"America's subpar diplomats aren't the world's only choice"
The United Nations, once a global peace beacon, now struggles for relevance. Superpower politics and a decline in multilateralism have diminished its influence. The article suggests focusing on reviving traditional diplomacy and humanitarian aid. It highlights the need for professional diplomats over amateurs. A reformed UN can still achieve limited good for many people.
The United Nations was the scene of many famous orations and melodramas. In 1960, Fidel Castro delivered the longest single speech in the General Assembly’s history, almost five hours long, and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev banged his shoe on the rostrum to hammer home a menacing message to the West.
It is depressing to behold the manner in which North Korea, for so long a pariah and the object of repeated condemnatory UN resolutions, has become the openly avowed ally of Russia and China. Presidents Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping find Kim Jong Un and his arsenals useful, and care nothing for the enslavement of his people.
Rather than aspire to restore the clout of the UN Security Council, it seems more realistic to work to the more limited goal of persuading world leaders that traditional diplomacy — jaw-jaw rather than war-war, to borrow Churchill’s phrase — can assist their policymaking. I once read the memoirs of a Foreign Office official who spent years of the Cold War representing Britain at international disarmament talks. At first sight, he said, he had wasted his life, because the Soviets stonewalled every proposal. Yet he argued that merely keeping talking contributed to keeping us all alive.
I agree. I believe passionately in the virtues of professional diplomats, of whom the US State Department, the British Foreign Office and their kin in other countries bred outstanding examples. Such people devoted their lives to studying other societies; to long-haul bargaining with friends and foes.
By contrast the only virtue of Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff and their ilk as emissaries is that Trump trusts them. Knowing little of history or the world, bereft of a moral compass, they are unfit to represent their nation at the negotiating table. It would be a significant first step toward a less scary international scene if countries revived respect for foreign-service professionals, and banished amateurs.
The UN can be reformed and resurrected as a platform for humanitarian relief and peacekeeping in the quarrels of lesser states. This is an attainable objective if Washington, or at least some successor to Trump, once more accepts that it should fulfil some higher purpose than the pursuit of plunder.
It would be naïve to suggest morality ever dominated international affairs. Today, however, the smash-and-grab culture promoted by the superpower leaders does not serve the best interests of their own nations, never mind those of the world.
In principle, many of us would endorse what Thant says. We yearn for restoration of a moral dimension to international affairs, and especially to US foreign policy. Yet such lamentations are unlikely to make headway unless the great powers become willing to defer to UN processes.
Israel has for years ignored UN censure. In a world in which President Donald Trump treats America’s allies with contempt, it would be fanciful to imagine that he will involve the UN, which he despises even more, in attempts to escape from his Iranian imbroglio, or to settle the Ukrainian war.
Written by: Blunderstaff | The Citizen Edition
“May the road rise”