However, it seems to me that you are assuming that this only superpower is and will always be fair and benevolent.
I don't know whether it will. I would hope so but the US hasn't always been so historically. Still the US is likely to be better than anyone else would be in the role - except maybe the Brits. Their empire seems like it was normally a little more civilized than most.
Selfless benevolence of the US sounds too much to hope for. I am however even more doubtful of any other countries, separately or in combination, in regard to selflessness or benevolence or, given the things going on in the UN, even a modest amount of responsibility.
Therefore, it is OK to give unchecked rule to this superpower.
How do you check a superpower unless it is willing? The thing is the US is not entirely unwilling. It did create (OK, organize) the UN. And has tried mightily to work within it and get the institution to work constructively. The US does expect to have a leadership role there and not have the other members actively working against it for the sheer sake of spite.
You are exaggerating. All other countries on earth (incl. Russia, China, etc) could not have bested Saddam if they wanted to?
I'm certain they wouldn't have. Could they have? If they were willing to make a major effort, perhaps.
US was one of the creators the UN. There were others, who hold veto powers at this point.
I know I was exaggerating a bit there. Perhaps I should have the US organized it. Roosevelt came up with the name.
"international law" is basically the rules that were accepted by international community in the form of customary law, international agreements, and general principles common to major legal systems.
So international law exists, because all countries agree to abide by these rules.
The problem with laws which depend on everyone agreeing to abide by them is that everyone won't abide by them. Therefore, laws have to be enforced by someone in order to be effective.
Here's an example of internationally agreed law without enforcement:
members.tripod.com;
On April 15, 1993 the Serbs launched a massive offensive against the town. The United Nations intervened. On 16 April, the Security Council declared Srebrenica a safe area. The name belied the reality of the situation. The Serbs had agreed to halt their advance on the town, and other enclaves in return for the disarming of Muslim forces in those areas by the UN.
Srebrenica was not so much a safe are as a besieged area. Its peace-time population was 18,000. In April 1993, there were 42,000 inhabits, as victims of ethnic cleansing in the vicinity sought sanctuary.
By July 1995, the situation was much the same. The troops stationed at the central UN base at Potacari were from the Netherlands. Their service in Srebrenica earned them double pay. Their mandate was to protect the inhabitants from ethnic cleansing. As the UN could not be seen to be taking sides, the Dutch peace-keepers were also to ensure that the Muslims remained unarmed. They kept the latter part of their terms.
On July 6, 1995 the Serbs began an offensive on the town. On July 11, Dutch peace-keepers handed over Srebrenica to the Serbs, in what was described as the fall of Srebrenica. Bound to protect the inhabitants, Sgt. Johann Bos described the Dutch position to the British press afterwards:
“I found myself standing on a ridge with the Muslims behind me and the Serbs in front of me. Well, I wasn't going back. So we waited, and after a while the Serbs came and told us that if we surrendered we would be well treated, and we would go home as soon as possible. So we gave up our arms and equipment and that was that . . .”
What followed was what has been described by the United Nations as the worst act of genocide since the Second World War. Forty thousand Muslims were expelled from Srebrenica. Of that total, three thousand are confirmed dead, killed by Serbian execution squads. Eight thousand are missing, but are presumed to have met the same fate.
Men were separated from their families in front of the peace-keepers in Potacari, and locked up in a nearby warehouse. They were visited by the Serb warlord Ratko Mladic the next day, who informed them they would be exchanged for Serb prisoners. They were taken away, but not for an exchange. According to one survivor of the horror that followed, they were transported to a sports hall about 22 miles north of the town, in Krizevci. In total about 3000 men were crammed into a hall about 600 yards square. On July 14, Mladic appeared again, and informed the men that the prisoner exchange had been arranged. The men were then transported under armed Serb guard to a field. This is now the site of one of the six mass graves being excavated and examined by investigators for the war crimes tribunal. According to the three survivors of that night, all the men transported there were lined up and shot.
The pattern repeated itself around Srebrenica. The thousands of elderly, women and children expelled from the town, were forced to march across no man's land to the nearest Bosnian government held position, Tuzla, sixty miles away. Thousands are still missing from this trek. It is estimated that in total 12,000 civilians, mainly men were killed by the Serbs. In one example of the mass exodus, a column of 12,000 set out on July 11, less than half survived the trek. Parts of the column were ambushed by the Serbs, and the fate of the men marching is the same as that of their brothers in the fields and woods in the Krizevci / Sahanici area as well as Nova Kasaba, Bratunac, Potacari, Konjevic Polje, Milici, Kamenica; in the factory at Karakaj where an estimated 2,000 were killed and the warehouse at Kravica where another 2,000 met the same end.
<<<<< |
