How about reducing the size of the UN? Right now, its a bloated cow, which expends huge amounts of money for very little result. And, move it to a neutral, small nation (like Switzerland). The, the third world diplomats can run up parking tickets with the Swiss police! The UN right now tries to do too damn much, it should stick to peacekeeping, world health issues, and environmental issues. I don’t feel like funding their “cultural” efforts, or any of the other dozens of worthless enterprises that it indulges in.
When the UN was first formed, there was reason to assign veto rights to Britain,France, China, the Soviet Union and the States ,all countries relatively equal in power. Well close enough. Things have changed and now America has an economy and military might that on its own could virtually assert its will anywhere, and no other country comes close. It is inconceivable that America would as a matter of rule subject themselves to the dictates of the security council or veto of another country contrary to it own perceived security requirements.
The UN will have to redefine itself if it is to remain relevant and maintain US funding. I can see a future treaty where in exchange for a single veto of the security council, the US agrees to abide by security council decisions of sufficient majority. In that case, the US could be voted down, but could override proposed resolutions.
If the rest of the world is to have any control at all on America’s power, eventually the UN charter will have to be renegotiated.
“In 1945 the US had a much larger share of the world economy and world trade. Much of the world was dependent on the US for its defense against the Soviet Union. It was the only nuclear power. Sure today it’s the “only superpower” but in most other ways its relative share of world power has gone down. In any case my point was that in the 1945 the four major WW2 allies the US, USSR, Britain and France who founded the UN had more power than the US alone does today. That is true regardless of which way you look at it.”
Ok the US and USSR combined has more power then the US today has alone. Not an indication that the US had more power back then. The US does have a smaller share of the world market today then it did back then considering that much more of the world is industrialized. But also consider the US did not have any influence over the largest markets in the world - China and even the USSR. And those two contries had influence over others. The US actually has military and economic influence over more of the world then it did back then. Its biggest enemies are getting vital aid and investments from the US so it now has some power over them too. One of them China is the worlds largest market and had influence throughout Asia which prevented the US from influencing those countries. So not only does the US have less threats to its power but it has power over its formal threats. I would say that makes them stronger.
“Maybe not but there isn’t a single major country in the world apart from the US which wants a new institution like the UN. Kindly explain which countries will follow the US in forming such an institution. Explain how it would be better suited to the US interest than the UN currently is.”
Well considering the conditions that I originally said would be necessary for the UN to collapse I would say every country the US isn’t at war with. How would it be better suited for US interests. Thats for the US government to decide I could only speculate.
"“World opinion is know as widely as it is today because of US military politics. "
Huh? Public opinion around the world matters because governments around the world , whether they are democratic or not, have to pay attention to their public if they want to survive. If public opinion around the world hates the US, governments around the world will co-operate less with the US in ,say, hunting down terrorists or providing the US with bases or helping pay for US-led wars.”
Public opinion doesn’t matter in North Korea. Public opinion matters “less” in Russia. Public opinion matters less and is less aparent in China. The world knows how important public opinion is in the US and will use it to its advantage. If public opinion wasn’t so important in the US the so called world community would react differently.
People don’t regard the UN with is much respect as you think. They just use it to carry out there agenda when its necessary as does the US.
“If the US leaves the UN and acts outside the UN framework it will be regarded as being less legitimate as a world power. That’s just a fact of life.”
No it won’t and that idea has no basis. If the US acts outside the framework of the Un which it already does and always has others will use it as an excuse to do the same until it is realized the UN needs to be replaced. The US does not act inside the UN framework it just goes to the UN to fabricate some kind of world support for its issues.
Again, or rather, I am still confused with this “legitimacy” issue. In what sense does the UN lend legitamacy to what the US can do independently.
For example. The US is trying to broker a deal with Turkey where it will give Turkey grants and loans of nearly 20 Billion dollars for its use of its bases for an attack in Iraq. That is not thru the UN because on top of that, it will guarantee another 16 Billion in IMF loans that will be thru the UN. It will sponsor Turkeys admission into the European Union (which kinda puzzles me since the US is not part of Europe or its union). These, the US can do without the UN influence.
Please correct me if I am wrong in detail or logic, but how does the UN come into any of that? What sort of ligitimacy is lost when the US can approve Billions of dollars in aid, loans and grants, not to mention partnerships in business markets and military mutual protection pacts?
I’m enjoying the discussion, but could you guys use the “quote” function. It helps us lurkers a lot.
I think that the discussion about the relative power of the US now and in 1945 is a little beside the point. But there are several reasons why the America’s share of world power is lower today which I haven’t mentioned:
1)nuclear proliferation. The US had a nuclear monopoly in 1945. Today more and more countries have the capacity to develop nukes if they want. Even two-bit countries like North Korea can threaten the US mainland.
2)terrorism: The fact is that US military power is of marginal signficance in busting terrorists cells hiding in some foreign country. This was underlined by the arrest of the top Alquaeda operative in Pakistan a couple of days back. The fact is that the US is heavily dependent on foreign governments to deal with terrorism.
