This is my final paper I am writing for my International Relations class. It is incomplete, but I'll paste it up here once and a while with updates. Input is always welcome.
Intelligent Unilateralism
By [Yoshi]
November 27, 2003
“Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order. In the words of Winston Churchill, a world order in which "the principles of justice and fair play ... protect the weak against the strong ..." A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations.”
- George H.W. Bush
Introduction
Following the disintegration of the Soviet Union, which climaxed with the lowering of the red hammer and sickle flag and the raising of the historical red, white and blue of Russia, and the relatively successful UN police action in Kuwait in 1991, it was argued that the newly forming balance of power in the world would give even more credit to multilateral institutions because of historical US use of them during the Cold War and the emergence of the United States as the world’s only remaining superpower.
However, this view is rather naïve due to an inherent flaw; it believes that the United States’ interests are that of the world. This view is incredibly false when taking into context the design of the United States’ interactions with multilateral institutions during the Cold War. While the United Nations was founded in the sober realism of the post-World War II euphoria, those who have carried on the organization have used it strictly for national self interest; the United States included. The fact that the United States’ strategy for the Cold War involved the international isolation of the Soviet Union and thus requiring major involvement in multilateral and bilateral actions is pure happenstance, an effect of a policy of self interest, rather than a concerted effort towards the strengthening of international law strictly for the sake of doing so.
Thus, the unilateral actions of the United States in the past decade should not come as any major surprise. The purpose of this paper is to state why the hope of a U.S. multilateral policy is not only factually and principally flawed, but would severely damage the United States’ national security and put at risk its national interests of financial prosperity and manifest destiny.
Review of Modern Multilateral Institutions
The best way to begin, then, would be to analyze the purpose of multilateral institutions from the perspective of modern-day politics when put into contrast with the romanticized historical ideals upon which they were originally founded.
Originally designed to be a forum to prevent a breakout of World War III, the United Nations has since grown to be a much larger bureaucracy which serves many honorable purposes in the fight against AIDS, world hunger and other such humanitarian activities.
And yet, despite the importance and seriousness of these activities, nations with horrific human rights records and barbaric quality of living standards are allowed onto committees which are designed to prevent human rights atrocities such as these. An excellent example of this was the voting of the United States off of the United Nations Human Rights Commission in 2001 in organized 3rd world protest to American attempts to clean up the commission of the nations which it was designed to combat. The instatement of nations such as Sudan and Sierra Leone to the commission was designed not to further the work of the commission but to instead be a slap in the face to the United States.
Sierra Leone is currently occupied by UN peacekeepers due to a bloody civil war over the control of diamonds in which government and rebel troops would dismember refugee civilians in war zones. Sudan is currently pursuing a religious and ethnic war against the Christian minority to its south with similar brutal tactics being used by government and rebel forces.
A person cynical of politics would normally say that this is business as usual in the realm of political fighting. That is indeed true, but one must mind that the United Nations is not an organization which gathers its legitimacy from the people of the world, but instead from states who choose to be a part of the organization. In a multilateral organization whose purpose is to facilitate better relations between states and, in more recent years, to force those states who abuse human rights to reform their governments, a bureaucracy first interested in its perpetuation and second its purpose is a recipe for disaster. As such, you have the modern United Nations.
A state government’s first purpose is for its perpetuation simply because of its absolute authority in that area. A government’s failure quickly results in the failing of the economy, society and security in that state. In comparison, the United Nations’ chartered tasks are easily replaced by another bureaucracy. This is, to a growing extent, already taking place. Through the renewed interest in bilateral relations by G7 states and the strengthening of regional institutions such as the enlargement of the European Union and its attempts to create its own rapid strike force, Russia’s attempts to regain influence in the affairs the Confederation of Independent States’ and the growing use of ASEAN throughout Asia for regional trade and security issues all undermine the UN bureaucracy’s sense of authority and leadership in these issues.
This is not without cause, to say the least. There are many fundamental flaws in the United Nations system for the tasks it now takes up. Not the least of which is its obsession with regional balance. The quality of its personnel is severely sacrificed in order to normalize the national demographics of its personnel makeup. This stems from an even larger and more serious fundamental problem, however. The United Nations system assumes that all states are created equal, with the five veto powers in the Security Council being the only exception. The opinion of the United States, in theory, carries the same amount of weight as that of Zimbabwe. In a socialist principle this is quite correct, but in reality, it gives far too much power to those corrupt states to prevent action against any wrongdoing they may have done by those democratic first world states who are regularly charged with the task of policing the world.
The Effects of the Global Economy
To divorce the impact of the economy from governmental policy, and even more so in the realm of international policy, would be folly. The state of the world economy is such that the US is the Number 1 importer of manufactured goods in the world. The low cost to produce these items in 3rd world nations generates price point competition in which American companies are unable to compete due to the high standard of living that the United States enjoys. While policy for the past decade has been in favor of continuing this trend, the effects of it are now being felt and the American economy is suffering accordingly through lost jobs, flattening of salary growth and a lack of domestic investment.
The United States governments first and foremost job is to maintain the security and prosperity of its own people. This policy of selective tariff reduction has done the exact opposite. Foreign direct investment in the billions of dollars by American companies can often have a profoundly positive impact upon a export oriented nation’s economy, often helping to create jobs to increase the standard of living in these states. Poor management and government corruption on every level has, unfortunately, nullified these otherwise positive effects but highlighted a serious problem with the global economic system.
The wide discrepancies in the quality of living between the 1st and 3rd world at the present time prevent a proper global economy from forming. The process of tariff reduction in the largest economies of the world, the United States even more so, is, from a multinational corporate perspective, an excellent opportunity for profit growth and from a 3rd world economic perspective a wonderful opportunity to modernize and industrialize their economies which under normal circumstances would never see such large influxes of investment monies or export opportunities. However, from the United States’ economic perspective, it is a case of Robin Hood economics; taking from the rich to give to the poor. The end effect is the suffering of the American economy and the decrease in the quality of American way of life in the name of corporate profits which are not passed on to the American populous or the increase in the quality of living in a 3rd world state.
). 
