The Foreign Service Journal, September 2020

52 SEPTEMBER 2020 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL support and instructions to U.N. special envoys and representa- tives who head political missions, andmy role included leadership responsibilities in the areas of U.N. electoral assistance, counterter- rorism and even residual decolonization. Because DPA provides the administrative and documentary support to the Security Council, I had a ringside seat to council deliberations, often (in the Secretary-General’s absence) as the only non-voting person at its horseshoe table. Yet my entire New York staff, with its global responsibilities, would have filled only a medium-sized American embassy. In addition to the resource discrepancies, the role of Under- Secretary-General for Political Affairs differs from a foreign minister in its function: International civil servants are expected to represent the values and ideals of the United Nations Charter, not serve as advocates for national positions. Now 75 years old and showing its age, the United Nations was the centerpiece of a series of organizations, alliances and partnerships established under U.S. leadership in the aftermath of World War II that would play a vital role in maintaining peace and progress in the postwar world. While it is natural to question the relevance of the organiza- tion in the greatly changed world of today, I come down on the side that the U.N. can remain relevant and a force multiplier for U.S. interests in global peace, development and human rights— as long as strong U.S. leadership remains in the organization. At the same time, for reasons ranging from changed global power dynamics to U.S. arrears in its dues, Washington cannot assume the same automatic deference inside the U.N. system that it enjoyed for years. The United States needs to compete inside the U.N. for what matters to us, lest we hand over vacu- ums for the Chinese and Russians to gleefully fill, at the expense of our interests. Obsession and Neglect What I learned when I began working at the U.N. was that, within its Secretariat, the speculation about Washington is inces- sant. One early epiphany was recognizing that Turtle Bay obsesses about Foggy Bottom, while Foggy Bottom neglects Turtle Bay. During my nearly six-year tenure as the highest-ranking U.S. citizen in the Secretariat, my colleagues—peers, subordinates and superiors alike—would invariably ponder “What does Washington think?” on every conceivable issue. Except perhaps in the State Depart- ment’s Bureau of International Organization Affairs, I am not aware of any parallel in Washington. The point of the question was not to signal that the U.N. Secretary-General or professional staff should automatically march in step with the American position. Rather, knowing the American position or likely U.S. reaction was an essential part of evaluating what the U.N. might do in any situation. Depend- ing on the subject, professional staff would also evaluate the positions of other capitals. Discussions on peacekeeping in Francophone Africa included considerable attention to Paris’ perspectives and interests. One could not plan U.N. operations in Somalia without considering the roles of Somalia’s neighbors, as well as Turkey, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. But only Washington’s policies came up in every meeting on peace and security matters. This gives the United States astonishing influ- ence without even trying to exercise it. One early epiphany was recognizing that Turtle Bay obsesses about Foggy Bottom, while Foggy Bottom neglects Turtle Bay. Jeffrey Feltman with his wife, Mary Draper, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton following his swearing in as assistant secretary of State for Near Eastern affairs in 2009. COURTESYOFJEFFREYFELTMAN COURTESYOFJEFFREYFELTMAN The author briefing the U.N.