The manifestation of the American hegemony since the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 has created a new pattern for international relations in which the United States is the ‘hyper power' everyone has to take into consideration before acting. France, once one of the most important countries in the world during the time of her colonial empire, is now, with Germany and the United Kingdom, among the leaders of the European Union. This still relative influence in the world affairs has lead to a high number of its leaders to preach the value of a multi-polar world, in which the French nation could play a greater role. This claim for better distribution of powers can also be considered as an attempt by France to require more consideration from the United States. But the problem is that the French government, like a number of other countries throughout the world, tends to neglect the fact that the American foreign policy is shaped by domestic-level factors. These ones would affect the nature of the US relations with any other countries, and more particularly its own allies.
[...] Groups as powerful and well organized as the AIPAC, or the Irish National Lobby, have access to power because of the decentralized organization of the American Government, and can use this power to influence the Congress. The case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is probably the most striking example of how powerful these interest groups can be. To conclude, it seems to me that if domestic-level factors affect the relations of the United States with the other democratic countries, these relations are still more [...]
[...] Senator Lodge, lead a group mainly consisting of pragmatist internationalists Republicans, like him, and demanded reservations especially to Article 10 of the League Covenant as this one established that nations should agree on what should be done in the event of a breach. Here the major issue was the one of the obligation to act according to what was stated by the League, and accord to this one a preponderance. The tenth article also implied that if needed, the U.S. [...]
[...] In the beginning of the twentieth century the United States still maintain a policy of isolationism, and the majority of the Public Opinion as its representatives in the Congress were unwilling to start a war in which their own and direct interests were not in jeopardy. In spite of Wilson's will to intervene to restore peace in Europe, he had literally no support and had to act very cautiously in order to maintain the national unity, as it was very difficult for a country built on immigration from diverse European countries to choose one side. [...]
[...] Secondly, the struggle between the President and the Senate about such issues does not end legally but politically It seems to me interesting to compare what happened in the twenties, and what is happening since a few years with the organization which has been created on the ruins of the League of Nations, the United Nations. It seems to me that some common points can be found between the rejection of the League and the more and more important reserves that the United States expresses toward the UN, and by consequence toward its members. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
