At the table
it has its advantages
Housekeeping up front: I found a work around following much frustration yesterday to deliver the column on USAID. If you did not receive it, please email me so I get it to you. I am now on the WiFi at San Diego’s airport so hopefully fewer problems with today’s column.
I look at everything we do as advancing our national interests, defined as defending the United States and advancing our standard of living for future generations. I confess that I see the argument about values as an instrument rather than an objective of statecraft, perhaps a minority perspective these days. So, I look at the instruments we use to do that.
The announcement that we are withdrawing from the Human Rights Council of the United Nations should surprise no one as the president regularly makes clear his less than charitable views of other nations and groups, particularly multinational organizations within the U.N. Community. He has made clear these positions for decades.
I would just caution everyone that surrendering a seat at any international table has a cost: you don’t get a voice in each and every discussion. You lose a vote in decision-making, perhaps forcing you to use more kinetic and expensive methods to make your point.
For those who vehemently oppose human rights as having any role in U.S. foreign policy, that reminder will evoke grunts. Most Americans forget that the nature of the supposedly cherished “liberal international order” is not unilateralism under a single leader (even if it’s us) but an equal voice to encourage all states to participate in decision-making. We may not like it but those are the rules we put into motion with the creation of the post-World War II order.
The reason we despise and fear China is their unwillingness to listen to others, our concern they seek to rule the globe. Yet too many other countries see our actions as not that different, regardless of our intentions.
The order we are so unhappy with today, the one that has made us a $28 trillion economy and traditional protector of sovereignty, borders, and free trade, was our Creation, in conjunction with Britain, because the world had just experimented with power politics only to suffer two horrifying global conflicts. History may be uncomfortable but true. It’s seductive to assume under U.S. leadership in any form such devastation could not recur but much of the world isn’t so sure. But the order was hardly a world foisted upon us, if we examine the facts.
Perhaps we did not realize that others would grow to challenge us. If so, that was a level of naïveté that is breathtaking and yet again ahistorical but that sort of transformation occurs regularly through history. One of our greatest strengths used to be modeling better behavior.
My focus today is that seat at the human rights table. A primary reason that the United States led United Nations forces into the Korean War in 1950 was that Stalin and his henchmen walked away from their seat at the U.N. Security Council. When time came to condemn the DPRK aggression against the people south of the 38th Parallel on 25 June 1950, the Soviets were five months into a boycott of the Security Council. Beginning 13 January 1950, their representative Jacob Malik had declared they would not participate in discussions, unhappy the Council ignored his demand that Chiang Kai-Shek’s government remained seated on that body en lieu of the new Maoist regime in Beijing. That boycott continued through the 25th and 27th June votes authorizing U.N. Forces under U.S. leadership to assist Seoul. The boycott appeared cutting off the Soviet nose to spit their face as they could not use their veto if they were not at the table, hence the DPRK confronted a coalition that drove them back across the DMZ.
It may be unpleasant to accept but having a seat at any table or being a paying member in any organization gives power far greater than walking away on the assumption others can’t continue without us. It’s fanciful to understand things otherwise.
The U.S. veto power in the U.N. Security Council will protect Israel, the most likely target of human rights council actions, but that does not mean other cases won’t arise where we rue the outcome.
I understand the frustration many Americans feel with organizations focusing on topics we find irrelevant to our contemporary world. But, departing the Council will open the door to further narratives promoting China’s positions on items such as religious freedom, individual rights, and minorities such as women or Uighurs. We have seen it for the past twenty five years as we waffled on the Human Rights Council.
My suggestion is that we invoke KYEOTP, my famous letters for Keep Your Eye on the Prize. If our sole objective is to show our displeasure with others, then by all means drop off any and all organizations with whom we have disagreements—and there are many.
If our objective is to advance U.S. interests around the world to include promoting religious freedom, individual rights, and other “softer” issues, then keeping a seat at the table, along with keeping a modicum of foreign assistance, are relatively inexpensive instruments of statecraft.
We are increasingly paring down our toolkit. That is certainly one approach but it may have long term costs in ways we have not yet considered. Ask those who remember Soviet humiliation about it.
Thank you for time today and any day. My interest is to expand civil, measured discussion so please chime in as I don’t pretend to have answers to the myriad of questions. My point is to raise items for debate and you often convince me to change my mind, believe it or not.
I appreciate those of you who read this column, especially the paid subscribers who support this work. About a dollar a week is the annual subscription.
My Pacific time this winter comes to a halt as I go home today. It was glorious to see such color in early February as Annapolis is a bit dreary this time of the year. I especially treasure the bougainvillea San Diego displays.
Be well and be safe. FIN
“Soviets boycott United Nations Security Council, January 13, 1950”, history.com
“Trump to withdraw US from UN Rights Council, extend UNRWA funds ban: Report”, AlJazeera.com, 3 February 2025.
Great perspective. As I glance around the globe, so many countries out there are under "power" rulers. Some may be actual dictators while others just seek to present the most powerful front for their countries against others either regionally or globally. It's been widely written that many of the leaders in the middle-east / S. West Asia regions only respect power. So while the current administration seems bent on moving from soft-power to a more aggressive stance, I have to wonder if the potential gains we make in playing hardball with those power rulers will outweigh the losses we get with other democracies who rely on soft-power engagement and proceed to distance themselves from the U.S.?
And as the tariff battle rages on, I think it's interesting that in some ways, this is how we ended up getting surprised in Pearl Harbor. Per the History Channel website:
"Tokyo and Washington negotiated for months leading up to the Pearl Harbor attack, without success. While the United States hoped embargoes on oil and other key goods would lead Japan to halt its expansionism, the sanctions and other penalties actually convinced Japan to stand its ground, and stirred up the anger of its people against continued Western interference in Asian affairs. To Japan, war with the United States had become to seem inevitable, in order to defend its status as a major world power. Because the odds were stacked against them, their only chance was the element of surprise." Japan attacked us primarily due to a need for natural resources (oil and steel) which had been cut off from them by U.S. sanctions.
Every system (i.e., country) has a breaking point. What's unknown is how and when that point is reached and what their response will be. Having ears in the international forums seems to be a prudent move to hear the discontented voices ahead of time.