American Foreign Policy: Literature Review
by Luke Pring
Security and Conflict
The focus of this review is upon literature relating to the relationship of the United States with the United Nations. An introduction and background to the relationship is provided followed by a review of a number of articles based on thematic issues. These issues include the finances of the UN, bureaucracy within the organisation and potential UN reform, finally a larger case study based upon the evolution of peacekeeping is provided with the relevant literature attached and reviewed. Numerous Articles are referenced with a particular focus on the works of Thomas Weiss (2009 and 2003), Jesse Helms (1996), Michael Hirsh (1999), William J Durch (2003), Bruce Cronin (2001) ,Ian Johnston, Benjamin Cary Totolani, Richard Gowan (2005) and Marrack Goulding (1993).
Introduction and Background
The relationship between the United States and the United Nations has been closely linked since the institutions conception in the aftermath of World War Two. The name 'United Nations' was created by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 'Declaration by the United Nations’ of 1st January, 1942 during the Second World War (Basic facts about the United Nations 2000). The League of Nations created in the aftermath of the First World War had been a failed forerunner due to the absence of the United States. It was the intention of the victors of World War Two to create an institution that would bind all sovereign states to the role of international law and international norms. The inclusion of the United States in such an organisation was deemed vital as the League of Nations had failed because the emerging superpower had been missing and thus the legitimacy and potential collective security arrangement did not work in practice. The United States along with its war time allies aimed to reincarnate a multinational organisation in order to create ‘the primary vehicle for maintaining peace and stability’ (Moore and Pubantz, p, 49) Roosevelt needed to convince his war time allies that such an organisation could prove successful in this role. The negotiations mainly took place during the Dumbarton Oaks and Yalta conferences. During these negotiations Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt reached consensus on the United Nations structure, purposes and principals. The United Nations Charter was drawn up in 1945 in San Francisco, 50 countries came together to deliberate on the make up of the new institution. The Unites States played a key role in hosting and facilitating the talks that created the institution. The Charter was singed on the 26th June 1945 by representatives of all 50 countries in attendance. Poland later signed as a founding member, creating a United Nations consisting of 51 member states. Officially the UN came into existence on 24th October 1945, when the charter had been ratified by the Soviet Union China, France, the United Kingdom and the United States. The most important American contribution during this period was at the Bretton woods conference which promoted a liberal economy implemented through institutions such as the World Bank and international monetary fund (Moore and Pubantz p, 50). Importantly the United Nations was the first multilateral international governmental organisation that the United States supported. This was in contrast to the League of Nations which while championed by Woodrow Wilson had failed to be ratified by the United States Congress. Thus from its conception the United States played an important part in the United Nations and the relation ship between the two became ever more important for international geo-politics. This position remains to this day, with the US tempted into unilateral action in Iraq in 2003 only to return to the multi lateral organisation with the election of the new Obama administration. Patrick (2009) states ‘the fundamental questions facing the 1940’s generation confront us again today. As then, the United States remains by far the most powerful country in the world, but its contempory security, political, and economic challenges are rarely amenable to unilateral action”. In essence the sole superpower in the modern world does not have the capabilities to maintain international peace and security without a multilateral framework to provide support.
A Rasmussen report in 2006 showed that only 31% of American adults had a favourable view of the United Nations. This shows the lack of support for the institution at a grass roots level in American politics. The United Nations has failed to appeal to the ordinary citizens of the United States. The same report showed that 45% had an unfavourable opinion of the UN. This apathy for the UN has grown with a similar report in 2004 showing 44% favourable and 42% unfavourable. This report followed the controversial speech of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez at the UN where he refereed to President Bush as the Devil, ‘that it smelled of sulphur’ and that ‘he came here talking as if he were the owner of the world’. Such comments alienated the American public and provided them with evidence that the UN was acting as a platform for anti-US interests. Despite this low esteem in which the UN is held. 57% of Americans still want to remain a member of the UN with only 26% advocating a withdrawal. Such a position is matched equally by the academic literature, Weiss (2009) argues that the’ Expectations of the new (Obama) administration are impossibly high, and there are few precedents for deliberately destroying existing international institutions and establishing new ones’ (p, 141). Although a staunch Republican Jesse Helms (1996) does not advocate a withdrawal from the UN in his article ‘Saving the UN’. Instead he argues for ‘A United Nations that can recognise its limitations’ (p, 5) and one that can ‘facilitate diplomacy among nations-states’ (p, 3). While his ‘Saving the U.N’ article is highly critical of the UN bureaucracy, finances and role in the world it stops short of advocating withdrawal but instead calls for the institution to be ‘radically overhauled’. Only in the final paragraph does he threaten to lead the charge for withdrawal if the UN does not take time to reform itself. He argues that a United Nations that is ‘helping sovereign states work together where appropriate and staying out of issues where it has no legitimate role, is worth keeping; a United Nations that insists on imposing its utopian vision on states begs for dismantlement’ (p, 5). Hirsh (1999) further argues that ‘the terrible irony is that the United Nations; the organisation Washington has wilfully marginalized and bankrupted, is now more central than ever to America’s global interests (p, 3). The article understands that U.S/U.N tensions are not a ‘new story’ but entrenched in history. Cronin (2001) further expands on this point in his article ‘The Paradox of Hegemony’ explaining that ‘twice in this century the United States has sought to achieve a position of global leadership, and both times-in 1945 and 1990- its leaders viewed the United Nations as one of its primary vehicles. Yet from the beginning, the relationship between the U.S and the world organisation has been ambiguous; the US has alternately been both the UN’s most enthusiastic advocate and harshest critic’ (p, 115). This ambiguous relationship has led to a number of confrontations between the ambitions of U.S foreign policy and the United Nations more liberal approach to global governance. Such a Conflict arose between the United States and the United Nations in 2002 and 2003 over the issue of Iraq. Saddam Hussein had continually refused to meet the obligations entered into at the end of the 1991 Gulf War, in particular the requirement not to follow a policy of developing weapons of mass destruction . The U.S was adamant that Iraq was responsible for proving that such weapons did not exist. The U.N weapons inspectors headed by Hans Blix found no evidence of WMD’s or their development, it was noted that on several occasions Iraq had failed to co-operate fully with inspection teams. In November 2002, the UN Security Council adopted resolution 1441, in effect giving an ultimatum for full co-operations with WMD disarmament. However the United States launched military action in 2003 without seeking a further UN security resolution. They entered the war with a loose ‘coalition of the willing’ consisting of 50 countries. This action split the United Nations into two distinct camps, those who supported military action (including the U.K, Spain, Australia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Netherlands and Poland) and those who felt military action was not justified by resolution 1441 (France, Germany and Russia). This split in the international community and subsequent military action by the United States and its coalition partners has led to much disagreement as to the legality of the war. Arguments abound in International Law as to whether Resolution 1441 constituted a legitimisation of force against Iraq.
