3 of 6

Write now Article Tools

Page 2 of 2

Of course, the Korean War was a collective security action in name only, since it was American command that led the operation and made key decisions (such as the decision to cross the 38th parrallel and invade North Korea). The operation did not adhere to the U.N. Charter's requirement that a Military Staff Committee comprised of generals from many countries collectively manage the planning of the mission.

It's the same story with the First Gulf War. The majority of the resources committed to repelling Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait were provided by American taxpayers, and America once again directed the mission. Although President George Bush I, unlike Truman, obtained a Congressional resolution authorizing him to take military action, he also made it clear that he didn't think such a resolution was necessary. According to Bush I, a President has inherent authority to enforce U.N. resolutions, even if that means mangling the clear words of the Constitution.

Members of Congress, who due to their lack of spines would rather not take on an active role in foreign policy (lest they be blamed when things go wrong), have displayed a singular lack of willingness to stand up to the President and exercise their constitutional responsibilities. As such, Americanow has an out-of-control presidency, and part of this is due to the escape clause from the American Constitution that the U.N. provides.

Yet liberal and conservative interventionists, who embody the fiercely independent American spirit but subvert it for warmongering ends, see the U.N. as restraining America's right to be an imperalist power. However, the interventionists need not worry that the U.N. will reduce support for their disastrous policies. That the U.N. leads to greater, rather than less, interventionism is evident from the many botched peacekeeping missions that Americahas been drawn into. Somalia, for example, was so devastating a failure that it even inspired a movie - Black Hawk Down.

On paper, the United Nations exists to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war". In practice, it has been abused by the great powers to carry out their own goals. This much should be obvious from the regular power struggles that go on within the organization. Developing nations such as India are now vying for a permanent seat on the Security Council, but none of the existing members really want to see their own influence diluted with the addition of new members. Various reform models have been proposed, but none are likely to institute fundamental change in the way the U.N. operates. Even if the U.N. were somehow made more democratic, the great powers (or nations such as Israelthat are backed by a great power) are likely to ignore resolutions they find inconvenient, as they have done in the past.

The American Government uses the United Nations as an instrument for its nefarious schemes, and if American power declines and the other great powers find themselves in a relatively more advantageous position, then so will they. It would be better if America withdrew, and charted its own course in foreign affairs using the principles of non-interventionism.

Learn more about this author, Sukrit Sabhlok.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

• << previous page
• 1
• 2

Add your voice

Know something about The role and influence of the US in the United Nations?
We want to hear your view. Write now!