Advertisement

Leadership, the United Nations, and the New World Order

  • Jarrod Wiener

Abstract

The concept of international leadership has become almost central to discourse about United States foreign policy, and about the effectiveness of the United Nations in the New World Order. The concept was used in 1990 and 1991 by some politicians, journalists, and academics to denote an activity that promotes action, a role that promulgates vision and purpose, and a force that maintains stability in the post-Cold War international system. Then-US President George Bush stated before Congress on 11 September 1990 that, “we are now in sight of a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders”1, and exclaimed in January 1991 that, “we are the only nation on this earth that could assemble the forces of peace. This is the burden of leadership.”2 The rhetoric of the administration during its attempt to build the Coalition against Iraq seemed to suggest that the bipolar stability of the Cold War would be replaced by a great-power consensus supported by American leadership. During the Gulf War, The Guardian sounded a typical comment, that: “The Allies embarked, under dominant American leadership, upon the first testing of a New World Order, with the United Nations at its heart”.3 Advocates of the “renewalists” thesis on US hegemony, such as Joseph Nye, argued that the US, with its unique combination of military and economic power, its political culture, and experience in realpolitik, was Bound to Lead.4

Keywords

Public Good Foreign Policy International Relation World Order Uruguay Round 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 4.
    Joseph Nye, Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power, ( New York: Basic Books, 1991 ).Google Scholar
  2. 9.
    James MacGregor-Burns, Leadership, ( New York: Harper & Row, 1978 ), p. 2.Google Scholar
  3. 10.
    George Modelski, Long Cycles in World Politics, ( London: Macmillan, 1987 );CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. and Modelski (ed.), Exploring Long Cycles, ( London: Pinter, 1987 ).Google Scholar
  5. 11.
    Modelski, “Long Cycles of World Leadership”, in W.R. Thompson (ed.), Contending Approaches to World Systems Analysis (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1983), p. 138; and Modelski, Long Cycles in World Politics, ibid. p. 17.Google Scholar
  6. 17.
    Robert Keohane, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy, ( Princeton N.J: Princeton University Press, 1984 ), pp. 32–33.Google Scholar
  7. See also Robert Gilpin, The Political Economy of International Relations, ( Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1987 ), p. 76.Google Scholar
  8. 18.
    What precisely constitutes an international public good has been the subject of intense debate. See John A.C. Conybeare, Trade Wars: The Theory and Practice of International Commercial Rivalry, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1981 );Google Scholar
  9. Duncan Snidal, “The Limits of Hegemonic Stability Theory”, International Organization, vol. 39, no. 4, (1985), pp. 579–614;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. and Joanne Gowa, “Rational Hegemons, Excludable Goods and Small Groups: An Epitaph for Hegemonic Stability Theory”, World Politics, vol. 41, no. 4, (1989), pp. 307–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 19.
    Kindleberger, The World in Depression, 1929–1939 (London: Allen Lane & Penguin Press, 1973), pp. 28 & 305.Google Scholar
  12. 20.
    On “K-groups”, see David Lake, “International Economic Structures and American Foreign Economic Policy”, World Politics vol. 35, (1983), pp. 510–543;Google Scholar
  13. and Lake, “Hegemonic Leadership: Naked Emperor or Tattered Monarch With Potential?”, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 37, (1993), pp. 459–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 24.
    Gilpin, U.S. Power and the Multinational Corporation: The Political Economy of Foreign Direct Investment, ( New York: Basic Books, 1975 ), p. 85.Google Scholar
  15. 27.
    Keohane, “The Demand for International Regimes”, in Keohane (ed.) International institutions and State Power: Essays in International Relations Theory, ( London: Westview, 1989 ), p. 158.Google Scholar
  16. 29.
    Ruggie, “International Regimes, Transactions and Change” in Krasner (ed), International Regimes (Ithaca, NY: Cornell, 1983), p. 196. See also Finlayson and Zacher, “The GATT and the Regulation of Trade Barriers”, in Krasner, ibid. pp.276–282;Google Scholar
  17. and Hans Kelsen, The Pure Theory of Law, (Translated by Max Knight ), ( Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970 ), p. 10.Google Scholar
  18. 30.
    J.S. Mill, On Liberty (London: Penguin, 1974), esp. p. 68.Google Scholar
  19. 31.
    Keohane, “Reciprocity in International Relations”, in Keohane (ed.), International Institutions and State Power note 27, p. 146–147;Google Scholar
  20. See also Axlerod, The Evolution of Cooperation, ( New York: Basic Books, 1984 ).Google Scholar
  21. 33.
    See Robert Cox, “Gramsci, Hegemony, and International Relations: An Essay in Method”, Millennium: Journal of International Relations, vol. 12, no. 2, (1983), p. 172;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. and Stephen Gill, American Hegemony and the Trilateral Commission, ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990 ).Google Scholar
  23. 34.
    Secretary of State George Shultz, “The United Nations After Forty Years: Idealism and Realism”, State Department Bulletin, 85, 2101, August 1985, p. 20.Google Scholar
  24. 35.
    On this, see Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic and Military Conflict from 1500–2000 (London: Fontana Press, 1989); and Gilpin, The Political Economy of International Relations note 17.Google Scholar
  25. 37.
    See Nye, Bound to Lead, note 4; and Henry R. Nau, The Myth of America’s Decline: Leading the World Economy into the 1990s, ( Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990 ).Google Scholar
  26. 44.
    Barry M. Blechman, “The Military Dimensions of Collective Security”, in Roger A. Coate (ed.), US Policy and the Future of the United Nations, ( New York: Twentieth Century Fund, 1994 ), p. 68.Google Scholar
  27. 47.
    E.H Carr, The Twenty Years’ Crisis, ( London: Macmillan, 1939 ), p. 289.Google Scholar
  28. 50.
    Richard M. Nixon, Beyond Peace, (New York: Random House, 1994 ).Google Scholar
  29. 51.
    Arthur M. Stein, “The Hegemon’s Dilemma: Great Britain, the United States, and the International Economic Order”, International Organization vol. 38, no. 2, (1984), pp. 356–386, p. 357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 55.
    See Gilpin, “The Politics of Transnational Economic Relations”, International Organization, vol. 25, no. 3, (1971), pp. 349–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 61.
    Roger A. Coate, “The Future of the United Nations”, in Coate (ed.), US Policy and the Future of the United Nations, note 44, p. 21.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jarrod Wiener

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations