“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.” – Senator John McCain
As I’ve already broken down,
we are addressing whether the United Nations or the United States
should be the preeminent keeper of international peace and defender of human
rights, and the precedent this would set.
My simple answer is the
United Nations should be the
preeminent keeper of international peace and defender of human rights. If for no other reason, the UN can speak for
the will of the world, transcending diplomatic allegiances like NATO or the
Arab League. Because of this,
involvement by the UN can hardly be said to advance any one nation’s agenda
over another’s. Furthermore, when the UN
acts it is in the interest of international peace and the protection of human
rights. I say ‘when’ because history and
current events have shown the UN doesn’t always act. The United Nations has proven unable to
consistently uphold these responsibilities, and I am concerned it will take
another Rwandan Genocide for the world to realize this.
Since you aren’t going to
call the UN, it seems like the only other option is the United States (and
France, Great Britain, and Turkey to name a few). But what precedent does this set when three
of five Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) ignore
the vetoes cast by the other two?
This is a difficult question. On the one hand, by going against the UN we
are saying, “The UN doesn’t have authority over us.” Suppose in the near future China asks the
UNSC to sign a resolution declaring the South China Sea as exclusively Chinese
maritime territory. Given recent events
in the region I have no doubt the United States would respond, if needed, by
casting a veto vote. If the United
States just defied the UNSC by intervening in Syria, who are we to scold China
for continuing to occupy islands and waters claimed by Japan, Philippines, and
Indonesia. A situation that should have
been resolved through diplomatic channels would them come down to a military
standoff, with the possibility of small conflicts between nations.
Conversely, if the United
States and other likeminded nations respect the will of the UNSC they won’t
intervene in Syria. The conflict will
continue to escalate, with more crimes against humanity being committed by both
sides.
The phrase ‘between a rock
and a hard place’ doesn’t begin to quantify the moral dilemma we face
here. Respect the United Nations and
aspire that one day it will be able to act in every case of crimes against
humanity… or try to save the lives of thousands of Syrians while labeling the
UN as irrelevant.
The answer, in my opinion, is both clear as
day and invisible. It is what Jack
Nicolson was referring to when he screamed, “you can’t handle the truth!”
Covert operations cannot replace policy,
but it can support it. In this case the
United States hasn’t been shy about favoring the Free Syrian Army and calling
for President Assad to step down, but it has been unable to openly support the
FSA with weapons, intelligence, or funding.
It is these capacities that the Agency excels at.
Tom,
ReplyDeleteWhen I read this well articulated piece I was reminded of an interesting quote about people who like the idea of soccer. Not the reality of actually playing it, but the idea of it.
The United Nations has many similarities to this. Yes, it's a wonderful concept to have a body you could turn to settle disputes but the organization and concept has flaws that give me pause before turning over our national interest. For one thing, we don't have too look back very far to see the enormous corruption that pervades the organization. It is bureaucratic without results.
I have seen little evidence to show that it is a more well run and better institution than our own government.
Second is the fundamental concept of whether America should be for America first. I don't mean this in some way to justify setting up puppet governments or hurting other countries. Rather, I refer to it more in the Capitalist sense. We are in a market place of ideas and we don't need make our countries interest subservient to the world.
If each countries pursues their interest to develop their nation as best possible, (without destroying others along the way) then we should allow a free market place of different countries perspectives.
Also, the goal and tendencies of the UN too often go towards the concept of "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."
The situation of stopping gross genocide is one of the few areas where I might make an exception and say that someone has to step in, however, I'm also not convinced that temporary coalitions couldn't come together when these needs arise.
So yes, I like the idea of the UN.
I'm even willing to concede it's useful for organizing some global standards such as environmental activities. However, since we live in a country that is governed by the Constitution, and our President is sworn to protect our interest, I am unwilling to concede our national sovereingty to any non-US institution. John G.
I think there is more common ground between what I wrote and your comment than you may think.
ReplyDeleteWe agree that:
1. The UN doesn't have a stellar track record.
2. What the UN could be is very good.
3. Genocide warrants intervention
As I said in part one of this series, I am only focused on genocide and civil war as situations where the UN should be able, no, obligated to act promptly to stop the violence. And again for clarity sake, I do not think the UN is currently capable of this.
So to rephrase both pieces into a bullet list...
Principles:
-Response time and the capacity to project force are the two most important factors to stopping genocide and civil war.
-Genocide and civil war must be stopped ASAP.
Facts of life:
-The UN can't currently act in accordance with these principles.
-Only the U.S. can currently act in accordance with these principles, though not necessarily with the consent of the international community.
Therefore I simply see no other option at this time than the one I have outlined. You may still disagree with my second principle. But to build on your reference to communism, I believe when people are dying by the masses all capable parties need to step up and act. Unfortunately right now the only legitimate party capable of this is the United States.
I say legitimate because after the U.S., Europe, and others failed to support the needs of the Free Syrian Army, Al Qaeda did and has begun have some influence over events on the group in Syria. I'll end my response there and encourage you to look into this yourself.
Thank you for your comment.
-Tom