NARSEE MONJEE INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES, SCHOOL

OF LAW,BENGALURU

SUBMITTED BY –

NAME – ANSH SRIVASTAVA

SAP ID – 81011219024

COURSE – BALLB (HONS.) (2019-2024)

SUBJECT – POLITICAL SCIENCE

TOPIC – MONOPOLY OF US INTERESTS WITHIN UN AND IT’S

REPERCUSSIONS ON OTHER STATES

SUBMITTED TO – MS. SUKANYA GHOSH

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………….3

2.THE US-UN RELATIONSHIP ……………………………………..4

3.WHY THE US DOMINATES UN:THE HOW’S, THE WHY’S AND THE

WHERE’S BEHIND THAT …………………………………………6

4.US FOREIGN POLICY AT THE UN ……………………………….8

5.CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………9

6.BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………………………11

2
 LITERATURE REVIEW

Book 1: Promoting Polyarchy: Globalization, US Intervention, and Hegemony

Author : William I.robinson

In this book William I. Robinson argues that behind the façade of 'democracy promotion', the
policy is designed more to retain the elite-based and undemocratic status quo of Third World
countries than to encourage mass aspirations for democratization. He supports this challenging
argument with a wealth of information garnered from field work and hitherto unpublished
government documents, and assembled in case studies of the Philippines, Chile, Nicaragua,
Haiti, South Africa, and the former Soviet Bloc. With its combination of theoretical and
historical analysis, empirical argument, and bold claims, Promoting Polyarchy is an essential
book for anyone concerned with democracy, globalization and international affairs.

article 1: The US-UN Relationship – Why it Matters for US

author: Patricia Zanini Graca

in this article the author has focused on why the us-un relationship is important for the us and
how it is important for the rest of the world. She has started from the history that is the very
beginning of the united nations then from that till the present times on how they were when and
how they are now. This article helped in understanding their relations better

article 2: The united states and united nations: towards a new realism

author: john Gerard ruggie

in this article the author has talked about how, the world of IGOs is not in good shape. Indeed,
there is widespread talk these days about a crisis of multilateralism, especially but not
exclusively in the context of the United Nations.2 With regard to peace and security, the UN
3
secretary general himself has remarked that the organization's machinery functions so poorly that
the international community finds itself "perilously near to a new international anarchy

THE US – UN RELATIONSHIP

The historical backdrop of United States of America (USA) and the United Nations (UN) is long
and complex. The United Nations owes a ton of what it is today to the US. It was the US that
revived the UN with its capacity and assets. Nonetheless, as opposed to prevalent misconception,
there never was a brilliant age in the connection between them. It isn't unexpected to see
multilateralism in the UN under emergency, nor is the uncertainty of USA towards it. This
vacillation has been there for quite a while. In spite of that, the UN holds a significant situation
in US international strategy.

To understand why the US holds so much dominance in the UN we need to first go back to time
when UN was about to be formed. In 1945, after the subsequent World War, the heads of the
world met up to shape the United Nations with the point of looking after harmony, dependability
and request in the worldwide society. The points of the United Nations today are extensively
recorded as encouraging participation in global law, worldwide security, monetary turn of
events, social advancement, common freedoms, and accomplishment of world harmony.

American President Franklin Delano Roosevelt initially instituted the term United Nations for a
global association intended to supplant the defective League of Nations. The UN authoritatively
appeared on 24 October endless supply of the Charter by the five lasting individuals from the
Security Council; France, the Republic of China, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the
United States and by a larger part of the other 46 signatories. The UN is not a single unit,
however a gathering of organizations. Some are totally free like the International Labor
Organization (ILO) and World Health Organization (WHO). Some are subject to it or identified
with it, for example, United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the United Nations
Children's Fund (UNICEF). The center of UN and worldwide legislative issues is comprised of
three elements: the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Secretariat. The Security
Council is the club of blue-bloods and the main organ of the UN that has definitive force. It

4
contains five perpetual individuals: USA, China, Russia, United Kingdom and France who
practice enormous control over worldwide governmental issues both officially and informally.

Now talking about the US-UN relationship as said by John Ikenberry, the United States has been
the greatest champion of multilateralism in the 20th century, but it has also been reluctant to tie
itself too closely to these multilateral institutes and rules.

When discussing US-UN relationship it is hard to coin out, the US view of the UN. As, oneself
pronounced gatekeeper of international order, the US extends a specific view on occasion.
Different occasions it is too occupied in adjusting its international strategy choices to
homegrown plans. Homegrown legislative issues settles on international strategy choice tacky
for America.

