Actually, a correction: the United Nations is 78 years old...and it's birthday was not this past Saturday (Oct 24)
[THREAD]
To be clear: the "United Nations" as a global "international organization" was formed 75 years ago this past Saturday (Oct 24).
But the "United Nations" itself is a bit older.
The "United Nations" itself was formed on January 1, 1942 as a military alliance against Nazi Germany
The British, Americans, Soviets, and Chinese signed the document on January 1 (note how these are 4 of the eventual 5 Permanent Security Council members). 22 other countries signed it over the next few days.
So the UN's hierarchy was baked in from the beginning.
The timing of the UN Declaration should be unsurprising: less than a month after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
But a key reason that the Declaration could be signed so quickly is because it was simply an extension of an earlier document: the August 14, 1941 Atlantic Charter between 🇺🇸&🇬🇧
The UN Declaration itself makes explicit that it is an extension of the Charter
The Atlantic Charter outlined several principles to be achieved in the post-war world (e.g. economic collaboration; abandonment of use of force), but a key part was "the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny"
These negotiations took place from January 1941 to March 1941. They were prompted Churchill, in a December 1940 correspondence, bluntly laying out to Roosevelt the difficulties Britain faced as it alone faced Hitler in Europe. He wrote:
The talks, lasting about 2 months, produced the sixty-seven page ABC-1 report. This report, which outlined such things as the "Germany first" strategy (i.e. defeat Germany before Japan), served as the basis for the much shorter Atlantic Charter and UN Declaration.
For the curious, the full report is reproduced in "Pearl Harbor Attack: Hearings Before the Joint Committee on the Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack, Congress of the United States" (1946)
He correctly points out that while documents like the Atlantic Charter describe post-war principles, they did not actually call for a permanent IO.
Instead, a global IO could ease "buy in" at home and abroad to US post-war global leadership (or "dominance")
@stephenwertheim elaborates on the push for US post-war dominance, and the UN as an instrument for that dominance, in his new book "Tomorrow, the World"
(1) Staunch rivalries (and territorial disputes) in the region
(2) Region marred by conflict
(3) Alliance ties to outside powers
First, there are indeed two staunch rivals in the Caucasus: Armenia and Azerbaijan. In fact, the war currently unfolding between Armenia and Azerbaijan is the second between the two countries since the end of the Cold War
Are such distinctions useful and do any of the terms accurately describe 🇺🇸-🇨🇳 relations?
Let's break it down.
[THREAD]
To start, notice what were NOT options given by Page:
"friends, partners, allies"
(though Page did acknowledge that 🇨🇳 could be a "potential partner" for addressing 🇰🇵 and climate change)
So we're starting with the presumption of a "confrontational" relationship.
From the standpoint of foreign policy discourse, there can be value in saying that someone is a "competitor" (competition is "healthy") rather than an "enemy" (who is "evil"). @EdwardGoldberg makes this distinction in a piece for @Salon
To be clear: I am NOT offering a story about how the collapse of the Soviet Union ended the "Cold War Consensus" and this collapse brought us to today.
Start with one of international relations primary models for war: bargaining theory
The idea is the following: since war is costly (think of all the millions of people Mattis feared would die in a 🇰🇵🇺🇸 war), states have an incentive to "strike a bargain" that avoids war.
Let's talk about the 1918 Battle of Belleau Wood and why the American Marines who died in it were not "suckers"
[THREAD]
To start, why were Americans even there? Specifically, why did the US enter World War I?
That's not a simple answer to give (so I'm not going to 🤨at @realDonaldTrump for not understanding why the US entered the war on the side of the British-French-Italians)
Woodrow Wilson was conflicted on whether to enter the war at all.