Biden Is Working to Undermine America’s Authority at the U.N.

A s the U.N. General Assembly meets this week for its 77th high-level “General Debate,” the Biden administration is pressing for changes in the U.N. Security Council that will undermine U.S. national interests.

When the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations spoke at the State Department last week, she outlined three U.S. priorities: food insecurity, global health, and Security Council “reforms.” Here are Assistant Secretary Michele Sison’s words:

The United States will subscribe to six clear principles for responsible behavior for Security Council members. First and foremost, we pledge to defend and act strictly in accordance with the U.N. Charter; second, we will engage pragmatically with all Council members to address threats to international peace and security; third, we will refrain from the use of the veto except in rare, extraordinary situations; fourth, we will demonstrate leadership in defending human rights and fundamental freedoms; fifth, we will enhance cooperation, inclusivity, and transparency; and sixth and finally, we will advance efforts to reform the U.N. Security Council.

Now, on this last point, Security Council reform, we do not believe the United States should defend an outdated status quo. While we’re clear eyed about the obstacles to Security Council reform, we will make a serious call for countries to forge consensus around credible, realistic proposals for the way forward. To remain credible into the 21st century, the Council needs to better reflect global realities and incorporate regional perspectives.

Security Council “reform” has been proposed, and fought over, for decades. Why has it never been achieved? First, the five permanent Security Council members (United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China) have a lot to lose when their veto power is restricted in any way. Second, changes in membership may empower new members — but offend those who lose out. Would Argentina like to see Brazil join the Council? Would Pakistan accept India’s membership? Would China allow Japan to be added? Would Italy vote for Germany to join? To ask these questions is to answer them.

Other proposed “reforms” would limit the use of the veto. Of course, we would all like to see restrictions on Putin’s ability to veto important resolutions that promote human rights, but veto restrictions will bite the United States as well — and bite our allies. For decades the United States has used the veto to protect Israel from hostile, one-sided, hopelessly unfair resolutions. Now Sison promises we will use the veto only in “rare, extraordinary situations.” Al Jazeera claims the United States vetoed 53 resolutions against Israel between 1973 and 2021. Was each one of these “rare” and “extraordinary?” Or would the reforms now being proposed by the United States leave Israel vulnerable to the U.N.’s automatic majority against her, while removing the U.S. veto that has protected her?

And why would the United States seek to limit its own justifiable use of the veto? So that we do not “defend an outdated status quo” is the Biden administration’s answer, but who is to say what’s outdated? U.N. member states that do next to nothing to support and pay for the institution? Vicious dictatorships such as Russia and China, who are Council members, and ones that are not, such as Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and Myanmar? Is an “outdated status quo” not better than an updated system that puts the General Assembly’s automatic anti-American majorities in charge?

Certainly there is nothing democratic about giving the General Assembly more power if that power is exercised by national governments that are themselves not democracies — that speak for unelected dictators rather than for the people of those countries. The Economist Intelligence Unit found in 2021 that 74 countries out of the U.N.’s membership of 193 countries are democracies, so “Security Council reform” is simply moving power toward the undemocratic majority in the General Assembly. Some “reform.”

The Biden administration says the Security Council needs to “better reflect global realities and incorporate regional perspectives.” At all times, the Council consists of ten non-permanent members in addition to the five permanent ones. Those ten are chosen by region and do “incorporate regional perspectives” already. If reflecting “global realities” means depriving France and Britain of their seats, why would the United States benefit from such a move? Would adding Brazil and India, for example, make the Council more effective — or less so? Would they be likely to support American initiatives in the Council or regularly oppose them?

The Biden position reflects the victory of fashionable opinion over careful thinking about U.S. interests. Nor will any “realistic” Security Council reform, ostensibly what the Biden administration seeks, improve the U.N. system and the functioning of the Council. We can only hope that like its predecessors, the current “reform” efforts fail due to national rivalries within the U.N. And as for using our veto only in “rare, extraordinary situations,” here’s a far better rule: use the veto whenever a Security Council resolution — about Israel or anything else — reflects the lack of reality, the bias, and the hostility to us and our allies that have characterized scores of resolutions since the U.N. was founded. In the real world, those occasions are very far from “rare” or “extraordinary.”