|
As international leaders gather once again in New York to cosplay diplomacy at the UN General Assembly, it’s an opportune moment to reflect on the history – and the future of the international system. President Trump has been accused of breaking the “rules-based liberal international order,” but in truth his actions have simply highlighted that order broke long ago. The question before us, then, is if and how it can be repaired. Will we correct for its failed implementation, or must we abandon its principles wholesale?
Our namesake, Senator Arthur Vandenberg, struggled mightily with these questions. Despite his central role as the chief legislative architect of the U.N., he was deeply wary of the risks of “world statism” he feared could arise from such an institution. Indeed, much of the last ten years of life was dedicated to mitigating these risks, even as he acknowledged “our new and unavoidable obligations” in the world.
Chief among his concerns was the fear that rhetoric would trump reality. While the UN Charter speaks of membership by all “peace-loving states,” Vandenberg proposed an alternative vision: Peace-living. States should not be permitted to join simply because they give lip-service to peace, he argued, but because they actively contribute to it. Vandenberg knew that any system that admitted aggressive, authoritarian regimes could quickly become overwhelmed by them.
And indeed, such is what transpired. The rise of authoritarian regimes quickly turned the General Assembly into a weapon against the West, where values and principles were manipulated by adversaries, corrupted to mean their opposite, and used to constrain the activities of free nations like the United States while enabling the ongoing abuses of autocratic regimes.
But that it is so does not mean it had to be. Indeed, in 1943, Vandenberg enumerated three conditions for American participation in the U.N. that he believed could prevent such an outcome: “(1) that we shall remain a totally sovereign country… (2) that we shall make all of our own decisions for ourselves by constitutional process; and (3) that we intend to be faithful to American interests.”
Because Vandenberg’s initial principle of “peace-living” was abandoned, so, too, was American sovereignty. How different the U.N. might be had these three principles – sovereignty, constitutionalism, and enlightened self-interest – guided our participation. After all, for all its failings in implementation, the U.N.’s founding principles remain unimpeachable: International peace and security. Equal rights and self-determination. International co-operation. Is it possible to promote these principles while maintaining Sen. Vandenberg’s guardrails? Can an international system be built that honors the sovereignty of its members and rejects the moral relativism that has so infected our current system? Can a system exist that precludes countries like China, Russia, and Iran from participating? Or is any effort at multilateralism a slippery slope to the “World Statism” Vandenberg feared?
- Carrie Filipetti, Executive Director of The Vandenberg Coalition
|