Jesse Helms (1996) directly tackles the work of Secretary General Boutros Ghali and his campaign for UN empowerment. The basis of this criticism is the vast financial waste of the UN and its various committees and institutions. The U.S. is 'the most generous benefactor of this power hungry and dysfunctional organisation'. As such Helms argues that the situation is 'untenable’ and that the United Nations must be 'radically overhauled'. This stance is countered by Hirsh (1999) in his argument that the Clinton Administration in particular, used the United Nations as a 'fall guy 'in international politics. Indeed the organisation is 'demoralised and in disarray' that this is due mainly to Washington's self defeating assault on the UN' (p, 1). He argues that the United States is withholding dues as a method of control and direction of UN. Arguing that 'U.S-UN tensions, of course, are not a new story, what has become ever more alarming throughout the 1990s, however, is that deepening contempt displayed by both Congress and the Clinton Administration toward the world body' (p, 2). Prior to the 1960's the organisation had held great prestige with the United States with peacekeepers posted from Kashmir to Cyprus to Mozambique. The continued financial support of the UN is important according to Durch (2003) who argues that it is vital that the United States being ‘the UN’s principal source of cash and operational backup, remains politically engaged and operationally supportive of UN post conflict activities’ (p,196). Successful Intervention in East Timor showed that ‘when Washington makes use of it, the U.N system it can be a powerful channel through which a wide array of threatened sanctions can be transmuted into a single hammer blow of pressure’ (Hirsh, p, 4). Richard C Holbrooke the US ambassador to the UN remarked that ‘It was almost a textbook example of how the U.N Security Council is supposed to work as envisaged by Churchill and Roosevelt’. Holbrook was also responsible for negotiating a reduction in the rate of dues that the United States pays to the United Nations. This policy was pushed hard by Senators Jesse Helms and Joe Biden; in return the United States paid a lump sum of there UN debt. When the organisation is financed it can work more efficiently, however the US has often used its overdue dues as a method of control over the organisation. This began in the Reagan era as a response to developing countries forming the ‘Third World UN’. However Hormats and Rothkopf (2008) argue that “the united states cannot effectively or affordably achieve its goals without restoring, renovating, or in some cases reinventing the multilateral mechanisms available to it in each major policy area” (p, 1). In the long run the United States may indeed save money by investing in the infrastructure of the UN.
Weiss (2009) identifies four key disorders that prevent the UN from acting efficiently as a global institution. The first of these is the ‘nature of the Westphalian system’ (p, 146) established at the end of the Thirty Years War in 1648. The second problem identified is the ‘diplomatic burlesque that passes for diplomacy in UN circles’, a problem that Weiss argues stems from the division of the industrialized north and global south. The third problem is identified as ‘the structural pathologies arising from overlapping jurisdictions as well as lack of coordination and centralised financing among UN agencies and bodies’ (p, 147). Finally the bureaucracy is identified as a cause of low productivity within the organisation. Weiss, Helms and Hirsh outline the problem of the overblown United Nations bureaucracy. Helms (1996) in particular is a harsh critic of the UN bureaucracy whom he argues ‘has established a foothold on the international stage. This process must be stopped’ (p, 3).
Weiss (2009 and 2003) while advocating the third generation of international institutions identifies the bureaucratic procedures of the UN as a major area of reform. Weiss identifies the bureaucracy as a major disorder related to ‘the overwhelming weight of bureaucratic procedures and the low productivity and underwhelming leadership within the international secretariats’ (P, 147). He elaborates by describing the recruitment process as flawed resulting in many talented individuals being overlooked for vital positions within the institution.
Thomas Weiss (2009) in his article ‘Towards a Third Generation United Nations’ outlines the future of the United States relationship with the United Nations and identifies four reasons why the United Nations is still an imperfect forum. Weiss argues that ‘by nominating his confidante, Susan E. Rice, as ambassador to the United Nations and restoring the post’s cabinet status, President Obama enunciated his belief that the UN is an indispensable and imperfect forum’ (p, 147). Such a comment has cemented the short term future of the UN while providing a platform for potential reform. A firm commitment to multilateralism is backed up by the simple fact that ‘the global challenges we face demand global institutions that work’ (p, 141). The new administration is keen to cultivate new friends and realises according to Weiss that ‘the UN’s universal membership provides legitimacy and is a unique asset, a belief that Rice confirmed sharing when she stated that the UN as a global institution should enhance, not diminish, out influence, and bring more security to our people and to the world’ (p, 141). Legitimacy has become important in a world where a single superpower cannot act unilaterally without operational and political problems as seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. Weiss expands his argument by saying that the global financial crisis needed a response from an adequate global institution that can provide compliance with collective decisions. He backs up with a quote from Henry Kissinger (2009) stating ‘The economic world has been globalised. Its institutions have a global reach and have operated by maxims that assumed a self regulating global market. The financial collapse exposed the mirage. It made evident the absence of global institutions to cushion the shock and to reverse the trend’ (p, 142). Such a view seems to advocate more central control from the United Nations especially with fiscal apparatus. This would be strongly opposed by Helms (1996) who states ‘the United Nations does not deserve continued American support. Its bureaucracy is proliferating, its costs spiralling, and its mission is constantly expanding beyond its mandate; and beyond its capabilities. Worse, with the steady growth in the size and scope of its activities, the United Nations is being transformed from an institution of sovereign nations into a quasi-sovereign entity in itself’ (p, 2). The original intent of the United Nations was to cement the system of sovereign states established at the treaty of Westphalia in 1648; such a transformation would thus ‘represent an obvious threat to U.S national interests’ (p, 2) according to Senator Helms. The backlash from conservative politicians to a quasi sovereign institution would be strong; the argument of Weiss (2009) appears a little naïve in this respect. Republicans in the U.S would argue for smaller government with less intervention from central bureaucracies. The key battle the literature omits is the conservative demand for less government intervention (including global government) and the multilateral centralised government approach of more liberal politics. This is qualified by Weiss (2009) when he states ‘most countries, especially major powers, are loath to accept elements of a central authority and the inroads that this would make into their autonomy (p, 143). Then the question must be asked as to how the article expects the global economic apparatus to be deployed on a mass scale. This idea appears to be overly ambitions in its approach considering the massive financial stress that the U.N has suffered since its conception. Helms also states that ‘in the United States, Congress has begun a process of devolution, taking power away from the federal government and returning it to the states. This must be replicated at the international level’ (p, 4). This provides the template for the Republican dismantlement of the UN which began with the Reagan administration in the 1980’s in response to a growing ‘Third World UN’ in the general assembly. If the UN begins to question or challenge the United States then a series of cuts or reforms are brought against the institution to bring it back into line.
