Maneuvering the United Nations in Shifting Global Waters

As global alliances undergo profound changes and traditional coalitions are increasingly taking a back seat to both formal and informal partnerships, we look to the United Nations. Arguably the biggest, most established global governing alliance, it often comes under criticism for being too big and too bureaucratic. With the emergence of regional and issue-specific coalitions, how can the UN be most effective in addressing today’s complex challenges? To explore these issues, we turn to Ambassador John Negroponte (retired), who served as US Ambassador to the United Nations. He speaks with Wilson Center President and CEO, Ambassador Mark A. Green (retired). 

Ambassador Mark A. Green (retired)

Throughout your career you’ve negotiated or been involved in some of the most groundbreaking, robust, and many would say successful, agreements between nations—the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer and the North American Free Trade Agreement among them. How does today’s evolving landscape of alliances, multilateral institutions, and ad hoc alliances affect how we go about the business of global problem solving?

Ambassador John Negroponte (retired) 

Our relative power on the world stage has declined in recent decades, but we remain the most influential country in the world. So our ability to help shape the international agenda remains strong, and leaders around the globe almost invariably seek our involvement in dealing with serious problems—whether bilateral, regional, or truly global in nature. The way we go about problem-solving has not particularly changed over the years and I would say that the US approach has essentially been pragmatic. Sometimes we will resort to the UN Security Council and its related agencies. Indispensable work is done by UN Peacekeeping Operations—especially in Africa—and UN Humanitarian agencies such as the UNHCR, the World Food Program and UNICEF (to mention just three) alleviate suffering and distress in hotspots all around the world. 

During the Vietnam War, because it was a conflict between US and Soviet proxies, the Security Council was unable to do anything to broker peace in Vietnam. On the other hand, when the Cold War ended, there was a revival of UN influence on issues almost across the board.

The Treaty function is another important way of dealing with difficult international problems. You mention the Montreal Protocol—which is a treaty. It now has 198 signatories, and has been one of the most successful international agreements of recent years. And, of course, the NAFTA agreement, and more recently the USMCA, has been foundational to the efforts of ourselves, Canada, and Mexico to foster a North American approach to the region’s economic issues. There are numerous other mechanisms and approaches. Working with treaty allies, such as NATO or economic partners such as the European Union, remain bedrock elements of our foreign and national security policy.

Amb. Mark A. Green (ret.)

As a former US Ambassador to the United Nations, you’ve tried to steer the biggest tanker of them all. Can the UN be as nimble as is needed in today’s increasingly fractured world?

Amb. John Negroponte (ret.)

The UN has many different parts. I sometimes respond to that question by saying, Which UN are you talking about? Do you mean the Secretary General? The Security Council? One of the six main UN Committees? Or the humanitarian agencies? It is fair to say that, overall, the UN has a mixed record. But we must remember that the United Nations consists of its country members. Individual states are members of the UN and we members are responsible for whether or not the institution is successful in its work. It is true that the ability of the UN to work effectively can depend substantially on the state of relations between the great powers. If, like during the Cold War, relations between the superpowers are poor, work at the United Nations becomes more difficult.

The single most important factor impeding UN effectiveness is the absence of great power harmony.

For example, during the Vietnam War, because it was a conflict between US and Soviet proxies, the Security Council was unable to do anything to broker peace in Vietnam. On the other hand, when the Cold War ended, there was a revival of UN influence on issues almost across the board—especially during the 1990s. Even today, when something of a Cold War atmosphere has returned, the UN and its agencies can play a significant role in such matters as peacekeeping operations, humanitarian assistance, and numerous other issues. We should always think of the UN and its agencies as one of the tools in our diplomatic tool kit. As people like to say, “When all is said and done, if the United Nations didn’t exist, we would have to invent it.”

Amb. Mark A. Green (ret.)

With the growth of ad hoc alliances—which some have dubbed “minilaterals“—is the United Nations more or less relevant as it once was?  

Amb. John Negroponte (ret.)

Alliances play a critical role in United States foreign policy; so too do “coalitions of the willing” and other forms of partnership. A pragmatic foreign policy will use the multiple tools available to achieve its objectives, including secret diplomacy. Think of the various secret initiatives ongoing with respect to the Middle East—especially Gaza. President Wilson, a proponent of “open covenants, openly arrived at,” might have objected.

We should never underestimate or neglect the very valuable network of friends we have around the world—and, of course, we must cultivate them as best we can.

Amb. Mark A. Green (ret.)

There is no indication that multilateral and “minilateral” alliances are slowing down. How can the United Nations be most effective in addressing the biggest global challenges for which it was created?

Amb. John Negroponte (ret.)

The single most important factor impeding UN effectiveness is the absence of great power harmony—that is to say, between the five permanent members of the security council: China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US. The ideal would be if they saw the biggest problems of the world in the same way. Next best would be that—notwithstanding differing views—that they make earnest efforts to either forge consensus, or at least avoid use of their veto except in the most extraordinary circumstances. Tension between great powers reverberates through the system; conversely, harmony at the top can make it easier to manage problems down the line. 

Amb. Mark A. Green (ret.)

Anything else you’d like to add?

Amb. John Negroponte (ret.)

I think we can expect the United States to continue to play a strong role in international affairs for as far as the eye can see. We have a strong economy and a strong national defense. We have robust alliance relations and partnerships in North America, Europe, the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific. Even in regions where we do not have actual alliances, such as South America or Africa, we have long established economic, security, and people-to-people ties. We should never underestimate or neglect the very valuable network of friends we have around the world—and, of course, we must cultivate them as best we can.

John Negroponte is vice chair of McLarty Associates and has held a number of high-level diplomatic positions including United States Ambassador to the United Nations. Mark A. Green is the president and CEO of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Among other leadership roles, Green served as Administrator of the US Agency for International Development, as the US Ambassador to Tanzania, and for four terms in the US House of Representatives.

Cover photo: Exterior of the United Nations building in Geneva, Switzerland. Photo by nexus 7/Shutterstock.