Brian:

I should state up front that I am no fan of the way that the UN operates: however I do take issue with uninformed attacks on a body that I believe has some notable successes despite the constraints it operates under. It’s therefore a pleasure to discuss these issues with somebody who has clearly thought carefully about them, rather than have to read the common kneejerk reactions that I read on many blogs, so thank you Brian.

Having said that, I will keep my comments brief and address only one of your points:

I would regard resolutions that are not enforced as bolstering tyrants, breeding corruption and victimizing the weak.

I feel that you’re criticizing the UN for not doing something that it was neither designed or authorized to do; and regard UN resolutions as pointless because they don’t achieve the aims that you want. In addition, UN resolutions are generally non-binding, so there is no enforcement mechanism; they do not have the force of law, so it is largely pointless to be disillusioned because they’re not enforced as law.

Precisely. Pigs can’t fly because they don’t have wings. They weren’t set up that way. And you assume correctly: I’d oppose in the strongest possible way the prospect of the US being subject to UN edicts. Which simply makes my point: the UN does not have the power to punish people who commit human rights abuses under its banner, because it wasn’t designed that way… Each is a “fatal design flaw,” rather like trying to construct a bridge across a river with no bottom (ever see Bridge on the River Kwai?).

This argument interests me more for what is not said than for what is said. You believe that the UN has a fatal design flaw because it doesn’t have the power do something that it wasn’t set up to do, while at the same time you agree that if it did have that power, you’d object strenuously? All bridges are designed to carry a certain load; to say that the bridge is badly designed because it collapses when twice that load is placed on it seems a little strained as an argument.

That’s my bad — if I’d had my thinking cap on, I’d have written that sentence differently. I’d have qualified it to read: “The US has the power to bring wrongdoers who misbehave under the US banner to justice and the US exercises that power.”

On that we can agree, and the justice system is one of the saving graces of the US as far as I’m concerned.