“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.
