Saturday, June 02, 2012

Morality Minus Body Count Equals Unilateralism?

I've never been a UN fetishist. While having support of the body is nice, I don't grant it supreme moral authority on matters of going to war. But neither do I want to abolish the body or get out or start an alternate UN with just democracies.

What gets me is that the people who view the UN as the sole body with the moral authority of the sainted international community to authorize war belittle those who don't grant the UN that authority yet are still willing to bypass the UN when the UN won't do what we want:

If the U.N. Security Council does not take swift action to pressure Syria to end its 14-month assault on the opposition, member nations may have no choice but to consider acting outside the United Nations, the U.S. envoy to the world body said on Wednesday.

How is this view different from we Neanderthals who don't grant the UN the authority to decide when we go to war to defend our interests or do what is right? Don't we say it is ridiculous to let thug regimes whose vote counts as much as ours (except for the veto, although two states match us there) prevent us from acting? What level of death erases that international authority.

As far as I can see, the only difference is that neanderthals are willing to bypass the UN early in the process before thousands more die.

I'm sorry, but who is morally superior?