Two journalists from Geneva, Philippe Mottaz (very old friend), and Stéphane Bussard (Le Temps) are writing a running commentary on the Trump presidency in the form of a letter exchange. They have invited me to join. I write in English; they translate into French. My contributions are here; the exchange is on Substack. Link here.
Dear colleagues,
Thank you very much, Stéphane, for putting the United Nations and multilateralism front and center of this exchange. And thank you, Philippe, for reminding us of the age-old exasperations with tyranny and the aspirations for overcoming it which have been driving the will to cooperate across boundaries and borders many times throughout history and will do so again once the present current of national hybris has run its course.
For New Yorkers, i.e. Manhattanites, the UN is a negligeable quantity most of the time and a nuisance in the third week of September when the arrival of the world’s top dogs for the general debate of the General Assembly provokes gigantic traffic jams and road closures (I remember the day when Madame Calmy-Rey was stopped from crossing 1st Avenue, on account of Obama’s 50-plus motorcade having passed 5 minutes before – the policeman could not care less when told that she was “the foreign minister of Switzerland”). For diplomats, the UN is a playground, a “planet” of its own. For politicians, a sideline to the all-important haggling in the capitals. And for citizens, too rarely a tool to be put to serious use and too often a convenient punching bag for letting steam off about the ills of the time: what is a world organization good for if it is not able to end wars, stop climate change, end poverty, provide for the basic needs of everybody, further the common good? The criticism is as sound as it is unfair. No one disputes that the UN, like other multilateral bodies, is an unwieldy, complicated, overly bureaucratic, byzantine organization in need of improvement, but it can only be what the Member States want and allow it to be. “Reform” is a perennial at UN headquarters in New York, and reform does take place, for instance in the area of UN operations “in the field”. How effective that effort will be depends on the readiness of involved Member States, donors and receivers, to play ball (allow me another tangent in form of a blurb: I could take part in a Swiss handbook which explains the reform of the UN development system “at country level” and was presented to quite an acclaim in Abidjan the other day).
It seems to me that this year’s annual gathering in New York caught a bit more media attention than usual, on account of the many conflicts and war currently under way: trade wars, European wars, Middle East wars, war actions like the US-instigated leadership change in Venezuela and possibly in Cuba in the near future, proxy-wars like the horrible one in Sudan. Of course, the main focus was on the speech of the US president, which brings me to your topic of authoritarianism, compliance and sycophantery. You already touched on it, Stéphane, but let’s repeat what Donald Trump told the world on the record from the dais of the UN General Assembly: First, he considers “annihilating” Iran. Secondly, he justifies the American oil-grab in Venezuela with “to the victor go the spoils”. Thirdly, he demands basically the abolition of the International Court of Justice:” I call on all nations that are members of the ICC to officially resign from this rogue institution immediately». Taken together, this is the most concise expression of modern authoritarianism and the most direct articulation of the direct opposite of what is called «multilateralism: Disregard for the effects of applying physical force, assertion or the right of the more powerful over the less powerful, rejection of any attempt to reigning in the mighty by the power of law and holding lawbreakers accountable.
This is an assault on basic understandings of what used to be called «the West». In my view, these official, on-the-record pronouncements of the United States put Western diplomats in pretty much the same predicament as you, Stéphane, describe it about the Republican lawmakers and executives vis-à-vis the seemingly omnipotent potentate in the White House. The options range from enthusiastically dancing to the new tune, over going along, ducking for cover, biting one’s tongue to speaking up and being sacked or quitting on one’s one. I have not followed all of the monstruous general debate at the UN, but I bet 50 dollars (Canadian) that the picture will not differ a lot from what you describe in Washington, D.C.
I believe that in a democratic state, particularly a «direct democracy» like the Swiss is, foreign policy and domestic politics must be connected. If a government is not able to take the population along with its foreign policy action, it will fail. And if it fails to stand up for the country’s essence in the world, it will fail as well. Now it seems to me that putting the rule of the law before the might of the powerful, defending the right of every state (and every individual) to existence, the idea of joining hands to solve common problems are all part of the essence of Swiss citizenship. Like you, Stéphane, I put myself into the head of an imaginary Swiss president speaking at the UN. He would have reacted to what he heard a few hours before, and he would not have minced words. My imaginary Swiss president would have stated that as far as we are concerned, the statements of the US president are unacceptable. He could have ad-libbed, my imaginary Swiss president, putting his prepared, vetted remarks aside, or he could have changed the rhetoric in consultation with his entourage and the «head of communication». There was time to react. Of course, this was all imagination. The real president read what was put in front of him. Yes, there was defense of multilateralism and some concern about trade barriers, but no connection to what was said in the Assembly before. He might as well have spoken by video message from home, like unfortunate Abbas, thus saving a few thousand franks in taxpayer money. The next day, our foreign minister told some journalists that Trump’s speech, «despite its style which we might not like and despite the choice of word which is not always appropriate», showed willingness and capability of the US to play a big role in the world. This might be true, but it is also banal. And a cop-out before the larger issue. This is not to say that our guy was wimpier than everybody else, but don’t the Swiss always think of themselves a little bit better than the rest?
Back to Washington, D.C. The US capital is teeming with Republican line-toers and tongue-biters. The only dissent you hear comes from members of Congress who are retiring. But out on the hustings you can see some distancing. Where races are close, the caudillo is toxic. Some candidates here and there are risking a tad of lip, like against lavishly hosting the Chinese leader in the White House, or inviting Putin to the G-20, or forcing the administration to get congressional approval for the war against Iran, or the administration’s attempt to micro-manage medical research. Whether this will pay out in form of electoral support is questionable, and even more so whether some of it would translate into legislative action.
Interesting development to keep an eye on: In Kansas and Texas, the Democrat Senate candidates enjoy support from Republicans. Both are avowed Christians. Adam Hamilton in Kansas is a Methodist minister and founder of a huge church complex outside of Kansas City. He is endorsed by a former Republican governor of the state who declared in a video that the incumbent Republican senator «has turned his back on Kansas» while the Democrat Hamilton «stands as a bulwark of kindness, humility and service to others». In Texas, Democrat Senate candidate James Talarico shows endorsements of 21 current and former Republican officials, among them a former mayor of Dallas, the long-time Trump dissident Adam Kinzinger and a retired Texas Supreme Court Justice. This is quite new. Up to now, evangelical Christians have been the most reliable and strong voting bloc of the American right. How far their Christianity carries Democrat candidates like Hamilton and Talarico is an open question. A while ago I attended a Sunday service in Hamilton’s Resurrection church. He did not preach himself but acted as kind of a master of ceremonies in proceedings that were a lot like a fundraiser (Resurrection needs dozens of counseling volunteers to meet the demand for after-school care). After we were done, I asked my pew neighbor what he thought about the pastor and his political engagement. «I am conservative”, he said. «I will not vote for him. But I like what he is doing here».