I would like to talk about the concept of American leadership and how policymakers have to make choices about where and how to lead. It is very interesting that both Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger believe in having a grand strategy for the United States in international relations overall, but very understandable as both former Secretaries of State have been in the position where they held the power.
In my paper, I analyzed the role of the United States in the United Nations because I believe that to be a good example of its leadership in the international realm. This position of authority, which is earned from the amount of money we contribute and our role as a superpower, allows us to make reforms that the current administration holds most important. For example, the Obama administration focused on the economy, accountability, integrity, and effectiveness involved in the United Nations. Since they are a part of the Security Council and have veto power, they already demonstrate legitimacy in this worldwide organization.
For these reasons, I argue that American foreign policymakers should always take the United Nations into consideration when making their decisions about international leadership. Albright most likely did since she was the United States Ambassador to the United Nations prior to her role as Secretary of State. Kissinger's previous position was National Security Advisor. That would be an interesting topic for further research: what effects did their previous positions have on how they handled their Secretary of State roles?
Doesn't the United Nations also take relatively long in coming out with a decision? Lets say there is a war about to break out, should every country wait to see what the United Nations Security council declares? What if the countries on this council find the proposition goes against their national interest?
ReplyDeleteUS foreign policy makers might end up having to disregard the UN Security council in some instances because they will not be able to fully accomplish what they may seem as needed
They may take awhile to come to a decision, but that would also imply that they have fully considered the consequences of their actions. I don't understand the instance you are talking about if a war is about to break out because from my perspective that would happen regardless of UN involvement and that would merely play a role in deciding what to do after it breaks out. I agree that they would have to disregard the Security Council, but maybe not the vote of the general assembly. They may choose to go against it, but I think it should always be a factor of consideration.
ReplyDelete