03-27-2003, 07:22 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-27-2003, 07:35 PM by Occhidiangela.)
. . . two fold.
1. NATO was created by a treaty, the Washington Treaty, and as such was subject to the usual Senatorial debate and review. Some of the pundits argue that no such treaty process was the case in US membership of the UN, since it was formed during WW II by the nations that were united versus Germany (just defeated) and Japan in June of 1945.
The UN as it is, even if imperfect, is better than no UN. Some of us recall the League of Nations (OK, I studied it, I aint THAT old) and how its impotence and our own lack of support for internationalism was its demise when Hitler called its bluff, or earlier when the Spanish Civil War went on as the League of Nations squabbled. Given that perspective, and recalling how hard some states fought (and still fight) the federalization efforts in our own country, so too do sovereign nations fight the perceived powers of an extranational world government.
It took a major war to resolve our 'states versus Congress' issue, as well as subsequent judicial decisions.
So maybe it would take a major war to resolve the "Nations versus UN" issue.
*Shudder*
That is exactly what this world does not need, in this rogue's opinion.
Oops, here is fold 2.
International Law.
A lot of folks are claiming that US is violating 'International Law' while they appear to ignore the violations of Geneva Convention and International Law in Iraq, and other places.
Whatever the various merits and demerits of those discussions, no Law is any better than its enforcement, or the extent of voluntary obedience.
So, for those who claim that the US violates international law with this action in support of enforcing UN resolutions (that is a bit ironic, really) I would ask anyone just what the hell they tend to do about it? Who will enforce the law?
The US has tended to be one of the few U.N. enforcement arms, there are others, for the past 50 years. Look at how much effort Pres Bush had to expend to EJECT AN AGGRESSOR FROM KUWAIT. A cut and dried case of Aggression took exceptional effort to take action against. So, if there is a cut and dried case that could be made against the US, for agression, who the heck is going to do anything about it? Who is going to enforce 'international law?' If they don't have the balls to face Saddam, who has the balls to face the US?
That question lays bare the limitations of the UN in practice.
1. NATO was created by a treaty, the Washington Treaty, and as such was subject to the usual Senatorial debate and review. Some of the pundits argue that no such treaty process was the case in US membership of the UN, since it was formed during WW II by the nations that were united versus Germany (just defeated) and Japan in June of 1945.
The UN as it is, even if imperfect, is better than no UN. Some of us recall the League of Nations (OK, I studied it, I aint THAT old) and how its impotence and our own lack of support for internationalism was its demise when Hitler called its bluff, or earlier when the Spanish Civil War went on as the League of Nations squabbled. Given that perspective, and recalling how hard some states fought (and still fight) the federalization efforts in our own country, so too do sovereign nations fight the perceived powers of an extranational world government.
It took a major war to resolve our 'states versus Congress' issue, as well as subsequent judicial decisions.
So maybe it would take a major war to resolve the "Nations versus UN" issue.
*Shudder*
That is exactly what this world does not need, in this rogue's opinion.
Oops, here is fold 2.
International Law.
A lot of folks are claiming that US is violating 'International Law' while they appear to ignore the violations of Geneva Convention and International Law in Iraq, and other places.
Whatever the various merits and demerits of those discussions, no Law is any better than its enforcement, or the extent of voluntary obedience.
So, for those who claim that the US violates international law with this action in support of enforcing UN resolutions (that is a bit ironic, really) I would ask anyone just what the hell they tend to do about it? Who will enforce the law?
The US has tended to be one of the few U.N. enforcement arms, there are others, for the past 50 years. Look at how much effort Pres Bush had to expend to EJECT AN AGGRESSOR FROM KUWAIT. A cut and dried case of Aggression took exceptional effort to take action against. So, if there is a cut and dried case that could be made against the US, for agression, who the heck is going to do anything about it? Who is going to enforce 'international law?' If they don't have the balls to face Saddam, who has the balls to face the US?
That question lays bare the limitations of the UN in practice.
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete