{ An Autopsy of Democracy }

Wednesday, August 13, 2008


The natural response to Russia's aggression against Georgia, obvioiusly, would be to declare [with a straight face, mind you] :

"We strongly oppose the unilateral military invasion of another sovereign nation -- particularly when its motives are not benign, but rather have to do with strategic geopolitical positioning, access to natural resources, and as a means to send a message to other nations. Such aggression will not stand. Such action is only permitted with the authorization of the U.N. Security Council."

Huh. Wonder why the U.S. can't really do that right now. Hmmmm....

Maybe the rule now is: "As long as the sovereign nation the you would like to unilaterally invade has never interfered with your nation, does not border your nation, has never been a part of your nation or under your sphere of influence, does not share a language, religion, or culture with your nation, and is at least 3000 miles away from your nation's borders, it is permissible -- indeed, imperative -- that you invade said nation."

And, of course, since this is a clear violation of international law, no doubt the U.S. will immediately deploy troops to the region to control the situation -- we are, after all, the World Police.

I can't think of any reason we would be unable to do so.

Can you?

In all seriousness, this is perhaps the best example imaginable to demonstrate why we desperately need to reform the U.N. -- specifically, the U.N. Security Council -- to make it democratic, rather than set up so that the 5 (?) most powerful nations have veto power, thus rendering any decisions regarding said powers immune to criticism and essentially above the Law.

p.s.: at least we have a Secretary of State with a PHd. in Russian studies and who speaks Russian. (That would help a lot -- if she actually, you know, like, went there and stuff.)



This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?