Global structure convocation 1994 – Bolton

Résumé du document

The text is the transcript of a debate which occurred in 1994, between American eminent personalities who have the legitimacy to speak about American foreign policies. The debate is about the role of the US in the Global Structure, after the end of the Cold War. As the United Nations are increasing their power, we may wonder if it can reinforce the US. It took place in a climate of agitation, just before the adoption of the budget which planned military strategies in two areas in order to increase American hegemony. A. E. Carroll (Director, center for information) explains that adopting such policies is not reasonable because the American government cannot afford it, because American citizens do not want it, and because the global community cannot accept it.

His analysis is relevant because it shows the different dimensions a State has to take into consideration before deciding something. He also points out the weaknesses in the decision-making process of the UN in terms of military strategies. Especially, he states there improvements are needed in the military staff committee which should be revitalized according to him.

Carroll also makes other proposals in order to facilitate communication and organization if the UN to increase its power. Indeed, in his opinion, the UN must be the peacemaker of the world, above states' interests. He also thinks the world court has to be strengthened. His conclusion is that the UN (reinforced) must be more efficient to ensure the security of America than the US itself.

Extraits

[...] The debate is about the role of the US in the Global Structure, after the end of the Cold War. As the United Nations are increasing their power, we may wonder if it can reinforce the US. It took place in a climate of agitation, just before the adoption of the budget which planned military strategies in two areas in order to increase American hegemony. A. E. Carroll (Director, center for information) explains that adopting such policies is not reasonable because the American government cannot afford it, because American citizens do not want it, and because the global community cannot accept it. [...]

[...] Bandow about the non-democratic character of the UN. In his mind, the US should accept to strengthen the US because it is its responsibility. Indeed, the US has been the host of the UN, it is still the most influential country within it, and the decline of the organization is its fault. The strengthening of the UN is vital for other nations and for global security. Whereas J. Bolton explains that the US makes the UN work as it wants, Childers argues that no country is enough powerful to ensure its own security. [...]

[...] This debate is particularly relevant because all speakers are American but do not share the same values/conception about the global structure. Some of them consider the States are the main actors whereas the others argue international institutions can implement efficient policies to foster the peacemaking process. It is very fascinating to understand how the world will evolve, with the US as its hegemonic power. References John Bolton and others, "Human Rights, Global Governance and Strengthening the United Nations", Global Structure Convocation 1994. [...]

[...] According to him, the current structure has to evolve. Then, Doug Bandow speaks and explains that after the end of the Cold war, the World has become much messier, although the US is less threatened than it was. In his opinion, taking decisions for the security of the US cannot be made by people who are not accountable to the citizens of the US as the UN, because it deals with issues which affect American citizens (soldiers' lives for instance). [...]

[...] He gives a number of examples which corroborate with his conception, as the lack of power of the UN to tackle Soviet boycott during the Cold War. His main argument is that when the US leads, the UN follows. This conception can be considered as the realist theory in international relations, which argues the State is rational and egoist. In this conception, international institutions do not have power to influence international politics. The third speaker is Phyllis Bennis who agrees with John Bolton to say the US is the only influential power within the United Nations. [...]