| |
|
Hmmm. Except, of course, that the US is not paying its dues. It owes the UN a huge amount of money in defaulted membership subs, IIRC. The League of Nations had the same problem - a US that was not actually very interested in the pivotal role it needed to take up to make the organisation credible. And look how well that ended up.
The UN has all sorts of uses - its humanitarian and peacekeeping elements, for example, seem to me at least to be very valuable, and not something any individual nation would be willing or able to do, except possibly the US. It also means that if the US does start to act unilaterally, countries in the firing line can hope that their cause will be taken up by countries less likely to be steamrollered militarily by the US. However, the UN cannot stand militarily against the US (unless those of its member states with nuclear weapons demonstrate willingness to use them, which would not be the way forward), nor should it have to.
Have to admit, though, that I don't understand why NATO troops shoul not go into Turkey. Better NATO than US troops, especially given the incredible level of resistance to US troops in Turkey, and Turkey is entitled under Article 5 o ask NATO for protection if it feels its borders are under threat, which it clearly does. On the other hand, I doubt that Iraq would be strategically dumb enough to try to extend supply lines to open a front in an area lousy with Kurdish guerillas... |
|
|