Durch (2003) argues that the United Nations has an important role to play in post conflict rebuilding. The United States has a tarnished reputation due to its contentious interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan; the UN can provide impartial third party assistance to countries requiring rebuilding programmes. Such assistance would allow the pressure to be lifted from the United States and allow them to focus their resources on winning the military conflicts. Durch backs this up by arguing that “the recent war against Saddam Hussein neither destroyed nor discredited the United Nations” (p, 195). He further elaborates that in the aftermath of the Iraq war the United Nations carried out the main humanitarian duties: ‘Since the end of the major combat, they have carried much of the load in caring for and feeding the Iraqi people and restoring public services’. Such a role is vital in rebuilding a war torn society and shows that the U.N will step in when individual actors will not. Durch further argues that ‘the UN has a political role to play there as well, drawing on years of experience in devising democratic education, giving electoral advice and conducting elections in war torn developing countries’ (p, 196). This role is one that the United States does not have much experience in, with a tendency to lean towards force protection rather than the hearts and minds of the local populace. This was born out in Vietnam and proved a major downfall in U.S policy in the region. As a direct result of US inexperience the UN plays an important role in rebuilding countries and utilising a post conflict role. The United Nations is able to draw upon a wide range of cultures, languages, political systems, personal experience and infrastructure in dealing with war torn countries and the traumatised populace. Durch further expands that ‘The UN is uniquely equipped with the legitimacy, experience, coordinating ability, and logistics mechanisms to work in post conflict settings, potentially as a partner with regional organizations as their operational capacities evolve’ (p, 196). The United Nations can also portray itself as a sympathetic third party while United States military involvement has left Iraqi citizens with a mounting distrust of the superpower. Helms (1996) directly tackles such a position by stating that the United Nations must ‘recognise its limitations’ (p, 5) and should be used sparingly and mainly to facilitate the relationships of nations states. However Durch makes a convincing argument that the United States and United Kingdom ‘are at the moment, the occupying forces: by comparison, the UN is a reasonably distant third party that can more easily listen to local opinions and adapt to the aspirations of Iraq’s citizens’ (p, 197). Thus in such a situation Durch would advocate that the UN is viewed in a much better light than the tarnished US occupying force. Weiss (2009) explains that “the United States cannot kill or capture its way to victory” and “is unlikely to repeat another Iraq or Afghanistan that is, forced regime change followed by nation building under fire” (p,147). Its capabilities are at full stretch with the rebuilding process in Iraq and continuing war in Afghanistan. The United States should look to take advantage of this multilateral arrangement and have indeed in Afghanistan allowed the UN to take care of policing duties. Weiss (2009) strongly advocates this role for the UN by stating “It is commonplace to sate that many of the most intractable problems are transnational, ranging from climate change, migration, and pandemics to terrorism, financial stability, and the proliferations of weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s). Addressing them successfully requires actions that are not unilateral, bilateral, or even multilateral, but global” (p, 144). The United States must prepare for post conflict situations in Sudan and Sri Lanka where the UN could become an important partner in peace building. Conflicts coming to an end in Liberia, Ivory Coast, Guinea, Ghana, Democratic Republic of Congo, Columbia, Zimbabwe, Burma and North Korea may also require support as they emerge from war ort civil uprising. In essence the UN has supplanted the US as the acceptable front of post conflict restructuring. Durch explains that ‘the United States cannot and probably will not give its full attention to these other crisis zones, whether the need is for peacekeepers or aid providers’ (p, 195). Furthermore other countries and regional actors have less ability to act than the US, creating a niche where the UN is able to operate successfully and without rival. Durch cleverly sums up this issue by stating ‘short of writing off millions of people in the poorest and worst governed parts of the world……who you gonna call?’ (p, 196). It is clear that in the case of Iraq the United States called the United Nations, providing further insight into the dynamic relationship between the two entities.
Case Study-Evolution of Peacekeeping
The removal of the ideological divide at the end of the cold war allowed the United Nations to move back towards the idea of collective security. Peacekeeping missions impartial to the conflicting parties were slowly replaced in the 1990s by peace enforcement with the impartiality being placed on the mandate. The scope of what the U.N. is able to combat was also greatly increased. Chollet and Or (2001) states 'the U.S also looks to the UN for help in combating trans national threats such the international crime, weapons proliferation, environmental degradation and human rights issues such as trafficking in women. In addition, the U.N. member states expect the organisation to assume burdens that no single nation can carry alone- for example, protecting and supporting refugees and internally displaced persons who are innocent victims of natural disasters and armed conflicts' (2001). This massive scope of directly confronts the ideal of a scaled down U.N. proposed by Helms. Collet and Or provided a narrative for the actions of Helms in 2001 after securing UN budgetary reform as put forward in his article ‘Saving the UN’.
Peacekeeping is not mentioned in the United Nations charter and evolved directly from a deadlock between superpowers in the Security Council. Goulding defines peacekeeping simply as “a technique which has been developed, mainly by the United Nations, to help control and resolve armed conflicts” (1993.p, 452). Indeed this technique was adopted as a substitute for collective security in response to stalemate in the Security Council. This approach was necessary to prevent the United States and USSR from becoming embroiled in regional conflicts which could have led to direct confrontation or full scale nuclear war. The Cold War put great pressure on the two superpowers especially in the East where they contended for control over regional conflicts making “it difficult for the Security Council to take effective action to resolve them” (1993p, 453). Collective Security became redundant as a result and the United Nations being a functional organization evolved a system of intervention based on impartiality and restricted use of force.
James (1990) traces the origin of the first peacekeeping mission back to the 1920’s and the maintenance of frontiers in the aftermath of the First World War. The United Nations however officially recognizes the deployment of unarmed observers to Palestine in June 1948 as the first peacekeeping deployment. The first armed force was the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) deployed in response to the Suez crisis of 1956. This operation was used not only to mitigate the conflict but to help France and the Britain save face with the superpowers. As a result they were able to climb down from what had been a military success but a political disaster that threatened to cripple them on the international stage. Both these early operations played a key role in successful conflict resolution. In Palestine an Arab-Israeli Armistice was signed and the Suez intervention diffused a potentially explosive situation allowing Britain and France to withdraw without consequence. The technique of peacekeeping was providing a useful tool for the United States in mitigating conflict and the demand for peacekeeping services increased in the years following Suez (Goulding 1993. p, 452). In the following years peacekeeping had a number of successes specifically centred on the ‘Golden Age’ from 1956 to 1974.
