Mixed Messages: American Politics and International Organization, 1919-1999
A vivid and insightful account of America's century-old ambivalence toward multilateral institutions. The United States is indeed a puzzle: no country has so consistently championed international organizations while resisting their obligations. Luck argues that this deeply rooted contradiction shapes many policy dilemmas: American exceptionalism breeds both idealism and cynicism about global institutions; American liberalism propels officials to seek a rule-based international order while resisting infringements on national sovereignty; and multilateral institutions both amplify and legitimate American power while curbing its autonomy. The irony, Luck notes, is that public support for the United Nations is quite strong -- but the language and values of American politics make supporters of global institutions vulnerable to attack. The book cuts away at the overblown rhetoric of proponents and critics alike, placing current struggles in historical perspective by incorporating the past debates over the League of Nations and the United Nations. True, the dilemmas that plague America's world role will not go away. But if Luck is right, pragmatic compromises can be fashioned to command steady public support.
Related
Stop searching for order. The international structure established by the liberal democracies after World War II is still in place, and in many ways stronger than ever. Containment got most of the attention, but the liberal powers' agreement to manage trade, security, and other big matters cooperatively has been more durable, and more successful than most recognize. Besides, the order is deeply rooted in the American experience of democracy and constitutionalism. It shaped the Germany and Japan of today, and now most of the rest of the world wants to join.
Amazement and concern are often expressed these days that the United Nations seems unable or unwilling to "do anything" about Viet Nam. What is the Security Council for, it is asked, if not to stop wars? If the Council is blocked by a veto, why does not the General Assembly act? Yet neither apparently will even discuss Viet Nam.
If ratified, the new EU constitution will change the way the union works. It cannot take effect unless approved by all 25 members, but in only one country -- the United Kingdom -- do polls show that a majority oppose the document. Still, a rejection there would throw Europe into a constitutional crisis. And it could ultimately harm transatlantic relations as well.
