The world will watch the coming session of the United Nations General Assembly with intense interest. What will U.S. President Donald Trump say in his return to the rostrum in New York on September 23th, especially as the U.S. has backed away from many of its UN obligations? What of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, or Chinese Premier Xi Jinping? Will governments continue to look away as conflicts rage and the climate heats, leaving in their wake instability, displacement, both humanitarian and natural disasters? What steps will governments take to realize the Sustainable Development Goals? Can Canada help to reinforce the UN at this critical moment?
The UN in Crisis
In the months since President Trump has re-entered the White House, the U.S. has announced its intention to withdraw from key UN organizations, including UNESCO and the UN Human Rights Council, as well as the Paris Climate Agreement. All American international commitments are also currently under review to ensure consistency with an America First foreign policy. The administration has sharply scaled back its financial support for international organizations, slashing US$1 billion in previously committed funding for the UN. Combined with China’s shabby record of late contributions, the capacity of the world body to respond to pressing global questions has been badly compromised.
The UN will need to cut at least US$500 million from next year’s budget and may lose 20% of its staff. Some of the biggest cuts have been to UN humanitarian work. Given rapidly heightened military spending and other demands, few governments have stepped up to cushion the blow. The reform proposals put forward by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres—called UN80—have encountered opposition from UN staff and some governments. Given limited funds, the UN will be forced to continue to cut back its activities and consolidate mandates. The UN will do less with less. The open question is which programs and mandates will be cut or consolidated.
The scale of the political and funding crisis is unprecedented. The UN today seems to have few backers. Many of the countries that have traditionally been the strongest supporters of the organization face domestic divisions and are increasingly turning inward. A pervasive pessimism has entered conversations about the UN. Even supporters of the body are forced to acknowledge the dysfunctional state of the organization. In a period of great power competition, many argue, the UN is less relevant than ever.
The Realist Temptation
In the current context, foreign policy realists—those advocating the expedient pursuit of national advantage unencumbered by moral principle or agreed international rules—are ascendant. Prominent realists, such as the U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Elbridge Colby, speak of the need for “prioritization” and “restraint.” Governments must be selective in their international aims, they argue, focusing resources on the “clear-eyed” pursuit of national interests. Country-first nationalists denigrate international commitments, including—or especially—those of the United Nations system.
In the American case, realists advocate reducing support for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and Ukraine so that the U.S. can focus on “the pacing threat” posed by China or the homeland. Realism, they insist, also demands limited engagement with “moral” issues beyond borders. They do little to counter violations of human rights or promote democracy in other nations.
Such arguments have a certain appeal in a period of geopolitical instability and uncertainty. Prioritization is always necessary in foreign policy. Prudence is a virtue in statecraft, especially when spending public money or putting troops in harm’s way. Plus, who doesn’t want to be realistic?
Yet this thinking is profoundly short-sighted. It substitutes near-term payoffs and transactionalism for the long-term, enlightened self-interest. It abandons big-picture strategy for narrow tactical wins. In the short run, for instance, Trump’s hardball actions against allies seem to be paying off. Tariff revenues are growing and governments seek to curry favour with the mercurial president. In the longer-run, however, Trump has badly undermined an international system of rules that has served U.S. interests for eight decades. He also risks losing key friends and allies around the world.
In the 1930s, many governments endorsed a similar short-term vision, undermining collective security through the League of Nations. They looked the other way in 1935 as Italy invaded Ethiopia. They did this because of the supposed need to prioritize the threat posed by a rising Germany. Within the four years, nations had embarked on the most destructive war the world has ever known.
Foreign policy realists also take an unnecessarily narrow view of what constitutes the national interest. With the slowdown in cooperation within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the UN Environment Programme, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the World Health Organization, and many other UN bodies, foreign policy realists undermine their nations’ capacity to solve critical global problems. No country will be spared the terrible ramifications of environmental and health crises. All these issues demand global cooperation and there is no substitute for an effective United Nations here.
Finally, realism’s neglect of moral principles is self-undermining. A reputation for fair-dealing and principled international behaviour is a real asset. It helps countries to achieve what they want in the world. The reverse is also true. A reputation for cynical and unjust behaviour is deeply damaging. The U.S. won the Cold War, not mainly because it outran or out-deterred the Soviet Union militarily; it was the attraction of American values and culture that appealed to many in the Soviet bloc, leaving the government in Moscow morally bankrupt.
For the Carney government, the choice is clear: lead in defending the rules-based order, or drift into irrelevance alongside it. There are many avenues—including in a fiscally constrained environment—for Canada to show real global leadership at the UN when it is most needed.
Why Canada should care: A Call to Action
Despite his past role as a UN envoy for climate change, Prime Minister Mark Carney has so far shown little inclination to invest political or financial capital in reinforcing the UN. On climate, so central to UN debates, he has rolled back some measures to reduce Canadian emissions and has provided no indication of what might take their place. Indeed, aside from a brief reference in the Liberal election platform reaffirming Canada’s net zero climate commitments, he has said little on the issue.
At a policy level, these arguments have extra salience as the government completes an eagerly-awaited National Security Review. A foreign policy review will be an element of this review. In it, the government will set out Canada’s vision for the current period of geopolitical turmoil and change. What role will the UN play within Canada’s current foreign policy relative to other international security institutions, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization? Will the government endorse the sort of short-termism advocated by foreign policy realists?
Canada has been most effective on the world stage when it has adopted a genuine both/and—rather than an either/or—policy with respect to the UN and NATO. The challenge at a policy level, is to determine how Canadian commitments to each institutional venue—and others—can be self-reinforcing. How can a strong commitment to the UN enhance Canada’s value in NATO? How can deeper NATO engagement make Canada a more active player at the UN?
At a practical level, the coming General Assembly and the fast-approaching Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change will provide opportunities for the government to strengthen its commitment to the UN and reinforce the world organization at a critical juncture. The government should invest new financial and political resources to show its commitment, including through climate financing. Doing so is essential for preserving a rules-based international order that is vital for long-term Canadian interests.
In doing this, Canada should work with other governments: Britain, France, Germany, Norway, and South Korea are obvious partners. But Canada needs to expand its reach. The government should target other actors, including Brazil, India, Mexico, Nigeria, the Philippines, and South Africa. Together, these countries should coordinate their activities to help address the liquidity crisis facing the organization.
In addition, with a strengthened Canadian Armed Forces, Canada and other big countries are better positioned to reinforce collective security at the UN and, through peace operations, address destabilizing conflicts around the world. The government should revisit its level of support for a mission in Haiti, for instance. The government should also push for a UN role in post-conflict Gaza.
With many of Canada’s closest European and Asian partners facing periods of deep domestic division, Canada is positioned to show leadership. The UN system is far more fragile than we realize and action is urgent.
For the Carney government, the choice is clear: lead in defending the rules-based order, or drift into irrelevance alongside it. There are many avenues—including in a fiscally constrained environment—for Canada to show real global leadership at the UN when it is most needed.