T. Belman. There is much in this article that I disagree with. I want only to deal with is “the desire to establish a rules-based World Order”. It would be nice but it ain’t gonna happen. Rules are always broken and need a force to uphold them. In my article Can the UN impose a solution on Israel? I refer to The Plan to Have the UN Rule. The author quotes from a State Department official in 1945;
“ there is no provision in the Charter itself that contemplates ending war. It is true the Charter provides for force to bring peace, but such use of force is itself war. The Charter is built to prepare for war, not to promote peace. The Charter is a war document, not a peace document.
Not only does the Charter organization not prevent future wars, it makes it practically certain that we shall have future wars, and as to such wars it takes from us the power to declare them, to choose on which side we shall fight, to determine what forces and military equipment we shall use in the war, and to control and command our sons who do the fighting.”
Besides, for Nations wouldn’t accept such an organization as it a diminishment of their sovereignty. That’s why it was necessary to give Russia, US, China, Great Britain and France a veto or they wouldn’t have joined. National interests come first.
If the response of democratic nations to the Russian invasion is to promote a rules-based world order, it begs the question of how useful the world body can be as long as Moscow exercises a power of veto.
By Ben Cohen, JNS
(April 29, 2022 / JNS) A recent letter delivered to U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres by 200 former senior U.N. officials included a bleak warning regarding the consequences should diplomacy fail to end Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Such an outcome would mean that “the U.N. becoming increasingly irrelevant and, eventually, succumbing to the fate of its predecessor, the League of Nations, with the human losses and material destruction that went with it,” the letter declared.
Read more…