The UN like all international organizations is hampered by international law which in many cases forms a barrier to moral justice. The most common example is that of 1 nation blocking any objective of the UN for its own nationalistic goals. Israel, Sudan you name it. Nations can effectively block what many if not all people feel is the right thing to do.
The question that needs to be asked is National interest more important that moral justice. I posted in the Darfur thread that i feel the UN should be given the right to intervene when nation states are commiting violations of international law or even what we the majority feel is morally wrong.
Rwanda, Sudan, Serbia, Somalia, Bosnia, Iraq, Israel etc. All examples where the UN should have intervened with a large military force to stop the violence and bloodshed. Instead it watched from the sidelines because it was not allowed to violate a nations sovereignty. As we can see with the actions of the American govt, sovereignty is merely a concept not an enforceable ideal.
I have been of the view that the UN should be allowed to take forceful action to remove leaders and if necessary govt that are a meance to international society and even if they are dangerous to their own people. Serbia and Sudan are such examples.
Should the UN be allowed to act like the policing force the US considers itself to be?
They may, if they get approval from the Security Council .
"All examples where the UN should have intervened with a large military force"
And therein lies the problem. No one wants to provide their citizens, nobody wants to pay for it, and nobody wants their troops commanded by other nations.
If the US/UK or NATO does not do it, it does not get done....
That is the reality of the world today, the UN is simply a reflection of that.
** "Should the UN be allowed to act like the policing force the US considers itself to be?" **
My answer is yes. But, like UTD, I think it already is allowed to do that.
The first debatable question is and always has been by what mechanism should the UN be allowed to exercise that authority.
The second question is should that authority be "exclusive." In other words, should the UN ONLY be allowed to act like a policing force and, if it chooses not to, should that preclude any member state(s) from acting as a police force on their own.
I would suggest that the Security Council mechanism for authorizing action almost guarantees that police actions won't be timely authorized in most cases most crying out for the need.
Unless a better mechanism can be devised, the authority ought not be exclusive.
UTD the system is inherently flawed. It allows for national interest to over-ride morality by the mere existance of the veto power 5 nations have. In almost all cases where the UN should have taken action militarily some nation out of thoe 5 vetos the use of troops.
Ohioguy your statement is only half true. It is when the US or EU want to intervene that they allow it without vetoing. In the past cases i mentioned timely action was not taken due to veto's. US troops dont have to take part, in many cases they do not. However the US constitutes a good portion of the UN budget and it honestly uses this leverage to eliminate any chances of sending troops where it doesnt want. Same with the EU.
Troop commitment should be the choice of the UN itself. Not which nations to choose to send troops. If you give the authority to the UN and not its member states and flawed veto system i can gaurantee that there would at minimal 10 nations including EU nations which would be ready to provide troops and support.
The problem is the system by which decisions are made. I personally feel the EU Commissions independence should be handed over to the UN as well. So that the UN can make and undertake decisions for the better of humanity independently of national interest.
Myvoice i agree the system is flawed indeed. It should be changed. Exclusivity is not an issue here. If the US and EU feel they should fix a situation that is moral repugnant then by all means do so. Of course that means you dont use national interest as a pretext to invade another country.
That is hwy i am dead against the UNSC and its veto system. Both are obsolete and should be eliminated. Give the decision making power to the UNSG and his USG. They should be doing what their charter and mandate states. Protect humanity.