Following the recent turmoil in Afghanistan and the Middle East, many voices are calling for a reevaluation of US. Foreign policy. Many claim that the realist patterns used in the past have more than once lead the western world to face cases in which yesterday’s friend is today’s enemy. In moving from bipolarism of two superpowers to a new reality, many changes have taken place, and the rules of the game must change in respect to the new global power distribution. Once the scale is not balanced as before, shifting is bound to occur, pulling all nations, no matter if they are active participants or innocent bystanders in a vortex of change.
The question of what the US foreign policy should look like in the next decade is one of great essence: obvious alternatives are to choose between an idealist and a realist view. Subscribing to the idealist viewpoint, the US may feel encouraged to put faith in organizations such as the Untied Nations to withhold aggressors, and to bring peace and security. Relying on the liberal belief that order will prevail and that the powers of the world can come together in harmonious co- existence may lead the US to reducing military and security issues and concentrating on more ethical agendas such as human rights, fighting poverty, the environment, etc. As the world population morally matures and begins to try and mend some of the illnesses that fester it, there is a call for people to transcend nationalities and local interests and look at the big picture. Although global problems cannot be denied, real poverty, hunger, disease, discrimination, and war, are not the top items of the national to do list anywhere. If the energy and resources invested in territorial dispute and security issues could be harnessed to solve international problems, which we all share, they would no doubt be solved.
If a realist view is subscribed to, the US will not allow any competing ideology to cause a breach in the security of the American people. Realism mandates that US interest is served best if the US is powerful and well protected from external aggression. It is my belief that it is crucial that the US maintain a realist approach to foreign policy in order to protect its status as a super power in the world, and a representative of the free world. If anything, the terrorist attacks of September 11th teach us that even when we consider the world to be on its way to becoming sane and civilized, there will always be groups that will not share western views and beliefs, or for what ever other reason act violently. Therefore, in our also human efforts to eschew war and pursue peace we cannot change the nature -- the aggressive nature -- of the prime elements in the international mix”(Walker, H. B.). Another interesting lesson history teaches us is that tipping the scales of power creates turbulence. Vacuums of power quickly filled by opportunist parties that try to get their way. Some sort of power or power balance to maintain sanity in the world must replace a decrease in US power.
A pivotal question effecting this decision is whether or not there is a global power that can play this part. Many ask whether or not the UN can be effective in promoting peace, security and justice. The question of authority and control over world nations is a critical one. The UN was established on 24 October 1945 by 51 countries, to maintain international peace and security, to develop friendly relations among nations, to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human rights, and to be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations. In his book, Analyzing Politics, Ellen Grigsby offers three factors, in which the UN attempts to promote global interests. Serving as the stepping-stone for international diplomacy and communication, the UN can be the means to ending violence between countries. “...it provides a forum for international debate among diverse governments and this debate can foster greater understanding among countries. In turn, greater understanding can promote diplomatic and nonviolent relations among states...”(Grigsby 248). The UN has been shown to be able to promote not only human security, but also military security as well. “The United Nations can be a very useful instrument to advance American goals in controlling the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Indeed, American officials privately concede that the increasingly robust rules of inspection of the International Atomic Energy Authority have imposed a transparency on countries like Iran that have made it far more difficult for them to join the nuclear club.”(Walker, M.). Clearly the UN has the ability to weaken national boundaries and allow people from all nations to take part in global issues such as human rights, colonialism, racism, “...the United Nations provide citizens and social movements an arena for participating in politics beyond the borders of their own countries”(Grigsby 248). Although it comes across as an ideal mediator that may facilitate advancements on a global scale, the UN suffers limitations that damage its ability to live up to its promise. Due to the fact that the UN is a NGO, it has no means of financing itself through taxation, and it has no military abilities. Funds are collected from member countries in order to fund its operations and soldiers must be recruited from member states to create an intervention force, making the UN dependent on its members. The second and perhaps more important problem is that the UN does not operate in a vacuum; it relies on the governments that are its members and is subjected to the their hierarchical order, “Thus as some critics point out, the United Nations is actually dominated by superpowers states, such as the United states” (Grigsby 249). This is exemplified by how international jurisdiction is either ignored by governments in an attempt to maintain sovereignty, and in the blocking of UN intervention by the superpowers. “...certain lessons seemed apparent. If the UN was to be effective there needed to be, as Abdul Nasser's dismissal of UNEF had shown, a certain minimum level of consent on the part of the countries involved. Secondly, there had to be a willingness to allow it to work on the part of the major powers”(Walker, H. B.). The interests of the super powers, namely the US, are not entrusted into the care of the UN due to the fact that it is not yet ready to carry such a load. “The scope for UN action is markedly less for two simple reasons: this time the former colonies are contiguous to the great power; and this time it is one of the two most powerful countries on earth that does not want significant UN intervention” (Walker, M.).
