UNconventional; Altering the Course of US Tactics

UNconventional

''It isn't enough to talk about peace. One must believe in it. And it isn't enough to believe in it. One must work at it.''  Eleanor Roosevelt

       It isn't hard for the world to recognize a diminishing US global presence, one that no longer controls and has a decreasing role in the economic, military, or cultural future of the world. Foreign Policy wrote a somewhat comprehensive piece on the issue, noting not only the data that supports such a view but also the percentage of people who believe it; nearly 60 percent of America consider US power waning. That may not be a bad thing; the US has dominated all three of the above categories for the past half century or more, meaning that it could certainly be time for replacements in the global order. But I don't think it necessarily needs to be that way, and based upon current political discourse on both sides of the spectrum, neither party thinks that diminishing US presence is a good idea. President Obama himself declared that it is not a question of "whether America will lead, but how we will lead," a positive tone in any otherwise bleak political climate. While accepting the inevitable is often prudent, it does not appear that the US wishes to do so. But with rising debt, decreases in planned military spending, and a great deal of animosity from abroad that is rooted heavily in how they conduct our foreign policy, it might be pragmatic to plan based around the thought that the US will soon lose control. But this is not a defeatist post; it is one that aims to solve the US's problem.

      The business world has a word for radical changes to a company that completely alter the focus, aim, and possibly even products or services offered by them. That word is pivot, a realization that their current model of business is antiquated or no longer commercially viable. If one treats states as corporations that are each trying to gain control in a chaotic world, the analogy serves it's purpose. The United States is losing options for how to continually maintain global power, and thus needs to radically alter how it approaches International Relations. While there may be many ways they can change their approach, my answer is limited to one; it desperately needs to engage the world as an arbiter of peace by dramatically altering it's current dealings with the United Nations.
   
      Susan Rice, the current National Security Advisor, commented in 2011 that

"There is no better alternative to sharing the costs and burdens of UN peace operations and humanitarian missions around the world. There is no doubt that we are more secure when the UN can foster nonproliferation and promote disarmament. It is we, along with others, who gain when the UN spurs sustainable development and democracy, improves global health, upholds women's rights, and broadens access to education."

      As if to agree with her, the United States contributed 22% of the United Nations' budget in 2013. In comparison, Japan, the next highest contributor, gave only 10% (Fifth committee). The United States was one of the founding members, and still is one of the five exclusive members of the Security Council. It's borders hold the official UN headquarters and it's National Security Strategy in 2010 included expansion of UN connections and support (White House). But the UN has always had somewhat of a cold shoulder from the US, a strange thing considering how invested the nation seems in its success. 

       For better or worse, the UN is a tool for uniting the world together (Tharoor). Whether it is the best tool or the most effective is debatable; some even say that it has been counter productive to the security of the world due to an unwillingness among nations to compromise. But that doesn't mean it needs to continue to be ineffective; if it had a strong leader interested in uniting together the diverse interests of nations, it might be able to do some significant good. That leader could be the United States, a country that needs a replacement function for its former militarism and economic prowess. But the United States has been negligent of trying to unify itself with the people of the world; case in point, any of the innumerable international treaties that the country has failed to ratify and sign. By last count, that was at least 37 (Vote.org), with many of them being one of the few holdouts among 193 possible parties who could sign. Some of these, like the Convention on the Rights of the Child, are unsigned by only the United States, South Sudan and Somalia, one of which didn't exist five years ago and the other which hasn't had a national government until about two years ago (Global Policy Forum). In whatever case, both have announced plans to sign the treaty, while the United States has remained silent.