It isn't always that US has in no way stood by the UN. On many occasions, the USA has been a
supporter of the UN. Starting from Roosevelt in 1945 USA has been instrumental in maximum
topics concerning the United Nations. Not best is USA a everlasting member of the Security
Council however a lot of UN’s corporations are headquartered in the US as well. During the
1990s USA pioneered many multilateral treaties and preparations including the finishing touch
of the Uruguay Round of GATT and formation of WTO, negotiation of NAFTA and advent of
the APEC.

Still, it did now no longer take an awful lot for US to show its returned on its personal baby- the
UN. In 2000, former Chairman of the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Jesse
Helms stated in a speech to the UN Security Council that no institution, be it the safety council
or the ICC, is in a position to choose the overseas coverage and country wide protection choices
of the USA. The United States has been very selective in assuming new worldwide commitments
with the United Nations in current times. It has even on a few occasions, retreated from beyond
commitments with the UN.

It very well may be said that the more modest states, particularly the third world view the United
Nations, today, as a foundation that can assist them with bringing their case and update their
situation in global society and help them against worldwide powers over which they have no
control. The Europeans, particularly the huge nations who were once frontier pioneers, see the
UN as discussion where they can appreciate the force and status they once had over the world.

5
 WHY THE US DOMINATES UN:THE HOW’S, THE WHY’S AND THE
WHERE’S BEHIND THAT

The United States holds incredible financial, political, and military effect on the whole world
and, for now, is an essential piece of the UN. The political arrangement of the United States is
that of a sacred republic and agent vote based system, "in which larger part rule is tempered by
minority rights ensured by law." The head of government can't take international strategy choices
without in any event two third help of the Senate. The president is permitted to go into
settlements with unfamiliar states through chief understanding without the senate's endorsement
however such arrangements are seldom long standing. The Congress has the ability to lead
business exercises with different states just as do battle. Regulatory associations inside the US
government incorporate Office of the President, National Security Council, State Department,
Defense Department, Central Intelligence Agency, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Embassies, Consulates,
Federal Reserve, Treasury Department, and so forth International strategies of the United States,
relating to the UN and other worldwide issues, are enormously affected by the homegrown world
of politics. On account of utilization of power, it is significantly more touchy.

Hegemons like the United States make and finance global associations like the United Nations to
spread their standards and qualities all through the worldwide framework and to set their grip on
influence. The pragmatist center around relative force clarifies why the United States has acted
singularly on occasion. A few pragmatists totally ignore the significance of global organizations,
and discussion about the intensity of the state alone. Notwithstanding, it is the traditional
pragmatist contention of overall influence that can clarify the US uphold for the UN. By being
important for a multilateral framework, for example, the UN, the US could forestall
counterbalancing by anticipating a kind goal towards the world. Stephen Walt and numerous
different pragmatists contend, U.S. strategy creators have exhibited uphold for worldwide
establishments, for example, the UN, to show their fulfillment with the norm and hose other
nations' security fears, along these lines forestalling the rise of a counterbalancing alliance. Walt
contends that "the United Nations and other worldwide organizations help the United States

6
practice its capacity in a manner that is less undermining and thusly more worthy to other people.
Additionally, the USA throughout the long term, from its city culture and political attitude, has
accepted a function of "reformist" of worldwide request and "caretaker" of harmony and strength
in world.

The United States of America has the force, assets and capacity to push forward alone yet when
it feels the need it can oblige a multilateral framework also. On account of Iraq and Kuwait in
1990 it went with its partners. On August 3, 1990, the UN Security Council passed Resolution
660 censuring the Iraqi intrusion of Kuwait and requested Iraq to genuinely pull out all powers
conveyed in Kuwait. After arrangement of bombed exchanges between significant world forces
and Iraq, the United States-drove alliance dispatched an enormous military attack on Iraqi
powers positioned in Kuwait in mid-January 1991. On the other hand, the US didn't hang tight
for UN dealings or choices during the 2000s post the 9/11 episode. The US government gave
little consideration to worldwide legislative issues and assaulted Iraq in 2003 without the
endorsement of UN Security Council. President Bush and partners chose to attack since
homegrown legislative issues requested so at that point. In March 2003, the US government
reported they will utilize military power to dispose of Saddam Hussein just as weapons of mass
devastation supposedly being created in Iraq. Before this choice, there had been a lot of
discretion and discussion between the part conditions of the United Nations Security Council on
the best way to manage the circumstance however a lion's share agreement had not been reached
to support the military assault. The Secretary General of United Nations around then, Kofi
Annan said in a meeting to BBC the choice to make a move in Iraq ought to have been made by
the Security Council, and not singularly.

