Reports on the United Nations by three United States groups, the Commission to Study the Organization of Peace, the President's Commission, and the United Nations Association of the USA, are summarized and compared. They reveal informed concern about United States participation in the UN at a time when Congress and the executive exhibit negativism and neglect. Conclusions are drawn on (1) differing priorities for the UN system and their interdependence, (2) the special capabilities of the United States for setting examples, (3) alternative models for UN problem solving, (4) United States contributions to the UN, and (5) generating political will for creative United States involvement in the UN. Concern is expressed about efforts to cut United States assessments for UN budgets and failure of the reports to adequately consider the political consequences of the fact that “maintenance of international peace and security” is not considered the most important UN task by all members. If congressional and executive neglect are to be overcome, public participation and involvement must be extended.

This article presents an interpretation of the conflicts between universalism and nationalism as they affected United States policy toward the creation of the United Nations. Drawing on heretofore unavailable sources, the author stresses the rising influence of nationalism in the evolution of decisions on the veto power, trusteeships, and regionalism. His focus is on the decision–making process during Roosevelt's last year and the initial months of the Truman administration. He contends that Cordell Hull's universalist UN blueprint, which Roosevelt supported, was inexorably eroded by critics within the American government, especially military spokesmen. These leaders took advantage of the apprehension about the Soviet Union's future policy to further their own ambitions for a strong post–war military posture. Truman was sympathetic to the voices of nationalism, and when he became president the shift away from a strong UN became more pronounced.

Regional integration theory emphasizes elite social learning and attitude change as concomitant processes of integration. Participation by national elites in EEC decision making may bring about these changes. To test these hypotheses, French and German delegates to the European Parliament were interviewed, and their attitudes compared with those of a control group sampled among their national colleagues. The general finding was that the delegates’ attitudes appear to undergo cognitive, but not affective, changes. Delegates develop more complex perceptions and become better informed and more interested in European matters, yet they become neither more favorable nor less hostile to these issues because of the self–recruitment of many legislators who were avowed Europeans before their nomination. Strong ties to national parties apparently diminish the attitudinal effects of this learning experience. Only when the parliament has full time legislators who exercise potent policy–making tasks will its role in European integration increase.

As periodic stock–taking efforts would indicate,1 students of international organizations have become increasingly sophisticated in the methods and techniques used for assessing the dynamics of international efforts at cooperation, and the impact of these efforts on the general stream of international politics. Nowhere has this been more true than in attempts by scholars to come to grips with the political processes acted out in the General Assembly of the United Nations. To para–phrase Keohane,2 we have come to witness a change of focus from a somewhat static description of structures, rules and regulations, to analyses of patterns of voting behavior (and correlates thereof) to, finally, systematic analyses of patterns of interactions leading to votes and resolutions.