In the latter part of the cold war the USSR’s attitude towards peacekeeping underwent a substantial change. Weiss and Kessler state ‘after a long history of indifference or antagonistic stances towards UN peacekeeping, the USSR has now become one of its most vocal supporters’ (1990. p,124) This shift brought a about a resurgence of the Security council as the superpowers became less hostile towards each other. This reintegration of the Soviet Union and United States allowed Britain, France and China to expand their influence through Security Council access. Ideological conflict between superpower puppets had been largely replaced by intra-state wars in the intervening period. Peacekeeping came to the forefront of the mass media during the late 1980’s and early 1990’s creating an endogenous structure that strengthened both the UN and the Security Council. In response to a renewed co-operation in the Security Council and a disappearance of the ideological divide the idea of peace enforcement was developed, a step closer in practice to collective security than peacekeeping. NATO for example flexed its military power in its intervention in Kosovo in 1999 and allowed the U.S to intervene in a multilateral format. Such action seemed unlikely after Presidential Doctrine 25 opposed US troops being used under direct UN control following the disaster in Somalia in 1992. The delegation of peace missions to regional actors has allowed the United States to act as a partner to the UN. Since 1999 a number of peace enforcement missions have been carried out by regional organisations such as NATO, ECOWAS and the OSCE (Johnston, Tortolani and Gowan 2005. p,57) Furthermore the authors argue that there has been an increase in peace missions carried out by ‘coalitions of the willing’ and individual states. Examples include the Australian intervention in East Timor, the French mission in Cote d’Ivoire and the U.S Coalition involved in Afghanistan and Iraq (p.57). The danger of such regional outfits taking an important role in peace keeping is that their interests will come before that of the humanitarian mission. The United Nations must be decisive and clearly mandate and set the doctrine for such intervention by regional actors. In the case of intervention in Afghanistan the United Nations has been happy to delegate the military role to the ISAF forces. The U.N has legitimised this action by playing a supplemental role and providing policing and tools for peace building. The UN is still an important device for international co-operation; this is shown by the United States returning to the Security Council for legitimacy to its actions in Iraq in 2003. This shows 'that even the lone superpower needs the world body on occasion' (Weiss and Kalbacher, 2008 p. 332) The United Nations can also play an important role in dealing with terrorism on the global stage. Since 1972 the General Assembly has been working on what is now a very current issue that dominates world politics. Sanctions have been imposed on Libya and recently Afghanistan endorsing the US led change of the Taliban regime. The Counter Terrorism Committee (CTC) is responsible for monitoring the implementation of state anti terrorism initiatives. Such action is pro-active and allows the UN to unite the world in anti terrorism legislation. Attention has also been drawn to human rights issues such as Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib much to the United States dissatisfaction.
UN Reform
UN reform is a key issues that runs through a number of academic articles, often tagged on as an afterthought, merely small suggestions or even full scale overhauls are recommend by the various literature. In 1996 Helms argues that ‘The time has come for the United States to deliver an ultimatum: Either the United Nations reforms, quickly and dramatically, or the United States will end its participation’ (p, 7).Such threats run constant throughout his article ‘Saving the UN’ but these arguments become tempered with more constructive suggestions for UN Reform. Suggesting the UN must ‘prove that it is not impervious to reform, and show that is can be downsized, brought under control, and harnessed to contribute to the security needs of the 21st century’ (p, 7). Helms still views the UN as being a useful instrument for facilitating relations between sovereign states while also threatening that he would be ‘leading the charge for U.S withdrawal’ if their was no reform. Weiss (2009) argues that the UN must tackle the four disorders he highlights in his article ‘Toward a Third Generation of International Institutions’. In particular ‘Normative and geopolitical fixes for the ailments of the Westphalian system consist of yet more energetic recalculations of common interests about global goods and respect for international communities’ (p,148). The original intent of the UN to maintain the Westphalian system must be tackled if there is to be a new liberal third generation United Nations. The Conservative politics will always fight an expansion of institutions that increase the size of government. The Security Council is also coming under the spotlight as Germany, Brazil and Japan push for permanent places, something championed by all major parties in the UK General election. Such an expansion will lead to a new dynamic the United States must readjust to. In the end the United States pursuing its own ambitions will look to shape and mould the UN through various instruments such as political pressure and finances. If the UN truly wishes to expand then it must learn to stand up to and confront one of its most powerful and influential members.
Bibliography
Basic Facts about the United Nations 2000 NO.E. 00 I 21
Chollet, Derek and Robert Orr. Carpe Diem: Reclaiming Success at the United Nations. Centre for Strategic and International Studies: The Washington Quarterly. (Autumn 2001)
Cronin, Bruce. The Paradox of Hegemony: America’s Ambiguous Relationship with the United Nations. European Journal of International Relations. (2001)
Durch, William J. Picking up the Peaces: The UN’s Evolving Post Conflict Roles. Centre for Strategic and International Studies: The Washington Quarterly. (2003)
Goulding, Marrack. The Evolution of United Nations Peacekeeping. International Affairs Vol.69. No.3 1993. Blackwell Publishing.
Helms, Jesse. Saving the UN: A Challenge to the Next Secretary-General. Foreign Affairs (1996)
Hirsh, Michael. The Fall Guy; Washington’s Self Defeating Assault on the U.N. Foreign Affairs. (1999)
Hormats, Robert and David Rothkopf. Discussion Document. Prepared for the Carnegie Endowment Strategy Roundtable. (2008)
James, Alan. Peacekeeping in International Politics. London. Macmillan for International Institute for Strategic Studies. 1990
Johnston, Ian. Benjamin Cary Totolani and Richard Gowan : The Evolution of Peacekeeping: Unfinished Business. Center of International Co-operation. New York University. 2005
John Allphin Moore and Jr. Jerry Pubantz. The New United Nations: International Organization in the Twenty-First Century (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006),
Patrick, Stewart. The Best Laid Plans: The origins of American Multilateralism and the Dawn of the Cold war. Lanham, MD:Rowman and Littlefield. 2009
Weiss, Thomas G. Towards a Third Generation of International Institutions: Obama’s UN Policy. Centre for strategic and International Studies: The Washington Quarterly. (July 2009)
Weiss and Kalbacher, 2008. Security Studies: An Introduction, the United Nations. Routledge : London and New York.