The United States is at last a sane entertainer in world governmental issues. It is reasonable for
any significant capacity to attempt to limit outer limitations on its opportunity of activity
produced by multilateral foundations and cycles. Numerous other country states wish that they
had such a choice, however few have the ability to oppose the desire of global network. From the
inceptions of the interstate framework, no solid force has permitted itself to be liable to rules set
by more fragile countries, except if those principles advantage it moreover.

7
 US FOREIGN POLICY AN THE UN

At that point in 1990-91, similarly as the Soviet Union was nearly breakdown and the virus war
was basically finished, Iraq attacked Kuwait. George Bush reconnected the UN to give a
multilateral alliance system to legitimize the basically one-sided hostile to Iraq assembly of
Desert Storm. The UN again turned into a significant device of U.S. foreign policy.

At the point when President Clinton was first chosen in quite a while, organization came into
office focused on "decisive multilateralism." The United Nations, its prominence enjoying some
real success, was cast to assume a featuring job. UN inclusion was essential in U.S. mediations
(or in legitimizing U.S. choices not to mediate) in spots as assorted as Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda,
and Bosnia. However, after prominent peacekeeping catastrophes, particularly the executing of
18 U.S. Officers in the Pentagon's own non-UN Somalia activity (find In Focus: Peacekeeping
and the United Nations), White House and legislative help for the UN dropped drastically.

The UN job moved from being an instrument of foreign policy activism to turning into a
substitute for U.S. strategy disappointments. Disregarding the U.S. blackball power, President
Clinton reported that "the UN should figure out how to state 'no'" to peacekeeping activities.
Calls for UN change, frequently not at all subtle assaults on the association itself, raised. In fall
1996 the Clinton organization out of nowhere reported its goal to forestall, at any cost, the re-
appointment of Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali. Duty kept on being retained, and the U.S.
unfulfilled obligations came to $1.6 billion—well over a large portion of the all out obligation of
the seriously lashed UN. U.S. impact in the UN stayed unblemished however was to some degree
more hard to force.

8
 CONCLUSION

Over the years the US and UN have worked together on many occasions. With peacekeeping
duties in Africa the UN has led and the US supported. On the other hand, the US has led and the
UN supported it during the 1950s in Korea and 1990s in the Middle East. The United States
more than any other country, after World War II, established a system of multilateralism and
international society through the UN. Within the most important organ of the UN, that is the
Security Council, the US has always held a great sway. Even when the General Assembly has
taken decisions against the wishes of the US most resolutions were non-binding and did not
really harm the country. According to Mahbubani, the international community has actually bend
over backwards to comply with the wishes of the great power, the United States of America. But
the United States has in most accounts not practised what it preached, or follow through with the
commitments it entered. The Unites States has used military force without explicit Security
Council approval, as against in Iraq and, the intervention in Kosovo. USA has not been
compliant of multilateralism in trade either. In 1999, the Clinton administration proposed binding
labour and environmental standards in the trade regime at Seattle WTO summit. Despite the
apparent support shown by United States at the Doha round of negotiations towards the
developing countries, protectionism remains strong.

Now to conclude, all through the majority of the 20th century, as the US dynamically extended
its capacity comparative with each other state, it treated multilateral organizations with conscious
limitations. At different minutes in the late 20th century when the US saw little use for the UN it
confronted dubious minutes. Today the endurance of UN may not be in uncertainty, yet its
reality is in a disabled state. Despite our unrealistic reasoning of a universe of participation and
formation of a group of worldwide administration, multilateralism, as characterized by Ruggie,
necessitates that states penance considerable degrees of adaptability in dynamic and oppose
transient allurements for long haul benefits. Subverting the UN would make it fairly simpler for
the US to seek after one-sided international strategy and act alone when it wants to. It is to some

9
degree unreasonable to anticipate that USA should not organize personal responsibility and
adjust to unadulterated multilateralism.

The undecided disposition of the US towards the UN reflects unsteady nature of the institutional
deal yet the relationship is surprisingly persevering. The UN after everything is an encapsulation
of the qualities and standards United States of America typifies and imagines for the world. The
UN has been a decent spot for the US to practice and expand its considerable supply of 'delicate
force'. The UN's incentive to the US and the imperatives it forces are a by – result of the
association's function in developing and actualizing standards through a rambling cycle that the
US has had a significant part in forming.

10
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

ARTICLES

1. The US-UN Relationship – Why it Matters for US by Patricia Zanini Graca

2. The united states and united nations: towards a new realism by john gerrard ruggie

BOOKS

1. Promoting Polyarchy: Globalization, US Intervention, and Hegemony by William I.

robinson

INTERNET SOURCES

1. Scholar.harvard.edu
2. E-ir.info
3. Ips-dc.org
4. Blogs.shu.edu
5. Jstor.org
6. Socialstudies.org
7. Ncafp.org
8. cpr.unu.edu

11