Why Trump and Haley’s tough talk on the UNGA vote is actually cheap

Today’s “emergency” vote in the UN General Assembly on Jerusalem followed President Trump’s decision to deliver on the United States’ long-held promise to move its embassy in Israel. The result of this vote is interesting, not because of the predetermined outcome, but because it shows the limitations of using foreign aid as a political tool.

US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley speaks during the United Nations Security Council, December 18, 2017. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

With theatrical flourish, President Trump and Ambassador Haley both issued warnings earlier this week on the vote, threatening that the United States “will be taking names” and might pull aid from countries voting to formally rebuke it in this setting.

That America expects a degree of loyalty from political allies and aid recipients should surprise no one. It has been US policy since at least Reagan. And for decades researchers have been studying the efficacy of linking US foreign aid and UN voting — helped by laws requiring the US State Department to report to Congress on voting practices in the UN.

This research suggests that countries receiving US aid generally tend to vote with the United States at the UN, but that the subject matter of the vote really matters. Governments with new leaders are more likely to support the United States on issues it considers important. But when the United States votes “no” on a resolution, as it did today, it is often isolated. This increases the value of attracting additional “no” votes.

One might expect that it’s easy to buy what are largely symbolic votes at the UN, but the evidence is mixed. The United States is unique among aid donors in its ability to leverage its foreign aid as an incentive for favorable UN votes. For example, countries that become rotating members of the UN Security Council tend to receive more US foreign aid than they otherwise would. But even poor countries, democracies in particular, are often willing to take a stand against the United States in the UN General Assembly, as today’s vote demonstrated. Others decided to take the safe route and abstain or not vote at all.

As to Trump and Haley’s threats, research suggests that the United States actually uses foreign aid reductions as a form of punishment sparingly. This is because most aid is controlled by Congress and strongly linked to US security interests. As a result, the countries that are most likely to be penalized for UN votes are the ones that receive relatively little US foreign aid anyway.

If the threats made by the Trump administration matter at all, they matter to the future of the UN. The United States contributed over $10 billion to the UN in 2016, $6 billion of which was voluntary. Haley’s assertion that the United States is “being asked to pay for the dubious privilege of being disrespected” suggests that today’s vote is about more than foreign aid, Israel, or the UN. It’s about respect for America’s leadership in the world and the extent to which it wants to continue funding this institution.