![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Trust the #2 slimeball of political manipulation, Dick Morris, to once again hit the nail on the head.
In this day and age, what use is the UN? Its resolutions are routinely shunned, from Iraq to Israel. In the last decade, the world has seen rampant worldwide terrorism, France nuking the South Pacific, China outright threatening Taiwan, Indian/Pakistani relations escalating to nuclear brinkmanship, borderline and outright genocide in Chechnya and the Balkans and Central Africa, and an increase in human slavery in Northern Africa and Southern Asia.
So why does the UN continue to exist? Because in today's mono-superpower world, the UN is the only credible balance against the US. Unlike the former Western superpowers of Russia, Germany, England, France, Spain, Rome, and Greece, the US isn't going to try to conquer the world. Rather, like ancient Carthage, the US has zero moral qualms about making the rest of the world US-friendly, whether it comes to forceful regime change (Afghanistan, Iraq) or just subtle electoral manipulation (e.g. Germany in the last couple days.)
This makes Bush's UN speech (or should I say, Condoleezza Rice's UN speech) absolutely brilliant from the US' point of view. The UN is needed in today's world to keep the US from making the Earth one large US-centric hegemony. But, like all alliances, the UN can't keep focus because of the bickering that ultimately ensues between participants who get themselves lost in nuance and petty detail. In a certain sense, the world politics of the new millennium was completely reversed in one speech: The US became the counterbalance to the UN's power. The US trumped the UN, and thus the rest of the world, with one statement: If the UN can't keep their own simple resolutions against a pushover third world dictatorship with no internal UN allies, the UN, as a world power, is irrelevant.
So, this round goes to the US executive branch. What will be the counter? Iraq is offering an unconditional return of inspectors. There are over 6 billion people in the world, and 5.9 billion of them believe that "unconditional" is a completely different word from what "President" Hussein believes the word to mean. When Hussein balks...the US' position is clear. What will be the UN's?
In this day and age, what use is the UN? Its resolutions are routinely shunned, from Iraq to Israel. In the last decade, the world has seen rampant worldwide terrorism, France nuking the South Pacific, China outright threatening Taiwan, Indian/Pakistani relations escalating to nuclear brinkmanship, borderline and outright genocide in Chechnya and the Balkans and Central Africa, and an increase in human slavery in Northern Africa and Southern Asia.
So why does the UN continue to exist? Because in today's mono-superpower world, the UN is the only credible balance against the US. Unlike the former Western superpowers of Russia, Germany, England, France, Spain, Rome, and Greece, the US isn't going to try to conquer the world. Rather, like ancient Carthage, the US has zero moral qualms about making the rest of the world US-friendly, whether it comes to forceful regime change (Afghanistan, Iraq) or just subtle electoral manipulation (e.g. Germany in the last couple days.)
This makes Bush's UN speech (or should I say, Condoleezza Rice's UN speech) absolutely brilliant from the US' point of view. The UN is needed in today's world to keep the US from making the Earth one large US-centric hegemony. But, like all alliances, the UN can't keep focus because of the bickering that ultimately ensues between participants who get themselves lost in nuance and petty detail. In a certain sense, the world politics of the new millennium was completely reversed in one speech: The US became the counterbalance to the UN's power. The US trumped the UN, and thus the rest of the world, with one statement: If the UN can't keep their own simple resolutions against a pushover third world dictatorship with no internal UN allies, the UN, as a world power, is irrelevant.
So, this round goes to the US executive branch. What will be the counter? Iraq is offering an unconditional return of inspectors. There are over 6 billion people in the world, and 5.9 billion of them believe that "unconditional" is a completely different word from what "President" Hussein believes the word to mean. When Hussein balks...the US' position is clear. What will be the UN's?
