General Question

elbanditoroso's avatar

UN Ambassador Nikki Haley announced that the US will be "taking names" of countries that vote against the US in the Jerusalem embassy move controversy. Is this a smart foreign policy move by the US?

Asked by elbanditoroso (27694points) December 20th, 2017

I can’t see how it is a positive or strategic thing to threaten. link

Haley “taking names” is just another way of Trump being a bully. That sort of action is not really effective on sovereign countries.

Is this a good move? Or will it come back and kick the US in the face?

[Note: this question is NOT about whether the Jerusalem embassy move is a good or bad idea. This question is about US actions at the United Nations.]

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

37 Answers

zenvelo's avatar

Well, it’s pretty easy for her. Just take a list of U.N. Security Council member states, cross the US off the list, and there are all the names.

The US has renounced diplomacy and openly said there is no foreign policy other than the US economy.

flutherother's avatar

It is Master Trump who is getting too big for his boots. He is out of step with the rest of the class and he should be made to stand in the corner wearing a dunce’s cap.

LostInParadise's avatar

The U.S. is isolating itself from the rest of the world. Our influence is declining as Trump talks about making the U.S. great again.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Not a smart foreign policy, but Trump and the GOP don’t need diplomacy or other foreign countries. Trump can start two wars at once; one in Jerusalem and the other with Kim Jong Un. But Florida is too far away from the ICBM range. You don’t need the rest of U.N. Security Council member states, just start with out them. And “taking names” probably means the won’t but invited to Mar-a-Lago Club but have to pay for their own rooms.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Nothing can compare with oafish bullying when it comes to success in matters of diplomacy. This little gem will prove inconvenient for our oaf with the empty head. You can bet that it is certain to be wielded in future discussions to bite him in the ass.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

Not a single country on Earth has its embassy in Jerusalem.

Nikky Haley was supposed to be one of the handful of normal decent humans in the administration. I see she gave up and joined the know-nothings.

janbb's avatar

We are becoming bullies in the sandbox. Nobody will play with us any more except the tyrants.

Jeruba's avatar

That’s Trump language. I wonder how compromised she feels—without his even trying to kiss her.

CWOTUS's avatar

We have to support Israel’s capitol’s move to Jerusalem in order to see what’s in it. Or something like that.

flutherother's avatar

“They take hundreds of millions of dollars and even billions of dollars, and then they vote against us,” Trump told reporters at the White House.

Surely the point of the UN is that every country is entitled to vote according to its beliefs. To say “they vote against us” is nonsense, especially as they are only voting in accordance with long established principles, but it is typical of Trump’s confrontational style.

Response moderated (Unhelpful)
Response moderated (Unhelpful)
Jeruba's avatar

@flutherother: And his idea of loyalty, which ought to stay bought once it’s paid for, right?

CWOTUS's avatar

Oh, gosh, I forgot to toe the party line here: No, of course it’s not a smart policy.

And then lol @ principles.

FFS

flameboi's avatar

Oh my I just read that. It’s a bully move, Suddenly, the U.S. to the world is Nelson to Springfield… I was always hoping for Lisa, but no Nelson…

janbb's avatar

@flameboi. We did Lisa for 8 years.

CWOTUS's avatar

Yes, it’s a brilliant move.

But not to put these kinds of fecking questions in General, and then flag the ones you don’t like. That’s… less brilliant.

LostInParadise's avatar

Trump is such a mess. He has no refinement or subtlety and no sense of ethics. If you see something that you want you just grab it, kind of the way that Trump goes after woman’s crotches. He assumes the rest of the world thinks the same way. He is so very much mistaken.

elbanditoroso's avatar

@CWOTUS – I’m the original poster. I didn’t flag anyone. Not sure what you are suggesting.

to the matter at hand – I have the feeling that the US is going to get its ass handed to it at the General Assembly meeting this afternoon, where there is no such thing as a US veto. The question I have is how childish, impetuous Trump will react.

Today’s NY Times has an interesting article in section 1 link about how strategically stupid this initiative has turned out to be.

Lightlyseared's avatar

Given that the only people who voted with the US looked like the countries that relied on US aid anyway I don’t think anyone gives a fuck about being on the US naughty list.

stanleybmanly's avatar

The country is sliding from great power to big joke.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

”...nine states – including the United States and Israel –voted against the resolution. The other countries which supported Washington were Togo, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Marshall Islands, Guatemala and Honduras.”
The Guardian – Dec 21, 2017

seawulf575's avatar

It is an interesting action, to be sure. I suspect it is an effort by Trump to impact the UN. Since its inception, the US has been expected to foot most of the bill for all its actions, actions that are not always in our best interests or that benefit us. And that has become the norm….nations represented in the UN make demands, get buy in from their buddies and then hand the bill to the US. 185 nations in the UN and the US contributes about 25% of all funding for all aspects of it. Meanwhile, we have one vote per nation on things. Saying you are taking names is foolishness if you are trying to use it as a threat. If you want to punish those nations, merely take the names and cut the funding we give them. You don’t need to threaten them.

flutherother's avatar

@seawulf575 The money the US and other countries pay to the UN funds organisations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency, the International Civil Aviation Organization, the International Monetary Fund, UNESCO, the World Health Organisation and the World Food Programme. It is in everyone’s interests that these international organisations remain properly funded.

seawulf575's avatar

@flutherother I’m not debating that at all. I’m just suggesting that the lopsided support for the UN might be something Trump is trying to change.

zenvelo's avatar

@seawulf575 You use a pejorative term – lopsided when that is a subjective issue. The US has always paid more because the US has found it to be a prudent investment.

Trump would like to dismantle US involvement in the UN as much as possible. He is also working on an isolationist approach to diplomacy. That didn’t work in the 1920s/1930s, and it will not work now even more, unless we want to withdraw from the global economy.

LostInParadise's avatar

The U..S. no longer dominates world power to the same extent that it used to. The U.N. vote is a good indication of that. It is getting to the point that if the U.S. isolates itself from the rest of the world, the rest of the world will do just fine.without us. Expect China to be playing an increasing role in worldwide diplomacy.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

Trump’s goal of breaking alliances is a part of his belief that he can gain advantage making personal “deals” (so sick of that word) one-by-one instead of building institutions and multi-lateral agreements. It’s the view of a child with no concept of the world outside his immediate sight.

He’s not working for US interests, it’s all egotism. Note Haley’s statement said that Trump “takes this personally”.

It’s not a coincidence that it serves Putin’s interests, too. Breaking the UN, NATO, and the EU were stated goals of the Russian government and the Trump campaign.

Trump has been played. So have American voters.

seawulf575's avatar

@zenvelo No, the US has always paid more because the rest of the countries deemed they could pay more. Don’t be fooled. The UN bills all countries based on what they deem that country can afford to pay. Yet all nations have the same say when it comes to votes.

ragingloli's avatar

As it should be.

zenvelo's avatar

@seawulf575 Yes, The UN is structured in the same manner as the US Senate, so that North Dakota has the same say as California.

seawulf575's avatar

Yes, but we don’t ask California to pay 25% of all taxes to the US Government while letting the other 49 states split the rest.

ragingloli's avatar

Funny, considering that California had the highest tax contribution in 2015.

ragingloli's avatar

So, how many more senators should California get, than , let us say, Alabama?
At least 16 times as many, right?

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

The UN is structured in the same manner as the US Senate, so that North Dakota has the same say as California.

In the General Assembly. The Security Council is very different.

Which is one reason the US pays more. For its permanent seat on the Security Council.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther