The Global Challenge of American Foreign Policy

The indisputable first objective of American policy must be to safeguard and enhance liberty, security, and prosperity for America’s citizens. That means promoting the kind of world order that America helped shape after World War II, a world in which democratic and free-market systems prevail. But it also must take on the challenge of integrating much of the rest of the world into this Western world order. That is not charity; it’s profoundly in America’s self-interest.

Today, the most significant foreign policy challenges are no longer defined by geography. Instead, many problems around the globe — terrorism, international slavery, climate change — stem from groups and issues that don’t fit neatly into friendly or enemy states. These issues require global cooperation to solve, not just between governments but with the involvement of other countries and even non-governmental organizations.

It’s a challenge that requires a complex machine, one whose many parts include the Department of State, the National Security Council, and other agencies; Congress; interest groups, think tanks, and academia; the media; and ordinary Americans. And it’s a machine that has grown in complexity and reach over the years.

But if it’s used poorly, the unquestioned power of the United States can become a liability rather than an asset. It can breed resentment in our allies, for example, as the American “way of life” is judged morally and culturally retrograde. And it can fuel the rise of new powers — Russia and China in particular — that are increasingly assertive on the world stage.

UN Watch Opposes Resolution 242

A UN resolution is a formal expression of the opinion or will of a UN body, backed by the authority of international law. They can range from recommendations on peace arrangements to sanctions, and are either binding or non-binding. A resolution may include an annex with further details and/or a series of “operative paragraphs” which direct action to be taken, such as imposing sanctions, sending envoys, or establishing missions.

Resolutions are numbered and begin with an unnumbered preamble that sets the context, sometimes using language from past actions. They also contain an operative section that lays out the body of the text, if it is binding or non-binding. While preambular clauses are usually written in a neutral tone, they can be more forceful, including invoking Chapter VII of the UN Charter and imposing obligations or authorisations to use coercive measures and force.

In this case, the operative paragraphs of the resolution call for “urgent and extended humanitarian pauses and corridors throughout Gaza to facilitate the provision of essential goods and services to civilian populations, including food, water, sanitation, medical supplies, equipment and shelter.” The Council also calls on Hamas to abide by its obligations under international law.

UN Watch opposes this resolution because it undermines the delicate diplomacy taking place to reach a true and sustainable ceasefire, draws false equivalence between Israel and Hamas, and fails to recognise the disastrous shortcomings of previous methods of aid delivery to Gaza. In addition, the performative nature of this resolution is particularly harmful at a time when serious questions are being asked about the value and utility of the Security Council and its veto privilege.