| GA,
It has always been my opinion that the Iraq quibble in the end will wind up re-enforcing the UN. I know this is against mainstream opinion so let me tell you why I am so convinced of this.
First, even if it wasn't the UN to decide for an invasion. The public place where it wasn't so decided was clearly the UN. The public at large has a better exposure to what the UN could be.
Second, where only "the coalition" decided not to await a UN decision in spite of popular support outside of US/UK to do so - the public in US/UK is also shifting toward a position of regret coming back to the UN for the clean-up of the situation.
Third, the principle of non-intervention which was the original reason for the strict veto powers has been largely abandoned. Although the official reason for intervention put forward by the US/UK was within the bounds of state self-defense, the background public reason was humanitarian. A newly found conservative push for humanitarian reasons to call for such an intervention is something of a historic win for the humanists, against the nationalists.
Fourth, the subsequent failure to prove the non-humanitarian reasons for intervention has given a great push to the public reason around the sufficiency for humanitarian reasons to intervene in state affairs. It is in my view the safety lock making humanitarian intervention part of what will go further as an "acquis" for humanist interpretation of international law.
The UN, just like Rome, will not be built in one day. The thing needs the practice of actual cases in public debate because in the end the public is what needs to be represented in the UN.
GuidoNius |