      What does this say about the US? Ultimately, it shows that it loves sticking to the unilateralism that has dominated its foreign policy for the past half century. It shows that America prioritizes nationalism over globalization or that the political process of the country is disorganized and politically ineffective. It shows that attempts at cosmopolitanism are disdained and ridiculed at a national level. Admittedly there are reasons for refusing to sign some of these treaties; many of them relate to concerns over political sovereignty in a world dominated by groups above governments. In the case of the Rights of the Child convention, concerns about the right of the parent being abridged have prevented ratification. But these arguments ignore both that many of these treaties still allow plenty of national sovereignty (which is why so many nations have signed), and that the United States always signs with the intent of prioritizing domestic law over international standards. More importantly, the fact remains that the United States refuses to sign treaties that are completely in line with their current foreign policy standards. The Mine Ban treaty remains unsigned while the United States is one of the largest financial supporters of mine destruction each year, and the
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is in compliance with all current United States laws (Human Rights Watch). But the country still ignores that they could very easily win goodwill and greater control of one of the most powerful institutions on the planet because of misplaced priorities and illogical fears. 

"There is no longer a clear, bright line dividing America's domestic concerns and America's foreign policy concerns...If we want America to stay on the right track, if we want other people to be on that track and have the chance to enjoy peace and prosperity, we have no choice but to try to lead the train." President Bill Clinton

      The next step is thus simple; the United States should move immediately towards signing and ratifying every convention currently in line with their own laws. This can only do good and lower the relative unease surrounding their current foreign policy tactics. Second, the country should seriously reconsider its position on treaties that just barely are incompatible, and remember that international standards are by no means restrictive. Third, since many of the conventions are too far removed from the current political climates beliefs and practices, the United States should shelve them and move forward by proposing norms that fit their practices or intended laws. Treaties that deal with education standards, environmental regulation, or immigration practices would be ideal and appeal to conservatives and liberals alike; the liberals would get their policies passed while the conservatives could make sure that the financial costs of such a decision would be felt by both this country and many others. The United Nations would benefit from having more US involvement; this would actually be ideal because it would force them to comply more heavily with multilateral standards. Finally, the world would benefit if every government started moving towards greater norms on the whole; things like rights to water and life could make way for greater equality pushes and human rights guarantees. 

      Will it happen soon? Probably not, but at least the possibility remains that United States prominence can continue while globalization increases. Yes, this is an unlikely scenario, but at least it's an optimistic one that takes into account the current geopolitical realities of this nation. Maybe I'm wrong and this is too simplified of an overview to actually mean anything. If that's the case, point out my post's flaws in a comment below and join the discussion.

Citations

Colby E., and Lettow, P. Have We Hit Peak America? Foreign Policy. 3 Jul, 2014. Digital. Retrieved from http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/07/03/have_we_hit_peak_america

Fifth Committee. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 24 December 2012. United Nations' General Assembly. 24 Dec, 2012. Digital. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/67/238

Franklin, B. 'Join or Die' cartoon. Pennsylvania Gazette. 9 May, 1754. Photo. Retrieved from http://www.stevenlberg.info/today/tag/cartoons

Global Policy Forum. US Position on International Treaties. Jul, 2003. Digital. Retrieved from https://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/26665-us-position-on-international-treaties.html

Human Rights Watch, United States Ratification of International Human Rights Treaties, 24 Jul, 2009. Digital. Retrieved from http://www.hrw.org/news/2009/07/24/united-states-ratification-international-human-rights-treaties#_Mine_Ban_Treaty

O'Neill, S. The U.N. Flickr.com. 8 Nov, 2008. Photo. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/sean_oneill/3030297665

San, A. United Nations. Flickr.com. 14 Aug, 2006. Photo. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/mononoke/225965762

Tharoor, S. Why America Still Needs The United Nations. Foreign Affairs. Sep/Oct, 2003. Digital. Retrieved from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/59184/shashi-tharoor/why-america-still-needs-the-united-nations

United Nations Photo. United Nations Headquarters. Flickr.com. 9 Mar, 1987. Photo. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/un_photo/3311540329

Watterson, B. Calvin and Hobbes War Sunday Strip. Calvin and Hobbes. Photo. Retrieved from http://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/calvin-and-hobbes-play-war-and-peace.jpg

White House. National Security Strategy. Executive Branch of the United States Federal Government. May, 2010. Digital. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/national_security_strategy.pdf