Search

International politics has a bigger impact on the United Nations than vice versa, even if sometimes a Secretary-General, agency head, or field mission can influence independently the world beyond meeting rooms. This reality is essential: to understand the UN is to understand comparative state foreign policies.[1] However, Trump's antimultilateralism is an expansion of a long-standing love-hate relationship with international organizations.[4] Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush started their presidencies with anti-UN rhetoric - less toxic than Trump's, but hostile - along with vigorous unilateralism in other aspects of foreign policy. The Trump administration embodies a foreign policy that involves cozying up to autocrats, publicly berating democratic allies, and minimizing support for human rights, democracy, and sustainable development. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses the international organization United Nations (UN), the strategies and advantages associated with international cooperation, and the significance of multilateralism in U.S. foreign policy. Topics include how multilateral leadership was instrumental in defeating European fascism and how the U.S. Congress reduced funding for the UN's Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Additional information is presented on how criticizing the UN undermines leadership in the U.S. and how U.S. presidents have failed to restructure multilateral institutions in favor of U.S. interests.

The United Nations' and United States' responses to the events of 11 September and to Iraq reveal lessons and dilemmas for both. After a decade of having its legitimacy tested and undermined, the organisation is at a crossroads. The possible directions it can take are deeply influenced by US actions. For Washington, its use of the UN in the immediate aftermath of 11 September and its return to the organisation for help with post-war Iraq reveal an approach that continues a tradition of mixed messages at the UN. It is essential to facilitate this tactical multilateralism -- a recognition of the importance of UN legitimacy and support to US interests -- even though that recognition may constrain US actions and choices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article analyzes reactions to the report on humanitarian interventions entitled "The Responsibility to Protect, issued by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. Prospects for future humanitarian interventions are analyzed. It is noted that the report has failed in the political goal of consolidating the consensus on conditions for humanitarian interventions after the events of the 1990s. The effects of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq on humanitarian discourse are also reviewed. It is concluded that the concept of a responsibility to protect civilians in extreme humanitarian emergencies survived in the September 2001 event and the in the Afghan War.

The article presents a discussion on Third World countries and Eastern Europe. It mentions the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, which brought developing countries back into U.S. political considerations. The article describes the waning tensions between capitalist and communist countries and the focus of the U.S. on the emerging conflicts between industrialized and developing countries. It provides a historical background of the collapse of communism and its effects on Third World countries including the loss of potential investors and donors.

Objectives: To determine which combinations of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and multiple chronic conditions (MCC) contribute to total spending and differences in spending between groups based on sex, race/ethnicity, and rural residency., Study Design: Retrospective cohort study using 2012 Medicare claims data from beneficiaries in Michigan with T2D., Methods: Zero-inflated Poisson regression models to estimate relationships of demographic characteristics and MCC combinations on hospital outpatient, acute inpatient, skilled nursing, hospice, and Part D drug spending., Results: Across most MCC combinations, there are lower odds of no spending, with a concurrent increase in the expected mean of actual spending when payments are made, except for hospital outpatient costs. For hospital outpatient services, we observed lower spending across all MCC combinations. When controlling for MCC, we generally found that compared with White beneficiaries, Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Hispanic beneficiaries experience increased odds of no spending, but when payments were made, payments generally increased. American Indian/Alaska Native beneficiaries are the exception; they experience decreased odds of no payments for hospital outpatient and acute inpatient services, with a concurrent decrease in mean expected payments., Conclusions: When considering a range of MCC combinations, we observed differences in total payments between racial/ethnic minority groups and White beneficiaries. Our results highlight the ongoing need to make changes in the health care system to make the system more accessible to racial/ethnic minority groups.