US Foreign Policy - Multilateralism?
You read in class from your book the basic elements of US foreign policy. In particular, we discussed unilateral and multilateral responses to foreign policy challenges. We also watched President Obama deliver a recent speech on the United States response to foreign threats in the 21st century. In particular, the President stated that the past administration had made a grave mistake on our intervention in Iraq, ... "they used 20th century logic in dealing with a 21st century problem".
Please respond to President Obama's speech - does he make the point that we need a multilateral response to threats? Do we also need to consult with the United Nations before we respond to a threatening act by a nation or group?
Watch the speech again here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1knWWGQUhY
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteyes, Obama clearly stated the need of a multilateral response to threats of the 21st century. in his speech he stated that "America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, but the world could not meet the threats of the 21st century without America." Obama establishes the need for global cooperation and establishes the role of America in leading this united front.Unfortunately, i feel that the United States at this time is in no position to be leading the world in terms of global cooperation as we have not been the role model that the world needs.our current position in afghanistan and iraq and the prolonged (nearly 10 year) war only seek to supplant the efforts to be a model nation and a leader for the world.
ReplyDeleteI believe it is necessary to consult with the United Nations before responding to threatening acts by other nations of groups, so long as the group is foreign. any domestic issues are reserved to be dealt with as the U.S. government sees fit but once responding to international affairs, affairs that occur between different nations, then consultation with the United Nations is necessary. The purpose of the united nations, according to our current issues book on page 15-2 is to maintain international peace, develop friendly ties between nations, solve international problems, and to promote human rights. Therefore it is necessary to use the UN as it was designed to be used. i believe that the first step towards the united states becoming a leader of the world in the global community is to take more action through the UN. this could increase the legitimacy and authority of the UN if superpowers like the US relied on the united nations.
When looking again at this speech Obama is definitely in favor of multilateralism in today’s world. He makes a point of saying that no matter what kind of threat it is: terrorism, disease or climate change, these kinds of things can no longer be solved within borders. He also said something similar to what our textbook said, that if America starts cooperating with others, it may ease tensions with countries that do not like us, or may inspire nations that look up to us to do the same. Obama points out mistakes of the past administration, particularly the response to 9/11 as an example of when unilateralism failed; therefore it only makes sense to try a new tactic. The president is opposed to the war in Iraq, he believes that it was “based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the threats that 9/11 brought to light” and “based on old ideologies and outdated strategies – a determination to fight a 21st century struggle with a 20th century mindset.” This was an excellent point made on how much of a failure the U.S.’s response was compared to how well it could have been handled if done properly.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I am unsure if we need to consult the UN before acting. I think in theory it is a good idea to do, because the UN can make a collective decision to aid us with troops or supplies in our decision. In addition, I would want all countries to seek help from the UN when they make big decisions so they do not carelessly attack each other. In this case I would hope that the UN can act as a voice of reason and convince those countries that war is not the answer. However, sometimes the UN takes a long time with decisions, and even then sometimes their actions are futile. I’m no historian, but I can’t really think of many situations where the UN was successful at peace keeping in a war-torn country. So in that respect maybe it’s best not to consult the UN because it can waste time when quick actions and decisions need to be made. As a whole, I am in favor of countries consulting the UN before responding to a threat. Doing so may save lives or help make a peaceful world in general.
President Obama truly represented the need of multilateralism in today's society during his speech. Obama said that the Bush administration used a 20th century response to the 9/11 attack rather than using 21st century response. This meant that the Bush administration used unilateralism (Made their own decision without consulting with the UN on their final response to the 9/11 attack) instead of the multilateral response (Consulting with the UN to determine the final response to the 9/11 attack).
ReplyDeleteThe United Nations consists of 190 countries, in my opinion, this amount of countries is not an adequate number in order to have a sufficient final solution to major global conflicts. After all no system is perfect, the UN is still a small organization which has the potential to become even more effective to our world community when resolving major global disputes in the near future. It appears that with so many countries determining the future of a single issue is almost impossible to compromise over. Since the U.S. is a major leading country in the UN, I feel that the United States should continue to resolve major conflicts with the jurisdiction of other UN countries as well. The Bush administration making a unilateral decision after the 9/11 attack is a slap in the face to President Franklin Roosevelt, Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and all 50 countries who first signed the UN charter in 1945.
