Mghcanuck, Old Jesse Helms was very frustrated with the endless bickering and inaction that is the United Nations. He also was shocked with the amount graft and budget overruns at the UN. He therefore threatened to withhold funding (which, btw we pay WAY more than anyone else to support).
If you think there's government gridlock here at home with the Reps and Dems, think what posturing and back room deals go on at the UN to get ANYTHING done. The UN Security Council acting in unison? Let's remember who is on the Security Council; The US, France, G.B, Russia and China. Now there's 5 countries that have gotten along just swell for the last 50 years! That's like asking 5 audiophiles to settle on who makes the best amplifier! Finding unity when it comes to military action against a country where most of the same security council members have historic and/or economic ties is VERY difficult. Let's face it, the same countries that were against the war this time around abstained from the resolution that started Gulf War 1! Abstained! After one soveriegn nation invaded another one - and an invasion with NO pre-attack diplomacy! One could also speculate BTW that if the country being attacked (Kuwait) also didn't have huge oil reserves it may not have even generated a murmer at the UN, allowing the literal raping of country and population to go on save a "harshly worded statement" on the floor of the UN. Getting a clear mandate in this latest venture was a near impossible feat. Usually that's because UN language is always shrouded in further arbitral language such as "serious consequences if you don't comply". Then we all argue about what the consequence should be. In the meantime the country in question sends an envoy to engage in some sort of diplomacy designed to stall, deceive or go nowhere - in this case perhaps giving Iraq more time to hide or dismantle their WMD. I know it gave them enough time to stash millions of dollars in US currency and gold which it seemed like we were stumbling across almost daily after the fall of Baghdad, like the $500M in gold trying to be smuggled into Syria. All this cash from a regime so strapped for cash due to US sanctions that he couldn't buy enough food or medicine for his people (sob sob).
Multi-lateral agreements, the argument of sovereignty of nations or who ultimately enforces the international law, these are all too often the arguments of the despots themselves in order to buy time, stay in power and beef up their defenses. Think Treaty of Stalingrad here. The idea of equality of nations, a world court and a UN "superforce" to enforce international law is a nice idea in theory, then again so is the United Federation of Planets and Starfleet. It just isn't so. If the nations of the world can't pull together to and stop repressive, evil regimes then the UN does become an irrelevant instituion IMO.
As for the analogy of "calling the cops and putting them on trial, etc.", who do you think "the cops" are on the world stage? As far as the judge and jury in all of this - let that be a jury of their peers. In this case the Iraqi people. Maybe he'll get better than Mussolini did but I doubt it.
