nye210_Drew AngererGetty Images_trump united nations

المؤسسات الدولية لا تزال مهمة للولايات المتحدة

Nov 9, 2020 Joseph S. Nye, Jr.

كمبريدج ــ ربما ازدرى دونالد ترمب المؤسسات الدولية، لكن رئاسته ذَكَّـرَت العالم بأهمية المؤسسات الـفَـعَّـالة القادرة على الصمود. في انتخابات 2016، خاض ترمب حملته الانتخابية على أساس حجة مفادها أن مؤسسات ما بعد 1945 المتعددة الأطراف سمحت لدول أخرى بالاستفادة على حساب الأميركيين. استندت جاذبية ترمب الشعبوية إلى ما هو أكثر من السياسة الخارجية بطبيعة الحال، لكن ترمب نجح في الربط بين الـسُـخـط المحلي والسياسة الخارجية من خلال إلقاء اللوم عن المشكلات الاقتصادية على الاتفاقيات التجارية "السيئة" مع دول مثل المكسيك والصين وعلى المهاجرين الذين ينافسون الأميركيين على الوظائف. لقد جرى تصوير النظام الدولي الليبرالي في فترة ما بعد 1945 على أنه الوغد الشرير.

كما أشرت في كتابي "هل تشكل الأخلاق أي أهمية؟ الرؤساء والسياسة الخارجية من فرانكلين ديلانو روزفلت إلى ترمب"، لم يكن الرؤساء الأميركيون ليبراليين مؤسسيين مثاليين قَـط. فكان دعم دوايت أيزنهاور للعمل السري في إيران وجواتيمالا، وجون ف. كينيدي في كوبا، متناقضا تماما مع القراءة الدقيقة لميثاق الأمم المتحدة. كما خرق ريتشارد نيكسون قواعد مؤسسات بريتون وودز الاقتصادية بفرض تعريفات جمركية على حلفائنا في عام 1971. وتجاهل رونالد ريجان قرار محكمة العدل الدولية الذي وجد أن قيام إدارته بزرع الألغام في موانئ نيكاراجوا عمل غير قانوني. وقَـصَـفَ بِل كلينتون صربيا دون الاستناد إلى قرار من مجلس الأمن.

ولكن قبل عام 2016، كان الرؤساء الأميركيون يدعمون المؤسسات الدولية في أغلب الأحوال كما سعوا إلى توسيعها، سواء تجلى ذلك في معاهدة منع انتشار الأسلحة النووية في عهد ليندون جونسون؛ أو اتفاقيات الحد من التسلح في عهد ريتشارد نيكسون؛ أو اتفاقية ريو دي جانيرو بشأن تغير المناخ في عهد جورج بوش الأب؛ أو منظمة التجارة العالمية ونظام التحكم في تكنولوجيا الصواريخ في عهد كلينتون؛ أو اتفاقية باريس للمناخ في عهد باراك أوباما.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

US President-elect Joe Biden may have promised a “return to normalcy,” but the truth is that there is no going back. The world is changing in fundamental ways, and the actions the world takes in the next few years will be critical to lay the groundwork for a sustainable, secure, and prosperous future.

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world’s foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads and book reviews, Say More contributor interviews, The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 2 in all 2 Comments on this article

j. von Hettlingen Nov 11, 2020

According to Joseph S. Nye, Jr. we live in a “century of transnational interdependence.” In our interconnected world, “isolation is not an option, and nationalism versus globalization is a false choice.” A pandemic or a “carbon atom” does not respect borders and politics. The right approach is “to combine a strong national identity and global concern.” Close cooperation between countries to combat many global challenges is essential, because these threats cannot be solved on national level by one country alone.
The author quotes the historian and philosopher, Yuval Harari, who in an interview in May, 2019 said that nuclear war, climate change, and tecnological disruption are the “three common problems” humankind faces, because they “make a mockery of all national borders,” and that they “can be solved only through global cooperation.” Harari insisted artificial intelligence poses as great a threat to humankind as climate change and nuclear war and a technology race in genetics could threaten the whole of humanity.
Since Trump took office, he has been shredding institutions at home and abroad, making good on his 2016 campaign promises. He believed “the post-1945 multilateral institutions had let other countries benefit at American expense. His populist appeal rested on far more than foreign policy,” because he “successfully linked domestic resentments to foreign policy by blaming economic problems on ‘bad’ trade deals with countries like Mexico and China and on immigrants competing for jobs. The post-1945 liberal international order was cast as a villain.”
Tracking presidents and foreign policy from FDR to Trump, the author comes to the conclusion that “American presidents in most instances supported international institutions and sought their extension, whether it was the Non-Proliferation Treaty under Lyndon Johnson; arms control agreements under Nixon; the Rio de Janeiro agreement on climate change under George H.W. Bush; the World Trade Organization and the Missile Technology Control Regime under Clinton; or the Paris climate agreement under Barack Obama.”
Echoing Trump’s utter disdain of multilateral institutions, his top diplomat, Mike Pompeo questioned the values of the UN and the EU in a speech in December 2018. He claimed that since the end of the Cold War in 1990, the international order “has failed” the US, and “multilateralism has become viewed as an end unto itself. The more treaties we sign, the safer we supposedly are. The more bureaucrats we have, the better the job gets done.” Trump pulled the US out of the Paris climate accord and the World Health Organization, as a result of his “narrow transactional approach” to institutions.
As Trump is not educated in political science and surrounds himself with incompetent people, they have failed to understand the significant role multilateral institutions play. They are needed to solve increasingly complex collective action problems. They co-ordinate the actions of individual states, and together they help create global public goods such as public health, particularly contagious disease control; global peace and security; concerted management of the global natural commons to promote their sustainable use and to protect the environment etc.
Institutions “can sometimes lose their value and become illegitimate,” because they have been rendered obsolete in the absence of innovation and reform. Trump has disparaged the World Trade Organization. In his view the WTO is outdated, sclerotic, and generally bad for America. “By renegotiating various trade agreements in a manner that damaged the WTO and US alliances, the Trump administration showed that the US, as the world’s most powerful country, can break these threads and maximize its short-term bargaining power.”
The author urges the US to build “a network of multilayered partnerships with others.” He says America can rely on its “hard military and economic power but also…its soft power of attraction, based on an open and inclusive culture, liberal democratic values, and policies that are widely perceived as legitimate.” It does not hurt to have a Jeffersonian “decent respect for the opinions of [human]kind” and the “use of institutions that encourage reciprocity, which will be “crucial to the success of US foreign policy.”
To cite Henry Kissinger, “the world order depends on the ability of a leading state to combine power and legitimacy. Institutions are indispensable to that end.” In the face of “a more complex world, the US must cooperate with others, and use its soft power to attract their cooperation. America will need to exercise power with as well as power over others. The success of Joe Biden’s foreign policy will depend on how quickly we can relearn these institutional lessons.”
Biden plans to re-engage with traditional allies and has assembled an experienced team of foreign policy advisers. There are plenty of highly qualified and seasoned diplomats who left the administration after Trump gutted the State Department, leaving many overseas posts unfilled.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Nov 9, 2020

But China.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/IzfcWU9ar

Cookies and Privacy

المؤسسات الدولية لا تزال مهمة للولايات المتحدة

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

Cookies and Privacy

المؤسسات الدولية لا تزال مهمة للولايات المتحدة

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification