BIDEN’S U.N. SPEECH A STUDY IN CONTRASTS

Four years ago, the United Nations General Assembly literally laughed at the buffoonish American president. Fortunately for the United States and the world, President Biden’s address Wednesday demonstrated the benefit of cogent, moral U.S. leadership in a world vexed by war, climate change and economic turmoil.

Whereas Donald Trump groveled before foreign dictators and could not bring himself to utter a harsh word against Russian strongman Vladimir Putin, Biden minced no words. “A permanent member of the United Nations Security Council invaded its neighbor, attempted to erase a sovereign state from the map,” he said. “Russia has shamelessly violated the core tenets of the United Nations Charter — no more important than the clear prohibition against countries taking the territory of their neighbor by force.”

Biden denounced Putin’s threats of nuclear war and his call-up of still more Russian troops. He also praised the remarkable united front opposing Russia’s goal of “extinguishing Ukraine’s right to exist as a state.” He declared: “That’s why 141 nations in the General Assembly came together to unequivocally condemn Russia’s war against Ukraine. The United States has marshaled massive levels of security assistance and humanitarian aid and direct economic support for Ukraine — more than $25 billion to date.” He praised the more than 40 countries that have stepped up with aid.

He made the case that Russia’s defeat is essential to every other sovereign country. “We chose liberty. We chose sovereignty . ... Each of us in this body who is determined to uphold the principles and beliefs we pledge to defend as members of the United Nations must be clear, firm and unwavering in our resolve.”

And he reminded the delegates that “Ukraine has the same rights that belong to every sovereign nation. We will stand in solidarity with Ukraine. We will stand in solidarity against Russia’s aggression. Period.”

In making his appeal, Biden revealed the fallacy of the noxious “America First” idea that we should not care about the fate of any other country or people. If Russia can attack Ukraine with impunity, no country is secure.

And while Biden made clear we champion democracy, he acknowledged that even non-democracies have a stake in Putin’s defeat, recalling that “the United Nations Charter was not only signed by democracies of the world, [but] was negotiated among citizens of dozens of nations with vastly different histories and ideologies, united in their commitment to work for peace.” (One is reminded of the alliance we forged with the authoritarian Soviet Union to combat another fascist dictator who sought to invade and oppress the rest of Europe.)

For a president who had stressed the existential battle between democracy and authoritarianism, Biden now sounds more like a pragmatic Cold Warrior ready to accept imperfect allies to keep the peace. (“If you’re still committed to a strong foundation for the good of every nation around the world, then the United States wants to work with you.”) That somewhat sad reality reflects the compromise he thinks necessary to contain aggressive powers such as Russia and China.

Biden plainly seeks to minimize aggressive powers’ influence by, among other things, proposing an expansion of the Security Council and finding “constructive ways to work with partners to advance shared interests” — whether in the Indo-pacific, in outreach to Africa or in search for a

“more peaceful, integrated Middle East.” In addressing global crises such as climate change, food insecurity and nuclear nonproliferation, Biden implicitly reached out beyond the democracies.

Yet he still avoided running afoul of human rights. To the contrary, he declared that the future will be won by those countries that unleash the full potential of their populations, where women and girls can exercise equal rights, including basic reproductive rights, and contribute fully to building stronger economies and more resilient societies; where religious and ethnic minorities can live their lives without harassment and contribute to the fabric of their communities; where the LGBTQ+ community individuals live and love freely without being targeted with violence; where citizens can question and criticize their leaders without fear of reprisal.

So is this a foreign policy driven by human rights or realpolitik? A little of both, which creates an inevitable tension and sometimes incoherence. (See, for example, the infamous fist bump with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.)

The administration won’t always get this balance right. However, to the relief of our allies, to the countries that would be victimized and to the world’s most vulnerable populations, at least America is “back” — and that is no small thing.

The future will be won by those countries that unleash the full potential of their populations.