The reason I like the UN is the same reason I like the EU - it's turned international relations from a constellation of dubious treaties and blocs into a bunch of old, fat men jabbering at each other. Not very edifying, but lethargy is preferable to blitzkrieg any day.
$350k and a nice house? That's f'ck all in terms of the remuneration for heads of international organisations, for that matter. You didn't see George Bush trying to smear and remove the head of Enron (who was on rather more than $350k), suck up to him, possibly.
Frankly, given what's happened to world peace and stability after a major state that should know better deliberately sabotaged the UN (and then tries to blame the UN for being sabotaged, which is chutzpah of a high order) and goes it alone I think the case for the UN is stronger than ever.
My point was actually that we have, through historical accident, a seat at the top table - whether we should have it is one point, but it's preferable to have it and use it in the spirit its founders intended* than tag alone on the bully's coat-tails while he steals everyone's pocket money, hoping he'll share what he nicks with us.
*The first meeting of the UN was in London, of course, there's a strong case for saying that the British were partly responsible for inventing the idea in the first place. Which is just one reason we shouldn't support its destruction.
Quote:
|
I am glad he didn't think that during World War 2, or we could be jaw-jawing in German right now.
|
An invalid point in this context, since
1) Germany definitely was a threat to the UK
2) Churchill didn't start WW2
3) He became PM in the middle of it
4) He actually came out with that quotation in 1954.
This was of course after the experience of WW2 (and WW1 and the Boer War, for that matter), which hadn't exactly made him a fan of pre-emptive military action (or 'invading someone else's country because you feel like it' as it used to be known). It's often been pointed out on here that Churchill would not have been a supporter of the recent Iraq jaunt.
Quote:
|
removing a tyrannical dictator and his sons, who used to torture people for fun.
|
It's still illegal (as Annan pointed out, if you're looking for him doing something good) to go in and overthrow governments without UN approval, whatever those heads of state are doing. There's a reason for this. Care to propose why making this legal would make the world a better place?
France, Russia and China used their SC vote correctly on Iraq - they knew the US was engaged in something underhand and wrong (the amount of coercion, threats and bribery put on non-permanent SC members for instance), and didn't want to back it, hence no second resolution. The SC is a world body set up to keep the peace, not a shop for rubber stamping the self-interested policies of the Republican Party.