8 1 min 14 yrs

Relying on International Law, or some other “internationalist” construct  to adjudicate conflict and promote “world-peace”  is a  silly fantasy.  Think about it. The UN is simply a collection of individual countries, each with their own set of intrigues and self-interested motivations; the UN can never be disinterested, or “objective.”

Sadly,  Barack Obama appears not to have figured this out.  Reuters reports that in Obama’s most recent statement regarding the Russian  bombing of Georgia, he calls on the UN Security Council to “try to help bring about a peaceful resolution.”

Someone should tell Obama how ridiculous he sounds. The UN cannot facilitate “peace talks” between Russia and Georgia; Russia  has a permanent seat on the Security Council and  exercises veto power over any United Nations action.

HT:  Powerline

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

8 thoughts on “The Problem with Internationalism

  1. The problem is the fact that the UN has no power of enforcement, especially against he big countries. The big countries, like Russia, the US, the UK, France and China all have a veto on the Security Council. It means that any action against them or their mates like Israel (US), North Korea (China) etc etc, is immediately vetoed.

  2. Obama cannot withstand any enhanced scrutiny. He is a naif.

    While its agreed that the UN is useless as currently set up, I don’t know how I might reorganize it.

    Without a veto, big countries might opt out.

    Take away the veto, and give each country an equal say, and that would be stupid and unjust. Guinea Bissau, Nauru and Luxembourg will not and should not get the same vote that the big countries get.

  3. The utter uselessness of the UN is apparent as is the hopeless naivity of Obama. He’s gonna bring change????

  4. For all its flaws, is it not better to at least have the talking shop that is the UN instead of resorting to isolationist policies and brinkmanship? For those of you who would wish the UN dissolved, what would you suggest instead?

  5. RS: The UN exists to promote the individual agendas of member countries. Member countries act in their own self-interest. I have absolutely no problem with this.

    I do object to the notion held by many on Internationlists, by the Left, that somehow the UN is a "supra" power, the notion that the UN stands above its member states — that the UN is an objective arbiter — passing noble and just rulings.

    This just isn’t the case, and never will be the case. The UN is just a group of member nations.

    Many on the Left would like to use the UN as a counter power to the US. Or, a counter power to Russia, as Obama mentions above. Which is silly because the US is responsible for 23% of the UN budget; Russia is a significant member with significant power.

    Also, the UN is corrupt and inefficient and, in fact, does much damage in the world through its corrupt and inefficient attempts at "peace keeping." The "Oil for Food" program is only one example.

    I would like to see my tax dollars put to better use.

    And if nations wish to talk, nations can gather somewhere and talk. We don’t need a bureaucracy called "United Nations" for this.

  6. For those of you who would wish the UN dissolved, what would you suggest instead?

    The League of Democratic Nations.

  7. ‘The League of Democratic Nations’

    Some suggestion Daphne, a title, and one which is similar to another turkey of an organisation years ago.

Comments are closed.