Weiss, Thomas G and Kessler, Merly A. Resurrecting Peacekeeping: The Superpowers and Conflict Management. Third Wold Quarterly. Vol 12. 1990
Williams, Paul. Security Studies an Introduction. Routledge: New York. 2009
The focus of this review is upon literature relating to the relationship of the United States with the United Nations. An introduction and background to the relationship is provided followed by a review of a number of articles based on thematic issues. These issues include the finances of the UN, bureaucracy within the organisation and potential UN reform, finally a larger case study based upon the evolution of peacekeeping is provided with the relevant literature attached and reviewed. Numerous Articles are referenced with a particular focus on the works of Thomas Weiss (2009 and 2003), Jesse Helms (1996), Michael Hirsh (1999), William J Durch (2003), Bruce Cronin (2001) ,Ian Johnston, Benjamin Cary Totolani, Richard Gowan (2005) and Marrack Goulding (1993).
Introduction and Background
The relationship between the United States and the United Nations has been closely linked since the institutions conception in the aftermath of World War Two. The name 'United Nations' was created by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 'Declaration by the United Nations’ of 1st January, 1942 during the Second World War (Basic facts about the United Nations 2000). The League of Nations created in the aftermath of the First World War had been a failed forerunner due to the absence of the United States. It was the intention of the victors of World War Two to create an institution that would bind all sovereign states to the role of international law and international norms. The inclusion of the United States in such an organisation was deemed vital as the League of Nations had failed because the emerging superpower had been missing and thus the legitimacy and potential collective security arrangement did not work in practice. The United States along with its war time allies aimed to reincarnate a multinational organisation in order to create ‘the primary vehicle for maintaining peace and stability’ (Moore and Pubantz, p, 49) Roosevelt needed to convince his war time allies that such an organisation could prove successful in this role. The negotiations mainly took place during the Dumbarton Oaks and Yalta conferences. During these negotiations Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt reached consensus on the United Nations structure, purposes and principals. The United Nations Charter was drawn up in 1945 in San Francisco, 50 countries came together to deliberate on the make up of the new institution. The Unites States played a key role in hosting and facilitating the talks that created the institution. The Charter was singed on the 26th June 1945 by representatives of all 50 countries in attendance. Poland later signed as a founding member, creating a United Nations consisting of 51 member states. Officially the UN came into existence on 24th October 1945, when the charter had been ratified by the Soviet Union China, France, the United Kingdom and the United States. The most important American contribution during this period was at the Bretton woods conference which promoted a liberal economy implemented through institutions such as the World Bank and international monetary fund (Moore and Pubantz p, 50). Importantly the United Nations was the first multilateral international governmental organisation that the United States supported. This was in contrast to the League of Nations which while championed by Woodrow Wilson had failed to be ratified by the United States Congress. Thus from its conception the United States played an important part in the United Nations and the relation ship between the two became ever more important for international geo-politics. This position remains to this day, with the US tempted into unilateral action in Iraq in 2003 only to return to the multi lateral organisation with the election of the new Obama administration. Patrick (2009) states ‘the fundamental questions facing the 1940’s generation confront us again today. As then, the United States remains by far the most powerful country in the world, but its contempory security, political, and economic challenges are rarely amenable to unilateral action”. In essence the sole superpower in the modern world does not have the capabilities to maintain international peace and security without a multilateral framework to provide support.
A Rasmussen report in 2006 showed that only 31% of American adults had a favourable view of the United Nations. This shows the lack of support for the institution at a grass roots level in American politics. The United Nations has failed to appeal to the ordinary citizens of the United States. The same report showed that 45% had an unfavourable opinion of the UN. This apathy for the UN has grown with a similar report in 2004 showing 44% favourable and 42% unfavourable. This report followed the controversial speech of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez at the UN where he refereed to President Bush as the Devil, ‘that it smelled of sulphur’ and that ‘he came here talking as if he were the owner of the world’. Such comments alienated the American public and provided them with evidence that the UN was acting as a platform for anti-US interests. Despite this low esteem in which the UN is held. 57% of Americans still want to remain a member of the UN with only 26% advocating a withdrawal. Such a position is matched equally by the academic literature, Weiss (2009) argues that the’ Expectations of the new (Obama) administration are impossibly high, and there are few precedents for deliberately destroying existing international institutions and establishing new ones’ (p, 141). Although a staunch Republican Jesse Helms (1996) does not advocate a withdrawal from the UN in his article ‘Saving the UN’. Instead he argues for ‘A United Nations that can recognise its limitations’ (p, 5) and one that can ‘facilitate diplomacy among nations-states’ (p, 3). While his ‘Saving the U.N’ article is highly critical of the UN bureaucracy, finances and role in the world it stops short of advocating withdrawal but instead calls for the institution to be ‘radically overhauled’. Only in the final paragraph does he threaten to lead the charge for withdrawal if the UN does not take time to reform itself. He argues that a United Nations that is ‘helping sovereign states work together where appropriate and staying out of issues where it has no legitimate role, is worth keeping; a United Nations that insists on imposing its utopian vision on states begs for dismantlement’ (p, 5). Hirsh (1999) further argues that ‘the terrible irony is that the United Nations; the organisation Washington has wilfully marginalized and bankrupted, is now more central than ever to America’s global interests (p, 3). The article understands that U.S/U.N tensions are not a ‘new story’ but entrenched in history. Cronin (2001) further expands on this point in his article ‘The Paradox of Hegemony’ explaining that ‘twice in this century the United States has sought to achieve a position of global leadership, and both times-in 1945 and 1990- its leaders viewed the United Nations as one of its primary vehicles. Yet from the beginning, the relationship between the U.S and the world organisation has been ambiguous; the US has alternately been both the UN’s most enthusiastic advocate and harshest critic’ (p, 115). This ambiguous relationship has led to a number of confrontations between the ambitions of U.S foreign policy and the United Nations more liberal approach to global governance. Such a Conflict arose between the United States and the United Nations in 2002 and 2003 over the issue of Iraq. Saddam Hussein had continually refused to meet the obligations entered into at the end of the 1991 Gulf War, in particular the requirement not to follow a policy of developing weapons of mass destruction . The U.S was adamant that Iraq was responsible for proving that such weapons did not exist. The U.N weapons inspectors headed by Hans Blix found no evidence of WMD’s or their development, it was noted that on several occasions Iraq had failed to co-operate fully with inspection teams. In November 2002, the UN Security Council adopted resolution 1441, in effect giving an ultimatum for full co-operations with WMD disarmament. However the United States launched military action in 2003 without seeking a further UN security resolution. They entered the war with a loose ‘coalition of the willing’ consisting of 50 countries. This action split the United Nations into two distinct camps, those who supported military action (including the U.K, Spain, Australia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Netherlands and Poland) and those who felt military action was not justified by resolution 1441 (France, Germany and Russia). This split in the international community and subsequent military action by the United States and its coalition partners has led to much disagreement as to the legality of the war. Arguments abound in International Law as to whether Resolution 1441 constituted a legitimisation of force against Iraq.
Jesse Helms (1996) directly tackles the work of Secretary General Boutros Ghali and his campaign for UN empowerment. The basis of this criticism is the vast financial waste of the UN and its various committees and institutions. The U.S. is 'the most generous benefactor of this power hungry and dysfunctional organisation'. As such Helms argues that the situation is 'untenable’ and that the United Nations must be 'radically overhauled'. This stance is countered by Hirsh (1999) in his argument that the Clinton Administration in particular, used the United Nations as a 'fall guy 'in international politics. Indeed the organisation is 'demoralised and in disarray' that this is due mainly to Washington's self defeating assault on the UN' (p, 1). He argues that the United States is withholding dues as a method of control and direction of UN. Arguing that 'U.S-UN tensions, of course, are not a new story, what has become ever more alarming throughout the 1990s, however, is that deepening contempt displayed by both Congress and the Clinton Administration toward the world body' (p, 2). Prior to the 1960's the organisation had held great prestige with the United States with peacekeepers posted from Kashmir to Cyprus to Mozambique. The continued financial support of the UN is important according to Durch (2003) who argues that it is vital that the United States being ‘the UN’s principal source of cash and operational backup, remains politically engaged and operationally supportive of UN post conflict activities’ (p,196). Successful Intervention in East Timor showed that ‘when Washington makes use of it, the U.N system it can be a powerful channel through which a wide array of threatened sanctions can be transmuted into a single hammer blow of pressure’ (Hirsh, p, 4). Richard C Holbrooke the US ambassador to the UN remarked that ‘It was almost a textbook example of how the U.N Security Council is supposed to work as envisaged by Churchill and Roosevelt’. Holbrook was also responsible for negotiating a reduction in the rate of dues that the United States pays to the United Nations. This policy was pushed hard by Senators Jesse Helms and Joe Biden; in return the United States paid a lump sum of there UN debt. When the organisation is financed it can work more efficiently, however the US has often used its overdue dues as a method of control over the organisation. This began in the Reagan era as a response to developing countries forming the ‘Third World UN’. However Hormats and Rothkopf (2008) argue that “the united states cannot effectively or affordably achieve its goals without restoring, renovating, or in some cases reinventing the multilateral mechanisms available to it in each major policy area” (p, 1). In the long run the United States may indeed save money by investing in the infrastructure of the UN.
Weiss (2009) identifies four key disorders that prevent the UN from acting efficiently as a global institution. The first of these is the ‘nature of the Westphalian system’ (p, 146) established at the end of the Thirty Years War in 1648. The second problem identified is the ‘diplomatic burlesque that passes for diplomacy in UN circles’, a problem that Weiss argues stems from the division of the industrialized north and global south. The third problem is identified as ‘the structural pathologies arising from overlapping jurisdictions as well as lack of coordination and centralised financing among UN agencies and bodies’ (p, 147). Finally the bureaucracy is identified as a cause of low productivity within the organisation. Weiss, Helms and Hirsh outline the problem of the overblown United Nations bureaucracy. Helms (1996) in particular is a harsh critic of the UN bureaucracy whom he argues ‘has established a foothold on the international stage. This process must be stopped’ (p, 3).
Weiss (2009 and 2003) while advocating the third generation of international institutions identifies the bureaucratic procedures of the UN as a major area of reform. Weiss identifies the bureaucracy as a major disorder related to ‘the overwhelming weight of bureaucratic procedures and the low productivity and underwhelming leadership within the international secretariats’ (P, 147). He elaborates by describing the recruitment process as flawed resulting in many talented individuals being overlooked for vital positions within the institution.
Thomas Weiss (2009) in his article ‘Towards a Third Generation United Nations’ outlines the future of the United States relationship with the United Nations and identifies four reasons why the United Nations is still an imperfect forum. Weiss argues that ‘by nominating his confidante, Susan E. Rice, as ambassador to the United Nations and restoring the post’s cabinet status, President Obama enunciated his belief that the UN is an indispensable and imperfect forum’ (p, 147). Such a comment has cemented the short term future of the UN while providing a platform for potential reform. A firm commitment to multilateralism is backed up by the simple fact that ‘the global challenges we face demand global institutions that work’ (p, 141). The new administration is keen to cultivate new friends and realises according to Weiss that ‘the UN’s universal membership provides legitimacy and is a unique asset, a belief that Rice confirmed sharing when she stated that the UN as a global institution should enhance, not diminish, out influence, and bring more security to our people and to the world’ (p, 141). Legitimacy has become important in a world where a single superpower cannot act unilaterally without operational and political problems as seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. Weiss expands his argument by saying that the global financial crisis needed a response from an adequate global institution that can provide compliance with collective decisions. He backs up with a quote from Henry Kissinger (2009) stating ‘The economic world has been globalised. Its institutions have a global reach and have operated by maxims that assumed a self regulating global market. The financial collapse exposed the mirage. It made evident the absence of global institutions to cushion the shock and to reverse the trend’ (p, 142). Such a view seems to advocate more central control from the United Nations especially with fiscal apparatus. This would be strongly opposed by Helms (1996) who states ‘the United Nations does not deserve continued American support. Its bureaucracy is proliferating, its costs spiralling, and its mission is constantly expanding beyond its mandate; and beyond its capabilities. Worse, with the steady growth in the size and scope of its activities, the United Nations is being transformed from an institution of sovereign nations into a quasi-sovereign entity in itself’ (p, 2). The original intent of the United Nations was to cement the system of sovereign states established at the treaty of Westphalia in 1648; such a transformation would thus ‘represent an obvious threat to U.S national interests’ (p, 2) according to Senator Helms. The backlash from conservative politicians to a quasi sovereign institution would be strong; the argument of Weiss (2009) appears a little naïve in this respect. Republicans in the U.S would argue for smaller government with less intervention from central bureaucracies. The key battle the literature omits is the conservative demand for less government intervention (including global government) and the multilateral centralised government approach of more liberal politics. This is qualified by Weiss (2009) when he states ‘most countries, especially major powers, are loath to accept elements of a central authority and the inroads that this would make into their autonomy (p, 143). Then the question must be asked as to how the article expects the global economic apparatus to be deployed on a mass scale. This idea appears to be overly ambitions in its approach considering the massive financial stress that the U.N has suffered since its conception. Helms also states that ‘in the United States, Congress has begun a process of devolution, taking power away from the federal government and returning it to the states. This must be replicated at the international level’ (p, 4). This provides the template for the Republican dismantlement of the UN which began with the Reagan administration in the 1980’s in response to a growing ‘Third World UN’ in the general assembly. If the UN begins to question or challenge the United States then a series of cuts or reforms are brought against the institution to bring it back into line.
