Profile: Jeane Kirkpatrick at the United Nations
As U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Jeane Kirkpatrick has represented a dramatic change in style and approach from her immediate predecessors (and, in her confrontational predilections, from all previous American U.N. ambassadors except for Daniel Patrick Moynihan). Her political philosophy, her attitude toward the United Nations and her relations with African delegates, in particular, are diametrically opposed to those of Andrew Young and Donald McHenry. They were liberals; she is a staunch neo-conservative on foreign policy issues. They saw the United Nations as a helpful forum for arriving at peaceful solutions; she considers it "a dangerous place" where conflicts tend to be exacerbated. They cultivated the African representatives at the United Nations and frequently represented black African viewpoints in Washington; she reflects the Reagan line, which is perceptibly friendlier to South Africa. These differences are not merely personal; they reflect differences in attitudes between the Carter and Reagan Administrations.
Seymour Maxwell Finger is a Professor of Political Science at the Graduate School and the College of Staten Island, City University of New York, and Director of the Ralph Bunche Institute on the United Nations. A former Foreign Service officer, he served at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations from 1956 to 1971, the last five years as Ambassador and Senior Adviser. This article is based on a chapter in his forthcoming book, Your "Man" at the U.N., 2nd edition, to be published by New York University Press in 1984. Copyright (c) S. M. Finger, 1983.
We're sorry, but Foreign Affairs does not have the copyright to display this article online.
Related
Considers prospects for US multi-lateral diplomacy (i.e. attitude to the UN and its agencies) and recommends practical internationalism as a middle way between isolationism and utopianism, noting five challenges (nuclear, drugs, AIDS, environment, population). Makes suggestions for administrative reform at the UN, and considers its peacekeeping role and responsibilities for human rights. Considers that the Reagan doctrine is consistent with international law, and identifies internationalism with patriotism.
On April 30, the United States was the only Western industrialized country to vote against the final treaty adopted in New York by the Third United Nations Law of the Sea Conference. Venezuela, Turkey and Israel also voted no. The U.S.S.R. and most Soviet bloc countries abstained, as did a few highly industrialized Western nations. Most of the West, including France and Japan, joined the Third World and voted yes. Altogether, 130 nations voted to adopt the treaty and open it for signature.
One vital benefit which is struggling to emerge from the prolonged debate about President Reagan's military budget proposals is a recognition that this country and its NATO allies have until now, incredibly, lacked a meaningful and coherent strategy of defense against the Soviet Union. Appreciation of this fact may not yet fully have penetrated the Pentagon or been recognized by Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. But it does appear to have reached the White House. The first indication of this came in a little noticed but potentially vastly important statement made by William P. Clark, the President's National Security Adviser, at Georgetown University last May 20. Our new strategy, he declared, would include "diplomatic, political, economic and informational components built on a foundation of military strength." In a limited application of this concept, he noted that "We must force our principal adversary, the Soviet Union, to bear the brunt of its economic shortcomings."
