Where Do We Go from Here?

1948 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 135-141
Author(s):  
Bryce Wood
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
United Nations ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Indirect Aggression ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The United Nations

These four publications appeared in the latter half of 1947 but all of them were written near the middle of the year. Three of them deal directly with the policy which the United States should adopt toward the Soviet Union. The concern of Mr. Armstrong at first seems to be limited to “the two main objectives of American foreign policy”: “to help Europe live and to strengthen the United Nations.” Subsequently, however, although Mr. Armstrong is nowhere explicit on this point, it appears that these are techniques, rather than objectives, for the first would avert the “planned social and economic disintegration” furthered by the Soviet Union, while the second would diminish the effectiveness of Moscow's policy of “indirect aggression.” It is, therefore, not unreasonable to include Mr. Armstrong among those offering answers to the question: Where do we go from here in seeking equilibrium and even an accord with the Kremlin?

The United States, Belgium, and the Congo Crisis of 1960

1967 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence S. Kaplan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
American Imperialism ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Congo Crisis ◽  
The Government

Involvement in the Congo crisis of 1960 illustrates dramatically an American dilemma in foreign policy: the apparent incompatibility between the nation's emotional rejection of colonialism and the burdens of world leadership which include the consequences of anticolonialism. In 1960 the United States joined the Soviet Union in expediting the removal of the NATO partner, Belgium, from the Congo, helped to increase the power of the United Nations in the Congo at the expense of Belgian interests, and used its influence to destroy the Western-oriented regime of Moise Tshombe of secessionist Katanga. But in 1964 the United States was largely responsible for replacing the United Nations' forces in the Congo with Belgian troops; in 1965 the United States supported Tshombe's government in Leopoldville; and in 1966 and 1967 the United States joined Belgium in an uneasy vigil over the government of General Joseph Mobutu. It is not surprising that its efforts should have been interpreted by communists as American imperialism, by Africans as neocolonialism, and by many allies either as incorrigible naiveté or as hypocrisy.

The United Nations and the United States

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Getchell
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Policy ◽  
Wrong Side ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Cold War

The United States was heavily involved in creating the United Nations in 1945 and drafting its charter. The United States continued to exert substantial clout in the organization after its founding, though there have been periods during which U.S. officials have met with significant opposition inside the United Nations, in Congress, and in American electoral politics, all of which produced struggles to gain support for America’s international policy goals. U.S. influence in the international organization has thus waxed and waned. The early postwar years witnessed the zenith of American prestige on the global stage. Starting in the mid- to late 1950s, as decolonization and the establishment of newly independent nations quickened, the United States began to lose influence in the United Nations owing to the spreading perception that its alliances with the European colonial powers placed it on the wrong side of history. As U.N. membership skyrocketed, the organization became more responsive to the needs and interests of the decolonizing states. During the 1970s and early 1980s, the American public responded to declining U.S. influence in the United Nations with calls to defund the organization and to pursue a unilateral approach to international challenges. The role of the United States in the United Nations was shaped by the politics of the Cold War competition with the Soviet Union. Throughout the nearly five decades of the Cold War, the United Nations served as a forum for the political and ideological rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union, which frequently inhibited the organization from fulfilling what most considered to be its primary mission: the maintenance of global security and stability. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the peaceful end of the Cold War, the United States enjoyed a brief period of unrivaled global hegemony. During this period, U.S. officials pursued a closer relationship with the United Nations and sought to use the organization to build support for its international policy agenda and military interventionism.

The United States, The United Nations and Bi-Polar Politics

1950 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 573-584 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward H. Buehrig
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Politics ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Actual Effect ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Natural Expression

The United Nations cannot be expected to abolish the balancing process, which is the natural expression of the struggle for advantage and influence in international politics. It does, however, endeavor to modify the process. What are the methods which it employs? What actual effect have they had in promoting security? Above all, what relevance do they have for the conduct of American foreign policy?

Britain, the United States and the Soviet Union in the United Nations Commission of Investigation in Greece, January – May 1947

1993 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 243-263
Author(s):  
Thanasis D. Sfikas
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The United Nations

(The Melians to the Athenians, 416/15 BC)We see that you have come prepared to judge the arguments yourselves.… If we surrender, then all our hope is lost at once, whereas, so long as we remain in action, there is still a hope that we may yet stand upright.… We put our trust … in the help of men – that is of the Spartans.

No War Without Dictatorship, No Peace Without Democracy: Foreign Policy as Domestic Politics

1985 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 176-191
Author(s):  
Aaron Wildavsky
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Structural Basis ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Foreign Policies ◽  
The Government

I wish to consider the possibility that a good part of the opposition to the main lines of American foreign policy is based on deep-seated objections to the political and economic systems of the United States. This is not to say that existing policy is necessarily wise or that there may not be good and sufficient reasons for wishing to change it. Indeed, at any time and place, the United States might well be overestimating the threat from the Soviet Union or using too much force. What I wish to suggest is that across-the-board criticism of American policy as inherently aggressive and repressive, regardless of circumstance – a litany of criticism so constant that it does not alert us to the need for explanation – has a structural basis in the rise of a political culture that is opposed to existing authority.To the extent that this criticism is structural, that is, inherent in domestic politics, the problem of fashioning foreign policies that can obtain widespread support is much more difficult than it is commonly perceived to be. For if the objection is to American ways of life and, therefore, “to the government for which it stands,” only a transformation of power relationships at home, together with a vast redistribution of economic resources, would satisfy these critics. If the objection is not only to what we do but, more fundamentally, to who we are, looking to changes in foreign policy to shore up domestic support is radically to confuse the causal connections and, therefore, the order of priorities.

The United States Mission to the United Nations

1953 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Channing B. Richardson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
United Nations ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Foreign Policy ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
United Nations System

It has now become quite axiomatic to say that United States participation in the United Nations system is having an effect upon the substance I of United States foreign policy. What is not so well known as yet is that this participation is the cause for the creation of a new piece of machinery I for aiding the conduct of our foreign policy. Established in 1946 as the United States Delegation to the United Nations, this new outpost of the Department of State illustrates in its organization and operation many of the changes which have come about as bilateral diplomacy has given way to multilateral, “conference-type” United Nations diplomacy. Located at the headquarters of the international organization in New York City, the permanent Mission and its work are symbols of the importance and endless variety of problems posed for American foreign policy by our membership in and support for the United Nations. Since it is still in the process of development, the following study of the organization and role of the United States Mission to the United Nations should be taken as a preliminary analysis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document