An already weakened and divided UN will be further undermined by Trump’s likely discarding even of the pretence of multilateralism, argues John Clarke

In September, the General Assembly of the United Nations convened in New York and the daunting prospect of the return of Donald Trump to the White House was on everyone’s mind. As the official business proceeded, delegates were nervously speculating about how a Trump victory might lead to major cuts in US financial support for the UN.

According to Politico, a ‘U.K. diplomat, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said there was “significant concern” that if Trump decides to slash or even stop budget contributions to the organization, “it will become very problematic very quickly.”’ Another noted that “he’s erratic, and you just never know what you’re going to get”.’

The article pointed out that the ‘last time Trump held office he took an axe to funding for the U.N. Population Fund, the U.N. Program on HIV/AIDS, its Relief and Works Agency for Palestine, and the World Health Organization. He later moved to withdraw from the WHO completely.’ Trump also attempted to cut half a billion dollars out of US support for UN peacekeeping initiatives, though Congress prevented this from happening.

Another diplomat noted ‘that beyond hits to individual institutions, the U.N. is assessing how it could handle a big overall cut in the U.S. contribution to its budget.’ Washington contributed more than a third of the UN’s collective budget in 2022 ‘but remains in arrears following four years of unpaid dues under the Trump administration.’

With Trump’s electoral victory now complemented by probable Republican control of the House and the Senate, the worst fears of the UN delegates have been confirmed. Last week, one African diplomat, asked by Arab News to comment on Trump’s return to power, responded with ‘the heavens help us’. Senior UN officials have been developing contingency plans for massive US budget cuts and withdrawal from particular initiatives. One diplomat, again speaking anonymously, suggested that Trump’s disdain for the UN might ‘just give China the opportunity to present itself as the supporter number one of multilateralism.’

America First

In 2017, during the first Trump presidency, the Brookings Institute bemoaned the fact that his administration had been slow to articulate a ‘vision statement on foreign policy’ and attempted to evaluate how Trump viewed international affairs. It is clear that his notion of ‘America First’ isn’t any rejection of the role of the US as a dominant and exploitative power but he has little patience for the commitments and responsibilities that have marked US ‘world leadership’ since World War Two.

For Trump, ‘the world is not a “global community” but an arena where nations, nongovernmental actors and businesses engage and compete for advantage’ and the US brings to this competition its military and economic strength. ‘Trump is competitive, he’s transactional, he mistrusts multilateralism’ and he has little patience for the UN or the finely balanced international framework through which the US has exercised its leading role and obtained the cooperation of subordinate powers. Trump’s approach, however, will play out in a situation where the hegemonic power of the US is weakening.

When Biden managed to unseat Trump in the last US presidential race, there was a strong expectation within the ruling establishment that his term in office would constitute a restoration. A crude and dangerous actor was now to be replaced by a more responsible and reliable steward of US interests on the world stage.

After Biden’s obvious cognitive decline had forced the Democratic leaders to move him aside in favour of Harris, the Christian Science Monitor rather grandly suggested that ‘Mr. Biden is the last in a long line of U.S. presidents viscerally wedded to America’s post-World War II vision of itself and its place in the world: as architect, leader, and linchpin in a web of alliances dedicated to promoting and protecting democratic friends over autocratic rivals.’

The hypocrisies and falsehoods contained in that assessment are clear enough but there is still a grain of truth in it. Biden did attempt to restore a viable and stable US ‘world leadership’ but his efforts only produced a dismal failure. Indeed, the return of Trump can be seen as the product of the inability of the Biden-Harris administration to obtain its objectives, domestically and internationally. Trump will compound a crisis of legitimacy on the international stage that Biden had already created during his term in office.

Biden came to power acutely aware that the US is now operating in a context of global rivalry, with the rising power of China as the main factor at work. He wanted to generate a respected and trusted dominant position for the US that would be marked by stable international dealings. In the Middle East and North Africa, he worked to cement alliances between Israel and several collaborationist Arab regimes, through a process of ‘normalisation’ that would establish diplomatic ties and ensure increased economic cooperation.

Since 7 October 2023, full and robust US support for Israel’s genocidal onslaught on Gaza has created a huge level of international discord and this has certainly been reflected within the UN itself. Not only has the Biden administration supplied most of the weapons for the genocide but it has used its veto powers within the UN Security Council to block efforts to halt the carnage. Most Western allies have accepted this situation but deep discontent has been generated among the countries of the Global South.

Crisis of legitimacy

To be sure, the US has always had a tense relationship with multilateral processes and it has often been ready to act unilaterally in defiance of the wishes of most UN members. The yearly ritual in which the vast majority of the General Assembly votes to end the blockade against Cuba and the US disregards the decision is a case in point. Still, the horror that has unfolded in Gaza has, as I pointed out in a previous article for Counterfire, produced a major crisis of legitimacy for the US-led ‘rules-based’ international order and the role that the UN plays within it.

With no end in sight to Israel’s expanding rampage in the Middle East, Trump prepares to take office. It is widely expected that his administration will be even more ready to accept Israel’s unbridled brutality than Biden’s was and that it will discard even the pretence of being a restraining influence. The enthusiasm that swept Israel on the news of Trump’s victory is all too easy to understand.

Dogged and unqualified US support for Israel is the sharpest source of international tension but it is only part of what is going on. The old League of Nations failed to contain the competing interests and armed conflicts of its time and it was replaced by the United Nations in the post-war era, even as the US cemented its dominant position. To-day, global rivalries are again a prime consideration and the power of the US is no longer undisputed. The US is seeking to ward off its rivals and counter their influence and a delicately balanced world order has become far less stable in the process.

Donald Trump stomps into the china shop at a particularly fragile moment and his arrival is hardly likely to reduce the level of tension. Certainly, the crisis within the UN would still have unfolded had Kamala Harris won the presidential election, but her administration would have at least tried to ensure that the organisation functioned viably despite major disagreements. Trump, on the other hand, has far less commitment to the ‘web of alliances’ that the US has generated over decades and that includes international bodies. Like all other US presidents, he will be ready to act unilaterally, but without the usual desire to keep up diplomatic norms or the appearance of multilateralism.

The US-led international order of which the UN is a vital part is in considerable difficulty. The return of Trump to the White House threatens to disrupt that order to an even greater degree. In the next few years, a greatly weakened UN is likely and the prospect of the kind of fate that met the League of Nations is no outlandish possibility.