Quote:
|
" there is proving to be a legitimate need to keep a check on US power and global influence" Why? According to whom?
|
Once the US government decides to step outside the framework of the existing structure in place for resolving international conflicts and violates the very democratic process it claims to be a proponent of AND additionally goes completely against world opinion and the will of that organization - it becomes a sincere threat and danger to everyone.
Americans dont think so... but people world wide who already question the motivations and intentions of the US certainly do.
Quote:
Why should the US concern it's self with international law (if there even is such a thing as international law) when we need to serve our own interests (I'm not even going to throw in the democracy agreement)
and who is responsible for creating and upholding these international laws?
|
the UN was created specifically to "represent the moral consensus of its members" and its primary function and reason for its very creation was to avoid war.
PREAMBLE
"WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
AND FOR THESE ENDS
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,
HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS"
i think that if the USA is going to again, act outside of the consensus of the UN (i.e. bombed Yugoslavia) then they have the obligation to withdraw from the UN... not insist to UN members that they must act unilaterally in the interest of democracy.
the world is not a perfect place. democracy is not perfect. its a question of willing to abide by the system and accept the good with the bad. If world opinion is against attacking Iraq as well as that of the Security Council, then it has to be respected or the institution itself is being rendered irrelevant anyway by acting outside of its authority.
the argument is not about Iraq violating international law. its a question of degrees. the Security council is also putting pressure on him as is the US right now. is it effective, working, not working etc etc... do they need more time before coming to a clear conclusion? can Saddam be disarmed without a fight? ... thats a matter of the collective opinions and will of the members of the UN Security Council.
Last edited by JR at Feb 28 2003, 12:11 PM