I'm really not sure what to make of Britain's recent standoff with Iran. CNN offers
this comparison of global reactions, while Charles Krauthammer offers
a predictably harsh indictment of the EU and UN for doing nothing.
Hard as it is for me to believe, I find myself leaning in Krauthammer's direction a bit on this.
How could the EU just sit there and do nothing? Why wouldn't the U.N. pass immediate sanctions? Why was the international response a limp-wristed "well, we're worried"?
I don't know the answer to any of these questions for sure. But it's becoming harder to argue against the voices of those like Krauthammer. Of course, there is one obvious, effective counterargument: it's hard for anyone to respect the U.N. and similar bodies when the world's most powerful nation refuses to do so. If the U.S. doesn't set an example by helping the U.N. have some teeth, how can we expect things to play ou any differently? If the U.S. works to undermine the U.N. for several years with its actions and statements, is it any surprise that the organization would weaken over time?
I don't think so. And I don't believe this correlational outcome is good or inevitable. At the same time, I don't see why anyone would expect the United States (or any other world power) to even partially cede its power and influence to a loose world governing body, either. I gues I'm not that idealistic.
links: digg this del.icio.us technorati reddit