A front-page column in the Sunday New York Times about the shakeup at the United Nations got me thinking about how global politics can mimic nature, especially in terms of what happens when invasive plants take over native plant species within an ecosystem.
Invasive plant species not only have the ability to infest and reduce the biodiversity of a given area, but they also have the ability to spread to other areas. Japanese knotweed is a prime example given its ability to spread rapidly and form dense thickets that can choke off sunlight and resources for native vegetation, ultimately reducing habitat quality for wildlife and a variety of ecosystems.
In “Autocrats seize initiative at U.N. with U.S. retreat,” NYT reporter Mara Hvistendahl laid out what is at stake as President Donald Trump has upended operations of the United Nations and threatened to slash funding. Nations which have long faced scrutiny over their own rights records now see an opening to advance their authoritarian agenda.
The United Nations is seen as one of the few organizations that can shine a light on injustices, where the world once relied on American money and leadership to address global problems like pandemics, forced labor and poverty. However, America’s global standing has eroded in recent years, diminishing its credibility in the United Nations. Now many groups are considering new patrons like China and Qatar, governments that are seeking to remake oversight of human rights and labor conditions.
China has long sought greater influence in international bodies. Now, as the White House cuts funding for the United Nations and other global organizations, it finally has its chance. At a recent gathering of leaders from countries including India, Russia and many Central Asian nations, President Xi Jinping introduced what he called a “Global Governance Initiative,” an extensive vision for reshaping international institutions and curbing Western dominance.
The White House has further enabled China to expand its influence by clawing back $1 billion in funding and its intent to slash another $1 billion, adding to a severe funding shortfall at the United Nations. Trump has withdrawn the U.S. from the Human Rights Council and other agencies. As a result, top U.N. officials have proposed broad funding cuts, including to human rights programs.
The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees reported that aid to 11.6 million refugees could be cut and the U.N.’s food agency estimates that as many as 16.7 million people could lose food assistance. Beijing is willingly filling in the gap in global aid and after Trump withdrew the U.S. from The World Health Organization, it has pledged hundreds of millions in funding, winning headlines and good will.
Trump has for years upended the global order and traditional institutions like the United Nations, leaning into his “America First” vision instead. But Trump’s recent speech, his first at the U.N. since taking office, was remarkable for how hostile it was toward the United Nations’s basic mission and initiatives, essentially expressing his vitriol for the institution that the United States helped found.
The president accused the United Nations of contributing to the problem of global migration, deriding it for funding an assault on Western countries and their borders.
Trump said, “Not only is the U.N. not solving the problems it should, too often it’s actually creating new problems for us to solve. … Your countries are going to hell.”
He derided climate change, which has been a major focus of U.N.-aligned bodies, as “the greatest con job,” that was “made by stupid people,” and called the concept of a carbon footprint “nonsense.”
“If you don’t get away from this green scam, your country is going to fail,” Trump said.
Now with the United States largely absent at the United Nations, many fear that some agencies will be ceded to a loose alliance of mostly undemocratic countries in which China plays an influential role. Beijing’s strategy is to position itself as an antidote to “America First” by embracing international organizations and treaties shunned by Trump like the United Nations, the World Health Organization and the Paris Climate Accords.
“If the U.S. exited the U.N., it would leave a large vacuum that other countries would move to fill,” wrote Duncan Ball in Humanitarian Careers. “American allies in Europe and Asia would no longer have the diplomatic support of the United States at the U.N. leaving them more exposed diplomatically. More anti-Western countries, such as China and Russia, would lose a key counterbalance within the U.N. if America left.”
Countries that are more adversarial to the U.S. could leave to pursue their own strategic interests without the constraints of the U.N., posing a major shift in the international order making the world more unpredictable as a result.
For the first time in eight decades, the world does not have a preponderant power committed to leading, underwriting, and defending an open, liberal, rules-based international system. The ranks of U.S. followers — a byproduct of its consensual leadership style — have thinned as a result of cratering trust in the United States and the credibility of its commitments.
Just as the roots of U.S. commitment to the United Nations are showing signs of withering, the seeds are being sown of new dominant species of international players eking out their spaces in a new world order, blocking out light for human rights and choking off resources for peace and global stability.
It sure is astonishing how global politics can mimic nature.
Dr. William Kolbe, an Andover resident, is a retired high school and college teacher and former Peace Corps volunteer in Tonga and El Salvador. He can be reached at bila.kolbe9@gmail.com.