I'm agnostic regarding necessity of the UN Security Council issue.
Surely the UN stats are "a perversion of reality". Marketing.
Here's a question.
If the UN Security Council is "irrelavant", why do the nations that are participating in it continue to do so? What Darwiniam mechanism allows it to survive? What value do the Security Council members see in it?
I don't hold the "irrelavant" view myself in light of the fact that I don't enough about UN History [yet]. As I said above, I'm pretty agnostic on the whole UN security council issue. I think reading the resolutions and observing the results would be a good start. Perhaps it has been true that the UN Security doesn't stop any wars [no idea if that is actually true] but has had some success with curbing weapons proliferation. That would be worth having.
Quite obviously, it can't stop a permanent member from going to war because of the veto [and it has been used for such] but are there any conflicts which were avoided as a result of Security Council actions? How do we know when conflicts would have arisen with certainty?
The Security Council voted to send troops to Korea and Kuwait. Those were sanctioned uses of force with the intention of reversing other invasions. Not the only way "success" may or may not be measured though.
Excellent timing for a book on the subject.
|