I'm pro-UN. Still. Nothing about this situation has caused me to waver on that. The US should and will protect it's interests and itself outside of the UN if necessary. Countries have. Countries will. We have not surrendered our sovereignty to the UN, nor should we ever.
Situations like we are witnessing today have happened in the UN before. The US/USSR rift in 1962. Wasn't it the start of the Vietnam conflict that the Chinese and Russian representatives didn't even show up at the UN the day of the invasion? I don't think the USSR had a UN resolution to invade Afghanistan. ;-) Clinton had to break with the UN and go with NATO in Kosovo. So I think this is all really business as usual. How did the UN ever survive the Cold War with the US and USSR as permanent members?
The United Nations cannot be all things but it can be some things. Let's consider how WELL it performed in 1991. The UN is a good forum to discuss these things and sometimes everyone is in agreement. Sometimes not.
If we are serious about nonproliferation, we will need a body that is serious about it with no exceptions. The difficulty is that there is always some country that has a vested interest IN the country that is developing them. For this reason it will not be possible for a body to stop nonproliferation unless all countries place nonproliferation as their number one priority in the world .. and they certainly don't. The risk is great on each side. I have always thought force should have been threatened against all countries developing nuclear weapons right from the beginning. We can't possibly live in a world where dozens of countries have nuclear weapons and have a hope of averting another world war indefinitely. Tough choices to make. Build that missile defense system.
Last edited by Colin at Mar 17 2003, 05:35 AM
|