I feel that the UN is a peace keeping organization for the all nations of our world. It has been in existence since the end of the the second world war which was a war that brought hell to the world. World War Two is and should always be a reminder to all people of what our human race is capable of doing when things get out of control. The UN should remain a strong organization, and in my opinion should always have jurisdiction over global issues. One country (the U.S.) should not decide the fate of the world in any circumstance, because the final decision of the UN is better to blame than a single country itself.
Obama in his speech on foreign policy definitely explains why we need to respond to Multilateralism in the 21st century. He clearly states that we must respond to such problems in the world even though many Americans don’t support the Government because of the previous administration. Americans still question wether we should still be policing the world. Obama states in his speech “after all the lives lost and the billions of dollars spent Americans may find it tempting to turn inward” Then right after he states, “I believe that such an abandonment of our leadership is a mistake. America can not reach the threats of this century alone. But the world can not meet them without America. We must neither try to retreat from the world nor try to bully it.”
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion I believe that as a country, the United States has to consult the United Nations on Issues before going head first into them. In 5-2 of our world issues books, it explains that a country’s duty is to maintain international peace, develop friendly ties, solve international problems, and promote human rights. It’s ok if some countries don’t like the U.S, but it’s not alright if every country doesn’t like us and we end up having no allies. We have to work together with other nations in order to make the world a safer place.
President Obama without a doubt stresses the importance of having a multilateral response to threats. He discussed the necessity of global cooperation in order to advance the security of all nations. While the old administration ruined this by using outdated ideals and principles, he says, we must advance into modern day because we cannot meet the threats of this century alone. In order to do this, we must consult with the UN before acting on matters of international security because as Obama said in his speech, we must work together to create better security for the entire world. This point is key.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this because in order to advance into today's society ad prosper, we must work together as a global community and work together to make each country prosperous. The more our countries work together to settle disputes, the more we will come together as one to cooperate. It is vital that we continue this multilateral policy.
I also believe that Dan brings up a good point. In our book it mentions that it is the US's duty "to maintain international peace, develop friendly ties, solve international problems, and promote human rights." If these are in fact our foreign policy, we must follow through with them by consulting the UN and forming a multilateral society through the Obama Administration. We must maintain our allies in order to create a global community.
I do believe the United States, when resolving international disputes must consult with the UN and take a multilateral response. According to our book, there are 194 countries and dealing with all these countries requires an understanding of them in order to get along. If we don't look at every side of a conflict, then we will be in deep trouble. I feel that Obama is trying to represent cooperation, and believe it is in our best interests to do so in order for survival in international relations. This was also the belief of Washington; he leaned towards neutrality and positive relations. Ultimately, multilateral responses and consulting with the UN are the way to go.
ReplyDelete“Unfortunately, I feel that the United States at this time is in no position to be leading the world in terms of global cooperation as we have not been the role model that the world needs. Our current position in Afghanistan and Iraq and the prolonged (nearly 10 year) war only seek to supplant the efforts to be a model nation and a leader for the world.” I completely agree with Talib that a multilateral approach to foreign policy can change the way the rest of the world sees us. I think many other countries view the US as an arrogant and often ignorant super power, and are angry with our actions to issues such as terrorism. I’ve seen examples of this in my own life, in fact. Every year I attend an international Model United Nations Conference in Montreal, Canada. My first year I was in a committee for human rights, discussing women’s issues, the international food crisis, and counter-terrorism (response to or ‘fight against terrorism). We a guest speaker, and the main issue he discussed was the US response under President Bush to 911, and how our actions were not suited to a global society and led to many international and human rights issues. Many people there agreed with his negative reaction.
