WORLD BRIDGE BLOG

Lunch in the cafeteria of the United Nations headquarters building in New York is always a slightly strange experience – highly unusual, and yet entirely mundane all at the same time. The cafeteria boasts a brilliant view if the east river, and a very reliable selection of sweets, but beyond that there is nothing that is immediately remarkable about the place.  That is, until you realize that there are conversations in at least six languages within earshot, and that the lunching masses have gathered here from literally every corner and crevice of the globe. 

Lunchtime conversation ranges from the local sports scores to the state of international peace and security. These people are actively concerned about the broken coffee dispenser and the human rights developments in Burma.  In other words, these are real people getting on with their business, and at the same time they represent the day-to-day machinery of the United Nations.  This is – for better or for worse - the human face of the beast that we call the ‘international community.’

“International community” is a term that is often invoked (I am guilty here, too) but rarely unpacked.

As we approach the dawn of a new – and much anticipated- U.S. administration, there has been an overwhelming call for the President-elect Obama to engage more, and better, with this ‘international community.’ But like so many rallying calls, it isn’t necessarily obvious what that means.

“Engagement” with such an animal is necessarily a messy thing.  It is about negotiating with everyone, even when you disagree (even if you would prefer that they didn’t exist at all!), and doing so in good faith.

The U.S. is one of the most influential players in the UN galaxy, but too often the U.S. has placed serious caveats on its own cooperation with international bodies and actors, and this attitude needs to change.  Importantly, the renewal of positive U.S. leadership in the world is not just contingent on the way that U.S. officials approach institutions. It is also how the overall U.S. attitude recognizes and respects the opinions and the needs of all those thousands of individuals that represent the operational side of lofty international goals, and how much those people can be convinced that U.S. leadership is in their interest.

So, the new administration needs to:

- Work to strengthen and improve UN institutions,
- Reinvest consistently in the UN by paying dues in full and on time,
- Respect the authority of the Security Council and demonstrate not just power, but real leadership,
- Ensure that peacekeeping operations are authorized in a responsible way, and with sufficient resources to do the job,
- When peacekeeping isn’t enough, engage politically and (if necessary) militarily to protect civilians from genocide and crimes against humanity

It is often said that if we didn’t have a UN, then someone would invent it.  This is a forum and a workplace where the world very literally comes together every day to try to dig in and try to make a positive change, however imperfectly. 

The UN is often criticized for its slow decision-making and uneven results, but the UN is slow and cumbersome precisely because it is the one and only place where every country can say their peace and be heard. It is somewhere the powers that be are reminded that no matter how great one country is, no one can go it alone for very long.

Furthermore, it is a place where the countries in question are not simply represented by diplomats and politicians, but by professional staff that have been brought together to live and work, and – well – grab lunch together every day.  It is a microcosm of the bigger ideal of an international community, and the fact that it is a difficult thing to achieve makes it all the more admirable that people continue to work so hard to make it real.

--Erin A. Weir