Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Nikki Haley: Pushing Back Hard on the UN
The United Nations is not on my list of favorite organizations. In fact, I’ve written an OP about leaving, if not disbanding, the institution. But now that Nikki Haley is the US ambassador to the United Nations, I’m having second thoughts.
In her short time in the UN, she has already ruffled some feathers. She’s proposed making cuts in key areas—“Everybody knows there’s fat at the UN. Everybody knows there’s fat in the peacekeeping missions. So that’s why we’re taking [a review of] each one.”
She has also proposed a focus on human rights in national security, and reforming the UN peacekeeping operations. She has said that peacekeeping missions have to be re-evaluated, and if they are not being managed well, countries may lose funding:
Asked why the UN should have an exit strategy for its peacekeeping missions, Haley said, ‘Because there should never be a time we don’t want to lift up countries. There should never be a time we don’t want to make them more independent. If we’re there all the time, all you’re doing is creating dependence.’ Haley also said that peacekeeping missions are ‘not fair to the American taxpayer.’
Especially noteworthy is Haley’s commitment to stop “Israel bashing.” After her speech at the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference:
She called herself ‘a new sheriff in town’ and said she would end ‘Israel bashing’ at the U.N. On Wednesday, she alluded to ‘yet another ridiculously biased report attacking Israel’ that resulted in the resignation of Rima Khalaf, executive secretary of the U.N. Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia. The report, which said that Israel has ‘created an apartheid regime that dominates the Palestinian people as a whole,’ was also withdrawn.
She says the Israel bashing is less intense, and she also was able to influence the UN in not placing a former prime minister of the Palestinian Authority in a top level position.
In addition, she will also be keeping a close eye on Iran’s activities, and is prepared to act in response to violations.
Most recently Ambassador Haley and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson expressed different views on pursuing regime change in Syria. Ms. Haley indicated that a primary goal was to defeat ISIS and address Iranian influence in the area. But she also pointed to regime change as a necessity: “And then we’ve got to go and make sure that we actually see a leader that will protect his people. And clearly, Assad is not that person.”
In contrast, Rex Tillerson said, “Our priority is first the defeat of ISIS. Once we can eliminate the battle against ISIS, conclude that, and it is going quite well, then we hope to turn our attention to cease-fire agreements between the regime and opposition forces.In that regard, we are hopeful that we can work with Russia and use their influence to achieve areas of stabilization throughout Syria and create the conditions for a political process through Geneva in which we can engage all of the parties on the way forward, and it is through that political process that we believe the Syrian people will lawfully be able to decide the fate of Bashar al-Assad.”
National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, when pressed to account for the difference between Haley and Tillerson, said the following:
What Ambassador Haley pointed out was, it’s very difficult to figure out how a political solution could result from the continuation of the Assad regime. We’re not saying that we are the ones who are going to effect that change. What we’re saying is, other countries have to ask themselves some hard questions. Russia should ask themselves … why are we supporting this murderous regime that is committing mass murder of its own population and using the most heinous weapons available?
So I am cautiously optimistic that Nikki Haley may actually make a difference in the United Nations. She is demonstrating leadership to the Western and pro-U.S. countries, which may influence them to back us in our more challenging actions and positions. The Middle East is also being put on notice that the U.S. will not cater to its anti-Israel rhetoric and activities. And U.N. members shouldn’t assume that standard operating procedures will continue without serious evaluation.
Still questions remain for me:
Will Ambassador Haley be able to make a lasting impact on the operations of the UN?
Will other countries join her in pressuring Russia and China to align with us?
Is the UN capable of becoming a different kind of organization that can make a difference in the world?
What steps need to be taken besides those that Haley is taking to transform the organization?
Published in Foreign Policy
The UN should continue to exist solely as a forum for leaders and ambassadors to meet for extended and delicate diplomacy negotiations. It should not be a legal or operative body of any kind. That means no security force, no charitable programs, no joint resolutions, etc. Its use is only as a meeting house. The rest is better served by individual governments and case-by-case cooperations free of interference from bad actors.
Your point is well-taken, Aaron. At this point, however, I doubt that any of them would be willing to give up the power they think they have (which is a lot less than they actually have).
I agree with you Susan. Whatever people may think of Trump – don’t know if the animosity has eased up here – but he has put together a super administration. Haley seems like she’s doing a great job. Personally though I’d rathe the UN went away or we pulled out. But that’s another issue.
Happy Passover!
Thanks for your input, Manny! I hope you had a lovely Easter.
Yes, thank you.
Nikki Haley is a breath of fresh air and a bastion of hope to those of us who are so tired of the tale wagging the dog. It’s also time someone spoke up to encourage the freeloaders to pony up with more dollar support for the UN. Thanks for writing this Susan.
@ Susan Quinn:No second thoughts. It may be a lot of fun to watch Nikki Haley ‘sock it to ’em’ in Turtle Bay, but that is the problem in a nutshell. The US pays the lion’s share on the UN’s way, gives them a place to flap their gums and gets slapped around for our trouble. No, the UN needs to go, period. I care not a whit if it stays together or not, but it needs to be in Brussels, not NYC.
