Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

“The Reality of US-UN Relations” by Zaara Zain Hussain published on 19 March 2011

United States of America had the initiation as to the creation of the United Nations. It was the US
that breathed life into the UN with its power and resources. However, contrary to popular myth,
there never was a golden age in the relationship between them.
There were controversies as to why the United States had the urge to create the group. It is
believed that the United States as a hegemon wants to lead the game for international organizations
such as the United Nations.
The United States rumored that they created the United Nations for its own good. There
were times that the wishes of the United States were different, and against the United Nations.
Notwithstanding the threat of being sanctioned by the group. Nonetheless it was never done.
The United States established a system of multilateralism and international society through
the United Nations.
Multilateralism guarantees the support of the international community. This makes
international perceptions of action much more favourable. The increased good-will makes the
present action easier, and could well spill over into future benefits in other areas. If a state proves
itself to be a team player, willing to compromise to accommodate other states, then these other
states will be prepared to compromise to suit that state in the future. While Unilateralism does not.
Unilateralism is destabilising; if a country fights wars solely on a domestic whim,
unconstrained by consultation or discussion with allies, it is likely to act disproportionately, high-
handedly and counter-productively. It is also a terrible precedent to set for other states to follow:
international relations could deteriorate if norms of cooperation are not nurtured. Chaos and
anarchy would be the result if states decided to act alone.
Unilateralism does not entail an absence of consultation and discussion with allies and
other interested states. It merely reserves the right, when discussion and consultation has not
secured international support, to take action alone. Some acts, like waging a war to defend one’s
own nation or free another from oppression, are too important to be discarded just because no other
country is willing to share the burden.
Multilateralism guarantees a coalition of wisdom and interests. This ensures a balanced
understanding of the issue and leads to clear objectives for action. This ultimately leads to a greater
likelihood of success. It is arrogant and dangerous for countries to assume that they alone
understand the problem, and they alone have the ‘might’ and the ‘right’ to solve it.
Herein article described the relationship as to multilateralism and unilateralism of US and
UN. The United States of America established the group, United Nations for multilateralism. Thus,
The United States acts as a unilateralism. The purpose and strength of The United Nations is that
it constrains countries within a multilateral system. This limits states' freedom of action to do
whatever they wish, but it also protects sovereignty by insisting that states can act as they wish
providing they do not threaten others; they are constrained only by agreements they freely make.
Over time this has built confidence and understanding between the great powers, and
helped keep global peace for nearly sixty years. Unilateral action undermines these principles,
risking dangerous competition between the great powers, and encouraging outside intervention in
the affairs of the smaller states.
The relationship of US-UN as described in this article is that, United States of America did
established the United Nations for itself. To have a protector against the International Group. They
even refused to be part of the ICC. To the theory that he does not want to follow any rule as a
hegemon. U.S.’s position both on the world stage and within the United Nations is not only
paramount to domestic problems and world issues, but also completely necessary in order to
maintain balance in the international community. With the United States’ role as a permanent
member of the UN Security Council, for example, no peacekeeping missions can be authorized,
expanded, or withdrawn without U.S. consent, and more significantly, the U.S.—along with the
other four permanent members—have the power to veto all Security Council resolutions, a power
which has proved significant throughout history.
A diminished presence by the United States in the Security Council, therefore, would not
only change the balance of powers within the UN Security Council, but all other countries as
well—and a lack of U.S. involvement in the United Nations would ultimately hurt the United
States internationally and allow for more unstable powers to potentially rise.
United States of America, as one of the most powerful country in the world. Ofcourse, the
support of such would be very important to an international group such as United Nations. United
States moreover, is one of the most respected country as to economy and other aspect. Thus, the
support of US to UN is material and once the US let go of its reign in the United Nations and did
not bother to support anymore. It would be the downfall of the international group.
It could probably survive by itself however as I have said, US being part of the big
supporter to the group, being one of the most influential country. It would be a big loss to the
United Nation.
The Article published by Zaara to my mind, was not written against the United States. It is
just to state the true intention of the party when they established the group. There are just questions
in my mind; 1. What would be if United States were not part of the United Nation; and 2. When
can the United Nation stand by its own management, that there is no Unilateral Country
“controlling it.”
The Article does not speak so. To my mind. It would be a great international group, that
the discretion is fully on its own.