ReplyDeleteMore so than impacting how other countries view us, is the fact that our world today is globally connected by our modern day communications. Now, one country’s actions or economy can impact countries half a world over. A multilateral foreign policy attempts to acknowledge this and work with other countries, especially those who would be impacted by our actions. I think that in the issue of Iraq, the US should have worked with the UN. Even though at times the UN can be ineffective in reaching a decision or enforcing its policy, it is one of the best examples of a united multilateral response. We could have brought up our issues in committee or the Security Council, maybe resulting in a united UN military response to 911. Even if the US decided to act on its own in the end because it was truly what was best for its people, at least we would have attempted to work with other countries and perhaps ended up with some ideas as how to best handle our response globally. I definitely think Obama would agree, as Stacy said, “When looking again at this speech Obama is definitely in favor of multilateralism in today’s world. He makes a point of saying that no matter what kind of threat it is: terrorism, disease or climate change, these kinds of things can no longer be solved within borders.” Our issues are global, and our response should try to be also.
Without a doubt President Obama stresses the implication of multilateralism in our world today, and for the most part i agree. I feel that in order to receive respect from nations we should give it, and there is no better way to show you care than to consult the countries of the UN before taking action:) On the other hand, though, i feel it is justifiable to attack if under immediate danger. In this case we wouldn't have time to consult the UN.
ReplyDeletePresident Obama clearly states the need of a multilateral system regarding threats. The example he uses is the Iraqi war which is a major problem. The Bush administration went in to Iraq basically by themselves without the support or consent of other allying countries- this was a problem. The US should not have acted so rashly. By entering into this conflict, we are further solidifying our "role" as the world's policeman. Other countries do not feel the need that we have to to this, and they get annoyed at the fact that America is constantly sticking its nose into other people's business. Furthermore, the US dragged in countries that may not have wanted to be involved in the conflict. A mess is created when one country acts alone, a mess that other countries should not have to deal with. The UN should be involved in the decision making process, because it is the major governing body of numerous countries. Acts should be made in agreement with their wishes.
ReplyDeleteOnly in rare cases should a country be allowed to act without consensus of other countries. The only one that comes to mind for me right now would be an act of self defense, of retaliation. When the Taliban attacked the World Trade Centers on 9 11, i feel that this was an act of terrorism, and the US was in danger. For this reason, I think that a response is warranted, but only to Afghanistan, because they caused the conflict. Iraq was a different story, so we should not have sent in troops there.
President Obama stresses the fact that we need to have a multilateral response to threats. Not only does he say that America would be nothing without the help of other countries but he also says that other nations need us. We are a very powerful country with a busting economy compared to hundreds of other nations and also have resources that aren't available to many countries. In response to the tragic event of 9/11, Obama stated that he disagreed with Bush's idea to put troops in Iraq and that it was a "fundamental misunderstanding" to do so. He then said that because the US had not consulted the UN, "world opinion has turned against us". It is extrememly important to have the worlds back up because when you make the mistake of leaving them out of large affairs, you lose their trust and create unnecessary tensions not easily resolved. President Obama makes it clear that in order to keep the world at peace, we must consult the UN before taking action in affairs.
ReplyDeleteObama states that Unilateralism was the wrong way to face our problems because it can turn our allies against us.
ReplyDeleteWe should counsult the UN before entering a foriegn land otherwise it might creat tension between allied nations.
ReplyDeleteObama does notify the fact that multilateralism would be a better decision in moving America forward. we would be able to consult with other countries before entering or else it would strike a great deal of anger and that wouldnt be a good thing on our side.
ReplyDeleteObama states that a multilateral approach is what should be taken. This is clear at the end of his speech when he says "America cant meet the threats of this century alone and the world cant meet them without america." If you notice he did not say I have taken a multilateral approach in current issues to cover his unilateral approach in the Libya conflict. In my opinion multilateralism is the action that must be taken for the future to keep allies with other nations and lower tension. But Obama can make a great speech to save himself for doing the same thing the Bush administration did by invading Iraq by invading Libya. Obama states what should be done, but is yet to follow "His" foreign policy.
ReplyDelete