On Tuesday, Mike Waltz, former national security adviser to President Trump, appeared before the Senate for his confirmation hearing as United Nations Ambassador. He positioned himself as a strong supporter of American interests, yet found himself grappling with a persistent question: despite his bold “America-first” statements, how can the Trump administration justify its moves that seem to undermine U.S. influence within the UN?
The implications are significant. The UN continues to serve as a crucial platform where nations gather to discuss pressing global issues like geopolitical rivalry, conflicts, nuclear threats, health crises, and the evolution of technology. The UN and its many associated organizations play a vital role in shaping the future.
Unfortunately, the UN has encountered serious challenges lately. The Security Council, for instance, faces a deadlock over Russia’s veto power, which shields its actions in Ukraine. Meanwhile, China increasingly seeks to boost its influence within the organization, leading to concerns over its stance on human rights. Moreover, there’s a pervasive bureaucracy that seems to hinder progress.
The ongoing conflict in Gaza adds another layer of difficulty for the UN. After Hamas’ attack on Israel in October 2023, many member states hesitated to openly condemn the violence, reflecting a moral ambiguity that looms large. The subsequent Israeli military actions, deemed excessive by various observers, further complicated the situation, including hindering humanitarian efforts and causing significant civilian casualties.
Nevertheless, the UN continues to make decisions that impact various American interests both at home and abroad. There’s still a possibility for the UN to help contain conflicts and intervene effectively. Its Human Rights Monitoring body, while imperfect, can aid in holding violators accountable in regions like Iran and North Korea.
Furthermore, discussions within UN agencies affect numerous American industries, including telecommunications and agriculture, while playing a fundamental role in global governance, such as setting standards for artificial intelligence.
Despite criticisms from Trump about global obligations, the UN actually serves as a mechanism for shared responsibilities. With 193 member states contributing funds to tackle collective challenges—like responding to humanitarian crises through peacekeeping missions—its role is fundamental.
With U.S. interests at stake, senators looked to Waltz for a credible plan to enhance American influence at the UN and implement necessary reforms. It is a sentiment that resonates across party lines: America should shape the outcomes at the UN, not allow adversaries to take over.
Waltz was expected to articulate his approach to fostering global peace, bolstering U.S. security, safeguarding American jobs, and endorsing human rights. Yet, he struggled to justify how the Trump administration’s strategies—like restricting ambassadorial capacities at the UN—would support those goals.
For instance, Trump has suggested halting U.S. financial contributions to the UN’s organizational budget, a move that could cripple vital UN functions and allow other nations, especially China, to expand their influence through voluntary donations.
Additionally, withdrawing from agencies like the World Health Organization and the Human Rights Council effectively yields power to nations that may not share U.S. values. If America isn’t actively involved, how can it advocate for its interests?
Waltz’s task may become even more daunting following recent personnel cuts at the State Department, which saw over 1,300 national security professionals dismissed. The Trump administration framed this as an effort for efficiency, but many argue it weakens U.S. diplomacy significantly. Former UN Ambassador Susan Rice criticized this move, asserting it jeopardizes America’s standing and influence worldwide.
Interestingly, Waltz has long been recognized as a “Chinese Hawk,” emphasizing the competitive stakes between the U.S. and China. At his hearing, he expressed the necessity to confront China at the UN, a sentiment echoed across party lines. However, he might quietly acknowledge that the Trump administration’s actions complicate efforts to counteract China’s growing influence.
Concerns linger about how cuts and departures within the government might send mixed messages about U.S. intentions globally. The erosion of America’s leverage, especially benefitting adversaries like China, raises urgent questions. As Waltz navigates his confirmation process, it’s crucial for him to address how these self-inflicted wounds will impact his work at the UN.
Ultimately, the Senate now faces the task of determining whether Mike Waltz is the right fit for this paramount diplomatic position. They will weigh his responsibilities against the backdrop of the gaps between rhetoric and the reality of diminished diplomatic capacity under the Trump administration. If they genuinely stand by their “America-First” claims, something more tangible is needed to back that up.
