If Joe Biden is elected instead, “America first” is more likely to become “America-led”. He has pledged to demolish some Trump policies, including restoring US funding and membership of the WHO, and rejoining the Paris agreement. What he will find hard to change, however, is the American public’s growing weariness of an international system that does not always deliver for US interests.
The UN’s efficiency and effectiveness depends primarily on how the five permanent members of its Security Council compromise on their pergent national interests. Since 2011, Russia has cast 19 vetoes, 14 of which were on Syria. Eight of the nine Chinese vetoes during this period were over Syria. But it would be naive to conclude that the council is pided into two camps, with the US, Britain and France on the other side.
In August, America’s two strongest Security Council allies joined China and Russia in rejecting Washington’s attempt to reimpose UN sanctions on Iran. Trump is a proud nationalist. But as French President Emmanuel Macron said, almost in his face during the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I, “nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism”.
As a major power competition unfolds, the UN has unsurprisingly loomed as a main battleground for China and the US. Beijing’s support for and Washington’s withdrawal from the WHO is a typical example. This is a huge risk for the UN – China and the US are also the largest financial contributors to the UN’s general and peacekeeping budgets.
At the last UN General Assembly, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres talked about his fear of a “Great Fracture” – a global split as the two largest economies create separate and competing worlds.
But even if Washington looks determined to file for porce, the UN is still a useful avenue for the estranged to get along. During the 1948 Berlin blockade, US and Soviet diplomats continued to exchange messages and ideas in the UN. Today, Washington still needs Beijing to strike compromises on, say, expanding sanctions on North Korea.