I don’t disagree. I’d love them outta here, but New York would probably go bonkers if they left. @goldwaterwoman mentioned our threat of withholding money. I don’t think we’ve tied those threats to specific actions, which is a shame. When do you decide enough is enough and start pulling out funds? Maybe we’d get “slapped around” a little less. I’m just glad she’s in there doing the slapping for change!
Bad people do bad things. Been that way since Eve offered Adam an apple. And if a bad person does something bad, I am not responsible.
Were the US justified in taking down Assad, that justification would not go away if some future, as yet unknown bad actor does something we don’t like.
If you blow up a dam would any reasonable person hold you responsible for the resulting flood?
Surely not!!
You seem to be suggesting all the different groups out there killing people have no agency. They’re just forces of nature. They can’t help but kill each other without a strong dictator to keep them in check.
False binary
I don’t think that’s a legitimate comparison, Zafar. Although going into Iraq was probably a mistake, there was no way to predict what would follow, except for those blessed with perfect eyesight. When you bomb a dam, you can be pretty sure that people will drown in the flood’s wake.
You’re correct, Zafar, but as I said, your comparison wasn’t a fair one; @mattwhite was just building off a weak example.
Oh, come on, @zafar , you know that is a fallacious response – even Rachel Madcow would hesitate on it (well, maybe not)! The dam is not sentient, the water has no brain.
Total nonsense.
I think I agree with Zafar here.
No, we cannot foresee all the consequences of our actions. But we do have an obligation to try. It’s what we do all the time. It’s a normal part of living. For example: If I take that job that requires me to move, how will it affect the children? Or my parents?
It’s what happened in Libya. A noxious dictator was removed. Now Libya is divided between warring factions and there are slave markets. Could we have foreseen all that? No, but we (that is, Obama and Hillary) could have guessed that “bad things might happen” and should have had some type of plan. The plan could have gone wrong—that would have been forgiveable. But it is hard to forgive them having no plan at all.
Zafar simply pointed out that removing Assad could have bad consequences for Christians, and we might want to take that possibility into account before making decisions about what to do. If we were to remove Assad, then we do have to think what comes after. What will fill the vacuum?
If that’s what he meant then he needs to work on his metaphors. The line about the dam would put all responsibility on us and none on ISIS.
I have a friend who is very involved with a UN organization who is convinced they do some good in the world but also concedes that the bulk of UN money goes to support the huge bureaucracy within.
Yes, GW, they do some good things, especially for children. Some would say those things could be done well without the UN.
Well so long as we accept we have some responsibility for the results of our actions I guess I’m satisfied. If you need to say it’s mostly ISIS’ fault that’s fine too.
My point is: ISIS (and most of the FSA) will try to kill and oppress minorities and non-conforming majorities and women in Syria whatever we do. But our actions constrain or empower them, and to ignore that is irresponsible. Imho.
Maybe so, but that raises another question: What is the reason for wanting Assad out? Is it because he poses a real and present danger to the peace and security of the USA? Fine. Is it because he wantonly kills innocents? If so, I would not want to hesitate because if he is removed Christian innocents might die instead of non-Christians: Whether Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, any other, the Christian life is not per se more valuable.
It is sooo complicated being the world’s policeman.
Arguably we all should have known better – by observation (history, Lebanon, current events) – and if we didn’t bother that’s not a good thing.
History, observation and current events are why I’m so convinced that removing Assad’s regime, or seriously weakening it on the ground, will result in (among other things) more Christians being killed in Syria.
Do we only own the consequences of our actions when we accurately foresee them? Or whether we foresee them or not. It seems that you’re gauging intentions and using that to define responsibility for results.
We may not have thought about consequences in Iraq. Why repeat the same mistake in Syria?
When you say it that way, I agree.
I think it’s important to pay attention to this point. The Right often criticizes the Left for not taking responsibility for poor outcomes, and we say that just because they didn’t anticipate them does not count. That’s one thing where Powell had some standing: you break it, you own it (at least partly).
Susan,
I don’t think Boris would have said this without coordinating with Thersa.
Boris Johnson calls Assad a ‘monster’ who needs ‘decapitating’
Regards,
Jim
I suppose one reason to remove Assad might be that he is allied with Hezbollah, Iran and Russia.
When he held all of Syria, Syria was a conduit for weapons to Lebanon. Now there is a “Shia arc” developing that stretches across that region. With Iran now fighting in Iraq, that “arc” is becoming more of a geographical reality.
Here is an article by J E Dyer that I found interesting. The first bit about Obama can be skipped if you prefer. Just go down to the subheading that is called “A Transformed Geostrategic Reality” and read from there.
Even if you do not care about the implications for Israel, we can think about what it might mean for Iran to control territory that stretches all the way to the Mediterranean.
http://libertyunyielding.com/2015/08/30/obama-demonstrates-geostrategic-incomprehension-in-webcast-with-jewish-groups/
Putin is part of the equation as well.
Whether all this is sufficient reason to want to do something about Assad is another question. I am glad that I am not the person in charge of making those type of decisions.
I agree with you about being the world’s policeman!
Excellent points, TooShy. That is why Saudi Arabia is so up in arms (pun intended) and is trying to organize other Arab countries, sort of including Israel as an information resource, to stop Iran. It is a serious concern.