Peace and security is important for the social, economic and political progress of a nation. The UNSC has been involved in reconciling various warring nations to block any instance of global instability. Nonetheless, the increased involvement of the UNSC in the maintaining peace and security has come under intense debate. Understanding the significance of the UNSC is crucial for the governments and non-state actors. The international theory and law are crucial in examining the approaches taken by the UNSC in addressing the global challenges, particularly insecurity and international disputes.
The future looks very promising for our economy in more ways of more trade, less protectionism and better technology and communications. However, the world will look to the U.S. as the saver or as the virtue enemy. To our allies we must keep them as our friends, to our enemies we must keep them down and impose our will on them. We must limit weapons of mass destruction, which seems to be the number one threat to our global stability. Finally, we must assistance other nation’s to achieve political, social and economical success.
Their growing suspicions of each other led to the Cold War, an indirect conflict that stemmed from a fear of nuclear destruction and was fought by each country supporting different international conflicts through aid and acquisition. As allies during World War II, the US and the Soviet Union teamed up against Nazi power. In a joint message of assistance to the Soviet Union in 1941, Roosevelt and Churchill wrote to the ally about the urgency of defenses against Nazi attack and intent of sending supplies (Document A). While the countries had the common interest of defeating Nazism, tensions were existent in disagreements during the war. In the next year Stalin, in a memorandum to aides, wrote about opening a second front in Europe.
In his book Cold War: The American Crusade against World Communism, James Warren discusses the conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union, its causes, its consequences, and its future. Warren also analyzes why the United States was so afraid of communism and how this fear controlled both U.S. domestic and foreign policy. In George Washington’s Farewell Address, he warned future leaders to avoid foreign entanglements. However, the United States strayed away from this policy in 1941 after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. From then on, the United States realized that with its great power came great responsibility.
The United States cannot be blamed without also blaming the USSR and Vice Versa. Both of the countries were aggressive with their foreign policy. Both of these countries were trying to attempt to 'one up' the other side in an attempt to push either communism or Capitalism until Europe. Therefore, both countries as well as Stalin are the main cause of the Cold War. Each country had their own responsibility in the outbreak of the war.
World War I began because of classical realist theories of states’ lust for power by certain individual leaders, such as the Kaiser’s influence on Austria’s declaration of war on Serbia. In the Cold War, each state did not want to push the other too far, as it would ensure mutual destruction, but instead threatened each other just far enough to overcompensate and defend themselves. The Cold War was a product of US and Russian foreign policy interests in global
The contemporary foreign policy of the US reflects an evolution of the policies pursued during the Cold War. Using a combination of ideology, alliances and containment, the US cultivated a global order that defeated the Soviet Union. Having achieved pre-eminence, the signatures of these same philosophies remains embedded in US policy and strategic thinking. Perhaps the best indication of this is the designation of a new ideological enemy in terrorism and its resulting revalidation of Cold War dogma into a modern raison d'État. Most critically, the US is utilising this new calling to consolidate its alliances and contain adversaries in light of the emergence of an increasingly decentralised, multipolar global order.
The statement addressed a simple but important question: “why do states want power?” While “human nature” is always claimed by the classical realism, the neorealists, or the structural realists such as Mearsheimer specified the structure or architecture of the international system which forces states to pursue power. All states desire sufficient power to protect th... ... middle of paper ... ...issue. In this case, neoliberalism not only helps states to make a more rational decision, but also gives a birth of the institution forming the norms for the states’ solving crisis in the future. To conclude, both of them are important, while they are not contradictory, but complementary. Reference Baldwin, D. A.
Since this time of change, the United Nations Security Council has played a vital role in international relations and addressing issues of aggression or threats to peace. However, as indispensable as this institution is, unless cooperative relations between major powers continues the effectiveness of the Council will always come under scrutiny. To understand how and why the United Nations Security Council runs the way it does and its objectives you must look at its history and its predecessor, the League of Nations. The League of Nations dawned from the carnage and horrors of the Great War. Allied powers during the war created the conditions for the objective of collective security.
However, attention must be paid to Mahan's core ideas. Both geopoliticians present valuable arguments. In a contemporary geopolitical contexts the principles presented by Mackinder are more readily equip to address the objectives of the US, the unipolarity of global politics and the evolving importance of Central Asia. Whilst sea power remains a key determinant in global power structures, land mass appears to be the more important frontier to conquer. Relationships amongst the core nations reveal this power struggle both within the Eurasian landmass and the Indian Ocean.