3)Economic “power” is a double-edged sword. For instance it’s true that other countries rely on the US export market to generate some of their growth. The flip side of this however is that the US has massive trade deficits which are financed by the rest of the world. If the foreigners lose confidence in the US economy, then those trade deficits are unsustainable and there will be a sharp recession in the US.
“Public opinion matters “less” in Russia. Public opinion matters less and is less aparent in China.”
You seem to be under the impression that public opinion matters only in full-fledged democacies. Not so. Authoritarian leaders who don’t listen to their public opinon are in dangers of facing revolution as the Shah of Iran and the Tzar found out.
“People don’t regard the UN with is much respect as you think.”
How do you know this? Actually opinion polls indicate that even in the US there is a large section of the public which is concerned about what the UN says. It’s much larger in other countries especially in Europe.
“Again, or rather, I am still confused with this “legitimacy” issue. In what sense does the UN lend legitamacy to what the US can do independently.”
Public opinion in many countries cares about what the UN decides. For instance support for war is a lot higher if there is UN sanction. This makes it easier to persuade governments to support the US. It reduces the cost to the US in terms of paying off such governments and it increases the chances of success.
As the recent rejection by the Turkish parliament showed even big aid packages don’t necessarily produce agreement. It would be a lot easier if Turkish public opinion was less opposed to the war.
The reasons you gave for the decline in US power don’t necessarily show a decline in US power. Your terrorist argument is off topic in my opinion. It has nothing to do with a decline in US power but more like an increase. As a matter of fact most of the defiances you mention from the UN and from terrorists only show that the US has gained to much power. The dependency on foreign states to fight terrorism doesn’t show a decline in power but strength. Not only that but it is a chosen policy. How many nations can get that amount of cooperation on a war on terror?
Economic power a double edged sword. Ok but thats not supporting your point. Are you to say that having increased economic power gives you a decrease in power?
“You seem to be under the impression that public opinion matters only in full-fledged democacies. Not so. Authoritarian leaders who don’t listen to their public opinon are in dangers of facing revolution as the Shah of Iran and the Tzar found out.”
Well thats fine becuase I never made that argument. I just said public opinion matters less in those countries. Let me stress the less in those countries.
“How do you know this? Actually opinion polls indicate that even in the US there is a large section of the public which is concerned about what the UN says. It’s much larger in other countries especially in Europe.”
Concern and respect are to different things. You are making a completely different point. I hope you can understand that the UN is an institution people use for their own advantage. That does not indicate respect any more than pimp’s concern for his whore. European’s show concern for UN issues or decisions because it is a way for them to check US power and in some ways impose their will. Further proving my point with your own ideas; if the US left the UN it wouldn’t be a very usefull institution and it would be replaced.
“In what sense does the UN lend legitamacy to what the US can do independently.”
It doesn’t. The UN’s respect for sovereignty is hipocritical. A bunch of nations get together to force their will on another nation all baised on a loosely knit global community. When the UN doesn’t fit their agenda they do what they want. The idea that the UN lends legitamacy to what the US can do independently is the fault of the US. When they can get support from the UN they take advantage of this idea but when they can’t it works against them. It’s their own fault.
Hmm I didn’t see your reply. Anyway some quick points:
About terrorism: The US is a lot more vulnerable than it has ever been to attacks on the homeland. By any reasonable measure that would seem to indicate a decline in its power. As for the co-operation that it is getting there is a price that it has to pay. For instance it has had to turn the other way when Pakistan supplied nuclear technology to North Korea. As such it has become increasingly dependent on other countries for its security That is not an increase in its power; quite the opposite.
“Economic power a double edged sword. Ok but thats not supporting your point. Are you to say that having increased economic power gives you a decrease in power?”
I think the point is that just as the world is dependent on exports to the US for some of its growth the US is dependent on the rest of the world to finance its current accounts deficits. Trade isn’t much of a source of “power” unless the US wants to damage its own economy.
As for the rest you seem to be missing the point. Public opinion around the world cares about what the UN says. That is demonstrated in countless polls. Governments in varying degrees care about their public. Therefore if the US works outside the UN framework it will have a harder time persuading governments to carry out the policies it wants.
serenitynow: “A more accurate statement would be that many Americans think that the rest of the world won’t do anything and that lack of action will lead to problems that will end up costing American money and American lives. I am sure that WWI and WWII would be cited as examples.”
Kindly explain how either WWI or WWII can be described as exampes of the world outside of the US not doing anything prior to US involvement.
Or were you simply providing an example of a hopelessly ignorant American opinion?
<<What would happen to the UN if the USA pulls out of it? >>
It would be an absolute disaster. Those countries still in the UN would face a minefield of politically sensitive decisions. Diplomacy would be stretched to breaking point.
Not least over: “Who the hell picks up the tab for lunch now?”
