addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1linklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

The Tacoma 'Issues Facing America' Group Message Board › The Role of NATO and the United Nations

The Role of NATO and the United Nations

Jeffrey E.
user 16105971
Tacoma, WA
Post #: 4­
What is the role of NATO, and the United Nations as world organs for conflict resolution. Should the United States continue to be the bearer of the European nations? Shouldn't they spend more on their own defense? Shouldn't Great Britain have the leading role in NATO? What would Hobbes, Morgenthau, or Kennan say on the subject?
A former member
Post #: 3
HI Jeff,

You raise so very good questions. In my opinion international organizations like NATO and the UN, look really good on paper, but in practice they are very weak in enforcement of international expectations. There seems to always be a dominate nation or bloc of nations that hold stronger power in these organizations, and they are looked at as the moderator should things go ari. However, I feel that Woodrow Wilson had good intentions when formulating one of the first international organizations the League of Nations.

As Mahbubani wrote in "The New Asian Hemisphere" it time for the US to step down, and allow some of the Asia bloc countries to have a stronger presence in international organizations like the WTO, IMF, etc.... If the US were to relinquish some of it's international power, then it may have more resources to focus on domestic policies.

If regions are considered "instable" or if totalitarian dictators are inflicting "genocidal" harm to their people and going against international norms and expectations, then I feel that a more international presence, feeling pressure from many nations instead of just a few may produce better results. While the purpose of NATO and the UN was to do this, it can not be done if there is one dominate power that is always looked at to "fix" all the perceived international issues.

I do feel that the US is so international entwined that our resources are being spread thin. I think it would be in the best interest of the US nation to start reverting on more domestic issues. But, since the US has been so intertwined in international issues, it is now virtually impossible to keep up being the international moderator.

I don't feel that any nation should take the lead role in NATO, but that all nations in NATO should equally disperse their resources to the best of their ability.

Hobbes believing that by nature, man is selfish, and believes that man's only escape is through a unitary state. Morgenthau and Kennan holding realist ideals may focus more on balance of power as a way to promote stability.

Good questions Jeff, and keep them coming, this will help me for the Comps!
Jeffrey E.
user 16105971
Tacoma, WA
Post #: 5
I see your point, but institutional change is very difficult. The role of the United States and Nato has been institutionalized during the Cold War, and through the end of the Cold War. Individuals within these institutions will not give up their positions of influence anytime soon. It gets back to the one/many problem.
Powered by mvnForum

Other nearby

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy