Who You Gonna Call?

Part 1

Yesterday at the Republican National Convention Senator John McCain and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke to attendees about American foreign policy.  Without going into details the duo said exactly what you would expect.  They outlined the dangers of American decline, talked about the U.S. being a resolute beacon for our allies, and reminisced about the good old days.  Neither offered specifics for how a Romney/Ryan administration would go about these issues, or any others for that matter, but that was not the purpose of the event. 

So why the blog post?  It is to react to this one liner from Senator McCain.  “We can't afford to give governments in Russia and China a veto over how we defend our interests and the progress of our values in the world.”  He is referring to the vetoes by Russia and China of repeated attempts by the United States and others to secure UNSC action in Syria. 

Senator McCain isn’t saying that Russia and China shouldn’t be permanent members of the UNSC, armed with a veto vote over any item put before the council.  He is saying their veto votes shouldn’t stop the United States from acting as it wants.  To keep this post on the briefer side, the issue at hand is; what precedent are we setting by going against the expressed or implied will of the United Nations? 

The answer to this question (Ghost Busters!) depends on whether you think the United Nations or the United States should be the preeminent keeper of international peace and defender of human rights.  As this situation shows, they cannot jointly share this role every time. 

There are pros and cons to each but I will stop here with the hopes that this question raises some debate.  Check back soon for part two; my answer.