GST - This is directed at the thread as much as your post.
Could we tone down the anger a bit on this thread? Please.
And lets get some definitions straight.
Unilateral means alone. Bilateral means two. Multilateral means more than one, usually it means more than two.
Lacking the French, Russians, Canadians, Norwegians, Belgians or Chinese does not make an action unilateral.
The Iraq war proceeded with significant British and Australian participation. It was not widely supported, but was also not unilateral. While not UN sanctioned please remember that no conflicts except Korea and the Gulf War had been in our history. JFK, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan and Clinton all participated in non-UN sanctioned wars or conflicts.
Negotiating with North Korea is proceeding multilaterally. After all the hubris over Iraq - why must this one be bilateral? Because the North Koreans want that? Why is it in our interest to concede this point with fanatics?
Can we discuss these items from a policy perspective, or must we focus on our prejudices and anger?
International law is a series of agreements between countries. There is no world government - the UN simply functions as a diplomatic force for governments to get together to promote peace and co-operation. But each interprets the charter differently. Many involved in the UN process, practice torture, ethnic cleansing and even genocide back home.
Discussing the UN the way you do, reminds me of its origin and makes one think of it as an organization dominated by countries like Canada and Norway, rather than Libya, Nigeria and Iran.
Maurice is right - the UN needs to be reconstructed to become what we thought it could be - an organization of democracies.
John |
