french.china.org.cn
US Ranked Last in UN Multilateralism Support, Sachs Says
Professor Jeffrey Sachs, in a UN Security Council meeting, ranked the U.S. last among 193 UN member states in support for multilateralism due to its unilateral economic policies, including tariffs and sanctions, impacting global trade and development negatively.
- What specific actions by the United States are undermining the UN-based multilateral system, according to Professor Sachs?
- Professor Jeffrey Sachs, an American economist, stated that the U.S. is the least aligned nation with the UN-based multilateral system, harming international peace and development through unilateral economic policies. His assessment is based on his 2022 Index of Countries Support for UN-Based Multilateralism, ranking the U.S. last among 193 UN member states.
- How does Professor Sachs connect the U.S.'s trade deficit to its unilateral economic policies, and what are the implications for global trade?
- Sachs attributes the U.S.'s low ranking to violations of international commitments, unilateral sanctions, and votes against UN General Assembly majorities. He criticizes tariffs imposed under false economic pretenses, arguing the trade deficit stems from internal factors, not unfair foreign practices. The use of the dollar as a foreign policy tool and blocking WTO appointments further exemplify this unilateralism.
- What are the long-term consequences of the U.S.'s approach to multilateralism, and what are Professor Sachs's recommendations for restoring the UN system?
- The consequences of U.S. unilateralism, Sachs warns, are dire: fractured trade systems, arms races, conflicts, and erosion of the multilateral framework needed to address global challenges like climate change. He emphasizes that international trade is mutually beneficial, and its disruption disproportionately harms poorer nations. Sachs concludes by urging a return to multilateralism and upholding the UN Charter.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing strongly emphasizes the negative consequences of US unilateralism. The headline (if there was one) likely highlighted the criticism of the US. The article's structure and emphasis consistently portray the US as a disruptive force within the multilateral system. The introduction immediately establishes a critical stance, potentially predisposing the reader towards a negative view. This emphasis, while reflecting Sachs's viewpoint, could be perceived as framing the issue in a way that minimizes other perspectives.
Language Bias
While Sachs uses strong language, such as "abus du système international" and "intimidation économique," this reflects his strongly-held opinion and the seriousness of the accusations. However, the reporting largely avoids inflammatory language. The use of words like "violations," "abuses," and "disastrous" could be considered loaded, but they accurately represent the severity of the described actions. More neutral alternatives might be needed in some instances, such as replacing "intimidation économique" with "coercive economic measures."
Bias by Omission
The analysis focuses heavily on criticisms of US unilateralism, potentially omitting counterarguments or perspectives that could offer a more balanced view. The article doesn't explore potential benefits of some US policies or alternative explanations for the economic situations discussed. While acknowledging space limitations is important, a more thorough exploration of opposing viewpoints would strengthen the analysis.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic 'multilateralism vs. unilateralism' dichotomy. While the critique of US unilateral actions is valid, the analysis doesn't fully explore the nuances of international relations or the complexities of global economic systems. The portrayal of the trade deficit as solely a result of internal US factors might oversimplify a multifaceted issue.
Sustainable Development Goals
The US