yet only with difficulty adopted resolutions pressing Sudan and Myanmar." McCain however has not been as open on this issue. He voted to withhold funding for the council in 2007, and has claimed that the council suffers from the same problems that plagued the Human Rights Commission that it replaced.
Citizens for Global Solutions believes that the United Nations is critical for international stability, and that it is of the utmost importance that the U.S. cooperates with the organization. It is vital that the next president prioritizes reestablishing relations with the rest of the international community via the U.N. He cannot simply take the current administration´s approach and bypass the organization to achieve his own goals.
Obama appears to better grasp this idea, as he has recognized the importance of the U.N. in preserving America´s relationship with the world, as well as its ability to ameliorate global problems. While McCain claims to believe in the importance of the U.N., the creation of a league of democracies would only downplay its relevance. His insistence on this new coalition illustrates his preference to deal with American allies rather than countries that may not share the U.S.´s view. Regardless of the practical hurdles of such a coalition, McCain´s rhetoric on its prominence is somewhat troubling for the future of U.S.-U.N. relations. While the current president may not have kept his campaign promises, it is possible that a president McCain or Obama will come closer to fulfilling their pledges, and in doing so profoundly alter U.S.-U.N. relations in the future.
Print
Email