Perhaps my ignorance isn’t hopeless, but I think that you are misinterpreting what I said. Your misreading of what I said is patent in your question, which asks about “examples of the world outside the US not doing anything prior to US involvement.” Nowhere in my statement did I say anything about lack of action until US involvement. So let’s look at what I said, and then I will answer your question based on what I said, as opposed to your interpretation of what I said. (Ugh! That sounds really haughty, and I don’t mean it to, so please don’t read an attitude into this. I have re-read what I wrote several times to see what I said, and to see if I was sloppy in my wording, but my reading of what I wrote accurately says what I meant, I think, and what I think I said is not what you think I said. So let’s see if I can make it more clear, or at least prove that I am more ignorant than you previously thought.)
My statement can be summarized in two parts.
First, that many Americans think that the rest of the world won’t do anything. This is in direct contrast to the quote to which I was responding, which attributed to Americans the belief that “the rest of the world is helpless without them and that anything they try to do on their own will ultimately fail.” I will readily admit that my response was a generalization that was based on the generalization of the original quote to which I was responding. That generalization is not one I would prefer to make because certainly it would not apply to many countries who take a more proactive approach in world affairs. It does however apply to the Iraq situation at hand, if you consider the “rest of the world” to be the UN.
Second, I said “that lack of action will lead to problems that will end up costing American money and American lives.” Notice that I specifically did not say lack of action by the rest of the world, or lack of action by the UN. Nor did I exclude the US from the phrase “lack of action.” I simply said “lack of action.” Apparently you interpreted this to mean “lack of action until the US becomes involved.” That is not what I said, I don’t think, and it is not what I meant. What I was referring to specifically was the dangers of lack of action as pertained to the current situation in Iraq. I had in mind, and I think I accurately stated, the official American position (which obviously not all Americans subscribe to) that the danger of doing nothing with regard to Iraq will lead to Americans being killed both domestically and abroad, and that the costs of doing nothing far exceed the cost of handling the problem, even if it must be handled unilaterally.
In discussions with many of my European friends, I have often heard that Americans are poor students of history when it comes to international relations and foreign policy. While to some extent, that is a fair criticism, I think the current US policy demonstrates a better appreciation for modern history than does the position of France, for example. This leads to your question, which I will reword slightly to remove what I consider to be a faulty premise.
Let’s take WWII, since it is the most recent and does not involve some of the complicated politics involved in WWI. In 1936, Hitler moved troops into the Rhineland, which was a violation of the Treaty of Versailles. Britain and France condemned the move, but took no action. In 1938, Hitler moved troops into the Anschluss, also in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. Britain’s Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, felt that taking an agressive stance with Germany would destroy the possibility of future negotiations, so nothing was done. The US was in a isolationist phase, and they likewise did nothing. Hitler then moved troops into Czechoslovakia. The French and English continued with their policy of appeasement. This is the same policy the French currently advocate with Iraq (although they would not use that word.) Hitler moved troops from Sudetenland throughout the rest of Czechosolvakia, in direct violation of a promise made at a summit in Munich with France and the UK. Again, they did nothing in response, other than to be surprised that a maniac dictator would lie to them. It was only after the Germans subsequently invaded Poland that the French and English declared war. It was almost two more years before the US would get involved.
So what has the US learned from this? First, I think they have learned the isolationism is bad policy and that it leads to problems. Second, I think they have learned that appeasement does not work, and that you cannot trust a ruthless dictator to act honorably. Third, I think the US has learned that doing nothing in the short run can cost large amounts in the long run. The US isolationist policy and the French and English policy of appeasement cost thousands upon thousands of lives. While a violation of the Versailles Treaty was not an American concern in the pure sense, it was a concern in reality, and the US failed miserably in not acting quickly to address the matter.
Now that the US is choosing not to make the same mistake, I think an argument that their position means “Americans think that the rest of the world is helpless without them and that anything they try to do on their own will ultimately fail” is both unfair and wrong.
Hopefully, this clears up the misunderstanding, and by the way, I understand that my charaterization of the French policy prior to the invasion of Poland is a little unfair, as they were in favor of taking action after Hitler moved into the Rhineland, but were unable to do so without British support. By the time they went to Munich (which was a different government following elections), however, I think that appeasement accurately describes their policy. A complete look at all of the politics involved and the critical role of Russia in all of this would make this response even longer, and if it is possible, more boring.
Who decides about what are the threats to peace and security? Bush, the man about to launch the mother of all wars?
Who writes most of multilateral treaties? Bush, the man that spits on multiletarism.
Who provides a forum for the peacefull discussion and sometimes even the solutions to international conflicts? Bush (see above).
This are three examples of things done by the U.N. If I cared to use my brain I will come with lots more. If we replace the U.N. at this time of history it will for institution dominated by U.S.A and it’s dwindling number of allies. No thanks as we say in spanish “Mejor mal conocido que bien por conocer”.