Durch (2003) argues that the United Nations has an important role to play in post conflict rebuilding. The United States has a tarnished reputation due to its contentious interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan; the UN can provide impartial third party assistance to countries requiring rebuilding programmes. Such assistance would allow the pressure to be lifted from the United States and allow them to focus their resources on winning the military conflicts. Durch backs this up by arguing that “the recent war against Saddam Hussein neither destroyed nor discredited the United Nations” (p, 195). He further elaborates that in the aftermath of the Iraq war the United Nations carried out the main humanitarian duties: ‘Since the end of the major combat, they have carried much of the load in caring for and feeding the Iraqi people and restoring public services’. Such a role is vital in rebuilding a war torn society and shows that the U.N will step in when individual actors will not. Durch further argues that ‘the UN has a political role to play there as well, drawing on years of experience in devising democratic education, giving electoral advice and conducting elections in war torn developing countries’ (p, 196). This role is one that the United States does not have much experience in, with a tendency to lean towards force protection rather than the hearts and minds of the local populace. This was born out in Vietnam and proved a major downfall in U.S policy in the region. As a direct result of US inexperience the UN plays an important role in rebuilding countries and utilising a post conflict role. The United Nations is able to draw upon a wide range of cultures, languages, political systems, personal experience and infrastructure in dealing with war torn countries and the traumatised populace. Durch further expands that ‘The UN is uniquely equipped with the legitimacy, experience, coordinating ability, and logistics mechanisms to work in post conflict settings, potentially as a partner with regional organizations as their operational capacities evolve’ (p, 196). The United Nations can also portray itself as a sympathetic third party while United States military involvement has left Iraqi citizens with a mounting distrust of the superpower. Helms (1996) directly tackles such a position by stating that the United Nations must ‘recognise its limitations’ (p, 5) and should be used sparingly and mainly to facilitate the relationships of nations states. However Durch makes a convincing argument that the United States and United Kingdom ‘are at the moment, the occupying forces: by comparison, the UN is a reasonably distant third party that can more easily listen to local opinions and adapt to the aspirations of Iraq’s citizens’ (p, 197). Thus in such a situation Durch would advocate that the UN is viewed in a much better light than the tarnished US occupying force. Weiss (2009) explains that “the United States cannot kill or capture its way to victory” and “is unlikely to repeat another Iraq or Afghanistan that is, forced regime change followed by nation building under fire” (p,147). Its capabilities are at full stretch with the rebuilding process in Iraq and continuing war in Afghanistan. The United States should look to take advantage of this multilateral arrangement and have indeed in Afghanistan allowed the UN to take care of policing duties. Weiss (2009) strongly advocates this role for the UN by stating “It is commonplace to sate that many of the most intractable problems are transnational, ranging from climate change, migration, and pandemics to terrorism, financial stability, and the proliferations of weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s). Addressing them successfully requires actions that are not unilateral, bilateral, or even multilateral, but global” (p, 144). The United States must prepare for post conflict situations in Sudan and Sri Lanka where the UN could become an important partner in peace building. Conflicts coming to an end in Liberia, Ivory Coast, Guinea, Ghana, Democratic Republic of Congo, Columbia, Zimbabwe, Burma and North Korea may also require support as they emerge from war ort civil uprising. In essence the UN has supplanted the US as the acceptable front of post conflict restructuring. Durch explains that ‘the United States cannot and probably will not give its full attention to these other crisis zones, whether the need is for peacekeepers or aid providers’ (p, 195). Furthermore other countries and regional actors have less ability to act than the US, creating a niche where the UN is able to operate successfully and without rival. Durch cleverly sums up this issue by stating ‘short of writing off millions of people in the poorest and worst governed parts of the world……who you gonna call?’ (p, 196). It is clear that in the case of Iraq the United States called the United Nations, providing further insight into the dynamic relationship between the two entities.
Case Study-Evolution of Peacekeeping
The removal of the ideological divide at the end of the cold war allowed the United Nations to move back towards the idea of collective security. Peacekeeping missions impartial to the conflicting parties were slowly replaced in the 1990s by peace enforcement with the impartiality being placed on the mandate. The scope of what the U.N. is able to combat was also greatly increased. Chollet and Or (2001) states 'the U.S also looks to the UN for help in combating trans national threats such the international crime, weapons proliferation, environmental degradation and human rights issues such as trafficking in women. In addition, the U.N. member states expect the organisation to assume burdens that no single nation can carry alone- for example, protecting and supporting refugees and internally displaced persons who are innocent victims of natural disasters and armed conflicts' (2001). This massive scope of directly confronts the ideal of a scaled down U.N. proposed by Helms. Collet and Or provided a narrative for the actions of Helms in 2001 after securing UN budgetary reform as put forward in his article ‘Saving the UN’.
Peacekeeping is not mentioned in the United Nations charter and evolved directly from a deadlock between superpowers in the Security Council. Goulding defines peacekeeping simply as “a technique which has been developed, mainly by the United Nations, to help control and resolve armed conflicts” (1993.p, 452). Indeed this technique was adopted as a substitute for collective security in response to stalemate in the Security Council. This approach was necessary to prevent the United States and USSR from becoming embroiled in regional conflicts which could have led to direct confrontation or full scale nuclear war. The Cold War put great pressure on the two superpowers especially in the East where they contended for control over regional conflicts making “it difficult for the Security Council to take effective action to resolve them” (1993p, 453). Collective Security became redundant as a result and the United Nations being a functional organization evolved a system of intervention based on impartiality and restricted use of force.
James (1990) traces the origin of the first peacekeeping mission back to the 1920’s and the maintenance of frontiers in the aftermath of the First World War. The United Nations however officially recognizes the deployment of unarmed observers to Palestine in June 1948 as the first peacekeeping deployment. The first armed force was the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) deployed in response to the Suez crisis of 1956. This operation was used not only to mitigate the conflict but to help France and the Britain save face with the superpowers. As a result they were able to climb down from what had been a military success but a political disaster that threatened to cripple them on the international stage. Both these early operations played a key role in successful conflict resolution. In Palestine an Arab-Israeli Armistice was signed and the Suez intervention diffused a potentially explosive situation allowing Britain and France to withdraw without consequence. The technique of peacekeeping was providing a useful tool for the United States in mitigating conflict and the demand for peacekeeping services increased in the years following Suez (Goulding 1993. p, 452). In the following years peacekeeping had a number of successes specifically centred on the ‘Golden Age’ from 1956 to 1974.
In the latter part of the cold war the USSR’s attitude towards peacekeeping underwent a substantial change. Weiss and Kessler state ‘after a long history of indifference or antagonistic stances towards UN peacekeeping, the USSR has now become one of its most vocal supporters’ (1990. p,124) This shift brought a about a resurgence of the Security council as the superpowers became less hostile towards each other. This reintegration of the Soviet Union and United States allowed Britain, France and China to expand their influence through Security Council access. Ideological conflict between superpower puppets had been largely replaced by intra-state wars in the intervening period. Peacekeeping came to the forefront of the mass media during the late 1980’s and early 1990’s creating an endogenous structure that strengthened both the UN and the Security Council. In response to a renewed co-operation in the Security Council and a disappearance of the ideological divide the idea of peace enforcement was developed, a step closer in practice to collective security than peacekeeping. NATO for example flexed its military power in its intervention in Kosovo in 1999 and allowed the U.S to intervene in a multilateral format. Such action seemed unlikely after Presidential Doctrine 25 opposed US troops being used under direct UN control following the disaster in Somalia in 1992. The delegation of peace missions to regional actors has allowed the United States to act as a partner to the UN. Since 1999 a number of peace enforcement missions have been carried out by regional organisations such as NATO, ECOWAS and the OSCE (Johnston, Tortolani and Gowan 2005. p,57) Furthermore the authors argue that there has been an increase in peace missions carried out by ‘coalitions of the willing’ and individual states. Examples include the Australian intervention in East Timor, the French mission in Cote d’Ivoire and the U.S Coalition involved in Afghanistan and Iraq (p.57). The danger of such regional outfits taking an important role in peace keeping is that their interests will come before that of the humanitarian mission. The United Nations must be decisive and clearly mandate and set the doctrine for such intervention by regional actors. In the case of intervention in Afghanistan the United Nations has been happy to delegate the military role to the ISAF forces. The U.N has legitimised this action by playing a supplemental role and providing policing and tools for peace building. The UN is still an important device for international co-operation; this is shown by the United States returning to the Security Council for legitimacy to its actions in Iraq in 2003. This shows 'that even the lone superpower needs the world body on occasion' (Weiss and Kalbacher, 2008 p. 332) The United Nations can also play an important role in dealing with terrorism on the global stage. Since 1972 the General Assembly has been working on what is now a very current issue that dominates world politics. Sanctions have been imposed on Libya and recently Afghanistan endorsing the US led change of the Taliban regime. The Counter Terrorism Committee (CTC) is responsible for monitoring the implementation of state anti terrorism initiatives. Such action is pro-active and allows the UN to unite the world in anti terrorism legislation. Attention has also been drawn to human rights issues such as Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib much to the United States dissatisfaction.
UN Reform
UN reform is a key issues that runs through a number of academic articles, often tagged on as an afterthought, merely small suggestions or even full scale overhauls are recommend by the various literature. In 1996 Helms argues that ‘The time has come for the United States to deliver an ultimatum: Either the United Nations reforms, quickly and dramatically, or the United States will end its participation’ (p, 7).Such threats run constant throughout his article ‘Saving the UN’ but these arguments become tempered with more constructive suggestions for UN Reform. Suggesting the UN must ‘prove that it is not impervious to reform, and show that is can be downsized, brought under control, and harnessed to contribute to the security needs of the 21st century’ (p, 7). Helms still views the UN as being a useful instrument for facilitating relations between sovereign states while also threatening that he would be ‘leading the charge for U.S withdrawal’ if their was no reform. Weiss (2009) argues that the UN must tackle the four disorders he highlights in his article ‘Toward a Third Generation of International Institutions’. In particular ‘Normative and geopolitical fixes for the ailments of the Westphalian system consist of yet more energetic recalculations of common interests about global goods and respect for international communities’ (p,148). The original intent of the UN to maintain the Westphalian system must be tackled if there is to be a new liberal third generation United Nations. The Conservative politics will always fight an expansion of institutions that increase the size of government. The Security Council is also coming under the spotlight as Germany, Brazil and Japan push for permanent places, something championed by all major parties in the UK General election. Such an expansion will lead to a new dynamic the United States must readjust to. In the end the United States pursuing its own ambitions will look to shape and mould the UN through various instruments such as political pressure and finances. If the UN truly wishes to expand then it must learn to stand up to and confront one of its most powerful and influential members.
Bibliography
Basic Facts about the United Nations 2000 NO.E. 00 I 21
Chollet, Derek and Robert Orr. Carpe Diem: Reclaiming Success at the United Nations. Centre for Strategic and International Studies: The Washington Quarterly. (Autumn 2001)
Cronin, Bruce. The Paradox of Hegemony: America’s Ambiguous Relationship with the United Nations. European Journal of International Relations. (2001)
Durch, William J. Picking up the Peaces: The UN’s Evolving Post Conflict Roles. Centre for Strategic and International Studies: The Washington Quarterly. (2003)
Goulding, Marrack. The Evolution of United Nations Peacekeeping. International Affairs Vol.69. No.3 1993. Blackwell Publishing.
Helms, Jesse. Saving the UN: A Challenge to the Next Secretary-General. Foreign Affairs (1996)
Hirsh, Michael. The Fall Guy; Washington’s Self Defeating Assault on the U.N. Foreign Affairs. (1999)
Hormats, Robert and David Rothkopf. Discussion Document. Prepared for the Carnegie Endowment Strategy Roundtable. (2008)
James, Alan. Peacekeeping in International Politics. London. Macmillan for International Institute for Strategic Studies. 1990
Johnston, Ian. Benjamin Cary Totolani and Richard Gowan : The Evolution of Peacekeeping: Unfinished Business. Center of International Co-operation. New York University. 2005
John Allphin Moore and Jr. Jerry Pubantz. The New United Nations: International Organization in the Twenty-First Century (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006),
Patrick, Stewart. The Best Laid Plans: The origins of American Multilateralism and the Dawn of the Cold war. Lanham, MD:Rowman and Littlefield. 2009
Weiss, Thomas G. Towards a Third Generation of International Institutions: Obama’s UN Policy. Centre for strategic and International Studies: The Washington Quarterly. (July 2009)
Weiss and Kalbacher, 2008. Security Studies: An Introduction, the United Nations. Routledge : London and New York.
Weiss, Thomas G and Kessler, Merly A. Resurrecting Peacekeeping: The Superpowers and Conflict Management. Third Wold Quarterly. Vol 12. 1990
Williams, Paul. Security Studies an Introduction. Routledge: New York. 2009
