With President Obama's foreign policy agenda the last two weeks spinning at a dizzying pace, the question today: Is the UN still relevant in US foreign policy. Or is it just a cool vacation spot with friendly guard dogs as my son found out this summer when he met Charlie (pictured at right). My guess is that Charlie was a bit busier this week.Comment on the political cartoons posted here, and blog your brain.....Does the UN still matter?
__________________
Diplomatic Spinning
(From CBS 2 School)
In the political world, spinning usually means shaping the news with you unique perspective. Barack Obama will show his version of spinning this busy week as he works to keep China plates, Russian tea cups and host of other foreign policy issues balanced and stable.
Unlike the circus performer who keeps dozens of plates spinning at the same time, a President’s job as chief diplomat never reaches a grand climax. His team must always keep the plates spinning with some occasional breakage and plenty of unexpected drama added over the course of the presidential term.
A look at last weekthe rest of this week in Obama’s foreign policy challenges reveals a dizzying fete for any head of state:
A look at last weekthe rest of this week in Obama’s foreign policy challenges reveals a dizzying fete for any head of state:
Europe The big news of the last week included Obama’s decision to move away from the Bush-era missile defense shield in Eastern Europe.
Russia loved the move as a gesture by the Americans to move its weapons off of Russia’s front porch. But Poland, the Czech Republic and other Eastern European allies are wondering if this news is a sign of a weaker relationship with the Americans.
Iran Because of the likelihood that Iran is pursuing the development of nuclear weapons, Team Obama is not willing to scrap the concept of a missile shield network. His administration announced its intent to move toward a smaller, more flexible missile shield that will initially be Naval based.
It’s also thought that his move away from Eastern Europe will help make the Russians more willing to pressure Iran away from developing nuclear weapons.
U.N. and G20 President Obama will have plenty of opportunities to discuss these and other topics with Russian President Dimitry Medvedev this week.The two leaders will be among the dozens of heads of state expected to attend the opening of the newest United Nations session this week.After the high- level meetings in New York, Obama will meet with more leaders at the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh at the end of the week. This group is comprised of the 20 largest economies in the world, and issues related to trade and the global recession will be addressed.
China Of course you can’t talk global economic politics without talking about and to the Chinese.Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao are expected to meet to discuss a range of issues including the recent move by the U.S. to hike tariffs on tires made in China.American labor unions have accused the Chinese of illegally dumping foreign-made tires on the U.S. market to drive down prices and harm American manufacturers. Obama responded by hiking the tariffs. The Chinese will certainly want to discuss this as well as the possibility of raising their tariffs on some American products.
Chicago In yet another example of the adage that “all politics is local,” President Obama will also spend the next week considering whether to help sell the idea of Chicago as an Olympic host.The International Olympic Committee will announce the host city in early October, and Obama is said to be considering a last-minute visit to the IOC meetings to push for his hometown.
If he makes the trip, we suggest that he also push for plate spinning to be added as an Olympic sport. He’d clearly be a frontrunner for the gold medal
9 comments:
If the U.N. doesn't matter, then it should.
The U.S. dominance of international politics is a holdover from the cold war when everyone had to help us contain the "Evil Empire." Now that that's over, it's time to start the transition towards world government. Nationalism (or tribalism, according to that quiztest) is an impediment to unity. Disunity is an impediment to planetary success. Take a look at a typical sci-fi movie. The successful planets (Coruscant, Star-Trek Earth, etc) are the ones with unified planetary government. The ones with factions end up as war zones (c.f. Arrikas, Tatooine, Skaro in the first season of Dr Who). A United Nations (or something similar) is pretty much the only way (short of total extermination of the human race) to keep order. We can either (1) convince the world to obey the U.N. or (2) take over the planet ourselves through McWorld-esque means.
I don't know if the UN was ever a very strong force. I remember watching that movie "Hotel Rwanda" and seeing how ineffective the UN peacekeeping forces were. They couldn't fire upon hostiles unless they were fired upon first. I guess it's sort of a state-vs-nation power struggle on a grander scale, with the nation being the world and the states being the individual countries. The world will always be hesitant to give the UN more power, unless some horrible impending event is just over the horizon and that seems to be the only option.
Alex, you said that the UN is the only rational way to keep order. Does that mean that you think that President Obama's efforts to better diplomatic relations with Russia and Iran are futile?
I think the U.N. has become less relevant to U.S. foreign policy because American leaders have consistently undervalued and gone around U.N. decisions. As such a powerful country, we serve as a powerful example to other nations for good or bad. When we keep circumventing the U.N., other nations get a powerful cue about how to act towards the organization.
I believe the UN has the power to make themselves matter. My sister had an internship with UNICEF last summer, and she had the opportunity to view the workings of the UN first hand. However, she told me that she was disappointed in the work effort of those that work there. For example, the UN hired 3 full-time positions just to write picture captions on the UNICEF website. That is their only duty. This is a waste of resources and potential. However, the UN could be more influential if it wanted to be.
I think that the concept of the UN is great idea but I feel that many countries would rather solve an issue themselves than place it in the hands of the UN. With threats such as terrorism and the crisis in the Middle East, it seems as if counties like America want to be responsible in making decisions to acquire peace. I think that if the UN focused on one significant issue at a time, instead of multiple ones, maybe then it could have a greater impact throughout the world.
I recognize my heavy bias as Model UN President, but having an institutional forum for nations to engage in diplomacy is crucial in our increasingly globalized world. It helps to bring peace and understanding to the absurdly complex world we live in.
The idea of the United Nations, I believe is important, I believe it is important for the world nations to come together in order to initiate policy and to make the world a better place for everyone. The only problem with the United Nations is its ineffectiveness. As Corey had said previously, when the UN went into Rwanda they were not allowed to fire on hostiles or rebels and were basically figureheads that were just very ineffective. I believe we should have a United Nations but it should hold more power because it has the potential to accomplish many great feats.
I believe that the UN could be a very impactful force. Because the actual idea was to help the world to come together in order to initiate policy, help each other and live peacefully. People around the world undervalue it thus it has become an institution with very little power. Nations have become arrogant and believe they can handle their own issues when it is better to work together and the UN is a great forum to work together. By having faith in the UN, the world still can be more peaceful since there is still potential.
I think the UN was a great idea in theory and I am a proponent for it as it sends the right message of peace globally. Yet, in practice, I can understand how individual nations, even the United States, have trouble putting the UN and international ideas first. This is in the sense that individual countries and its governments have an innate sense of patriotism and nationalism and this contradicts the UN's goals at times. I feel it is a hard struggle for governments to appease world leaders and other nations while at the same time keeping traditions and beliefs of a nation's own citizens in mind.
Post a Comment