[quote name='thrustbucket']Speed, if what you are saying is true, are you basically saying that the UN is totally impotent?[/quote]
It depends on the legal structure of the countries involved. Some do not have the same requirements for treaty ratification that we do. Also, some don't have the critical eye for the UN that we do. Some implicitly believe the UN is a force for good and their populations aren't all crazy freaked out like we are when we hear the UN is doing anything at all (not that that's always a bad thing).
If they come up with something like this to be enforced, but it doesn't mean a damn thing unless a country ratifies it, what the hell is the UN for and why do we need it?
The power of the UN comes from soft power. This is one of those things where I've never understood why we made the UN into the boogeyman. Because we're so powerful militarily, economically, and politically, the UN basically bends to our will. It can do NOTHING unless we allow it via our permanent veto power over it (which is why Israel [hearts] America). At the same time, we are given a huge megaphone to bitch and no one can stop us.
They're also really helpful when some really heinous shit is going down but it's not really in anyone's interest to stop it. El Salvador was a good example. How on earth could you convince the Dutch to unilaterally send soldiers to support a peace keeping mission in Central America? But slap a blue helmet on em and suddenly less willing countries will help you. Bosnia was another good one. One side was trying to virtually exterminate the other, but we didn't know until we got there by sending peacekeepers to stand around and watch. Knowing caused massive (ok, massive American) response to a situation that history just wouldn't have noticed.
The problem with the UN is that nothing is binding unless you're the one getting taken behind the shed to get your ass whupped. The UN can put together a resolution condemning something, but they can't just go trot out their army. But isn't that a good thing? Do we really want binding resolutions from the UN? I would say heeeeeeeeeeeeeell no.
North Korea is a great example. I hate to use the analogy because I don't mean to distract, but our relationship with Israel is alot like NK's relationship with China. Over and over people bring resolutions demanding Israel and North Korea be sanctioned or whatever, and we each block them because it's in our interests. What the US and South Korea want is China to allow the UN to issue a sanction against North Korea, not for China to do anything directly. It gives political cover to China (we didn't DO it, we just didn't do it, get my meaning?) to not block a resolution against NK. North Korea is basically willing to do anything China wants to stay out of that jam, which turns soft power into hard power and allows us to negotiate with China instead of NK, which we'd much prefer. By the same token, if anyone in the world wants anything on the Israel/Gaza/Whatever thing, they don't talk to Israel. They talk to America.
Guys like John Bolton have their place. He hates the UN and says that it binds us and prevents us from wholly acting in our own interest. Ok, I guess. But when was the last time we didn't do something because the UN frowned? He'll complain that Libya was on the Human Rights Committee. Ok, I guess. But that got people talking about Libya's human rights violations and put pressure on them. That's a good thing, right? I think so.
But for him to go all crazy over something like the article's subject isn't him just bitching. He understands the structure and function of the UN. What he is doing is lying in order to scare the shit out of.. well, whoever is listening. John Bolton is not worried about that resolution or treaty or whatever. He's just being a dickhead.
out of here with this stupid shit.
