No real surprise here. The US bores everyone rigid with its constant hypocritical carping about it's fantasy "rules based international order". But it is indeed the US (closely followed by Israel) who are the nations that DO NOT bother following the UN, the official "rules based international order". #uspol https://johnmenadue.com/us-ranks-last-on-adherence-to-un-charter-pic-u-s-representative-to-the-un-ambassador-linda-thomas-greenfield/
@KarunaX but if you read the article it seems to really focus on things that aren't actually rules, at least rules that have been fully adopted.
So a bunch of countries propose a rule. That doesn't mean it's a good rule, or an actionable rule, or one that the US should follow.
So the analysis is a bit weak.
Yeah, sometimes the US doesn't do things that other people want it to do. That's not really hypocrisy, it's about sovereignty and the importance of writing rules that are generally workable.
@DavidM_yeg you're missing my point that they seem to be focusing on rules that aren't actually rules.
At least not substantially.
So yes! That they use the veto to prevent things from becoming rules means they aren't rules.
Maybe a person thinks they should be rules, and that's fine, but it's a little silly to lean on this analysis to say that the US doesn't abide by rules that are arguably not rules in the first place.
Maybe it's bad, but it's not really hypocritical.
You’re missing the larger point, which is that despite the veneer of constant talk about the “international rules based order” they consistently act against it; launching illegal wars, toppling governments they don’t like, and disregarding their international obligations.
Sounds like hypocrisy to me, when ‘rules are for thee but never for me’.
@DavidM_yeg again you're missing that they aren't rules.
For example you cite international obligations while missing that those obligations don't exist.
You might say that the obligations don't exist because the US vetoes them, which is correct, since the US vetoes the obligations they aren't obligations, so they don't stand to be disregarded.
If you don't like what the US does, hey, I'm right there with you, but not because of international rules. The US does sketchy stuff that it probably shouldn't do, but that's because we keep electing crappy officials. It has nothing to do with international rules that don't exist.
Honestly, I really just don’t care about any about which hairs you want to split… the basic truth is that the US talks the ‘cooperation’ game and expects others to cooperate with them, but mostly has a history as a lone wolf, and not by a bit - by a lot… and a lot of that history is really awful. This rating is no surprise, nor is it out of line.
@DavidM_yeg well right, the writing isn't surprising because it's the sort of rating that is biased from the beginning.
It gets the result it sought.
But it's not very informative. It's just really bias confirming, not particularly useful.
@volkris @DavidM_yeg If you think clear, unequivocal data is "biased", I give up. You can go on and continue supporting the US Empire as it drives the planet toward extinction, as it ignores the very principles of democracy and "rules based order" that it continually espouses.
@KarunaX supporting the US empire? What in the world are you talking about?
@volkris @DavidM_yeg You appeared to be trying to excuse the piratical, illegal, and immoral actions of US expansionism and its attempts at global control. Perhaps I misread your post and you, like I, heartily disprove of the US Empire and its deleterious effects on the world.
@volkris @DavidM_yeg So when does a "rule" become a "rule"? It seems you are trying to sidestep into a semantic argument about the nature of a "rule", when the central issue is the fact that both Israel and the US ignore the explicit, mutually agreed wishes wishes of over 90% of the global community.
@volkris However, the role of the UN (according to its Charter, accepted by all members) is to make rules for the international community. And it isn't a "bunch of countries" - in many cases (eg the illegal blockade of Cuba) the Resolutions being ignored by the US and Israel were passed by over 90% of the members nations. Usually a democracy requires a majority to pass a rule/law - in this case it is an overwhelming majority that you somehow think it is legitimate for the US/Israel to ignore.
@KarunaX but the UN isn't particularly democratic, as indicated by the security council veto process and the fact that neither you nor I have a vote.
That's just not how the UN works.
@volkris The UN General Assembly contains almost all of the nations of the globe, so a vote there can indeed be seen as "democratic". The UN Security Council however is, as you say, not at all democratic, being no more than a club for the major powers that existed in the aftermath of WW2. This UNSC rump on the UN is what inhibits its ability to do more good in the world.
@KarunaX they're both part of the same system, though. You can't so cleanly separate the GC and SC out of the overall UN.
Everything from practical matters of resourcing through political matters of reinforcing resolutions that DO make it through both are part of that system that would be fundamentally different and not necessarily better without either part.
You point out that the SC is a club for major players. Well yeah, and the UN needs those major players, whether we like it or not, so having that club brings more power to the UN overall.
The UN sanctions this undemocratic club by necessity, and so the UN is by necessity fairly undemocratic.
@volkris One quibble with your otherwise very good points - the current structure and role of UNSC is the fly in the ointment, the cause of failure of the system - and the UNSC does not represent “major players” of today, only those who emerged on top in the 1950s. Why is India not in the UNSC? Where is representation from the Middle East? From Africa? Latin America?
@KarunaX the answer to your question is highlighted by the below link :)
The UNSC is set up in such a way as to keep its funders happy as it negotiates for more funding from them.
Why isn't India on the UNSC? Because that risks the loss of funding for UN operations.
Why no permanent representation from the Middle East? Because that risks the loss of funding for UN operations.
(Really, funding is just one of many things they're afraid to loose, but it captures the reality among many resources)
https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N18/461/91/PDF/N1846191.pdf
@volkris Yes, I know well why these are not in the UNSC, as your article notes. They were really rhetorical questions tbh, intended to highlight the irrational nature of the current structure of the UNSC.
@KarunaX but these rhetorical questions have real world answers!
You say it's the UNSC that's preventing the UN from doing more good, but should the UN lose funding it might not even be able to do the good it does now.
And so the UNSC isn't preventing the UN from doing more good. It's enabling the UN to do more good than it would have otherwise.
The other thing is, you mention the cause of failure of the system, but that relies on how a person gauges success and failure, what the person sets the goals as.
Many people simply have different ideas about what the UN is for in the first place, and particularly what the UNSC structure is supposed to be doing.
That disagreement of purpose is itself a pretty serious problem.
@volkris Totally agree with your last sentence - "the disagreement of purpose is ... a serious problem".
However, if we start from the UN Charter itself (esp the principles, Articles 1 & 2) as being the basis of the organisation, its raison d'etre, we can see these are often let down by the actions of the UNSC. The fundamental goals are good, but the strategies to achieve those goals were dreamt up in post WW2 geo-politics. The world has changed. The organisation should reflect that.
@KarunaX but different people with different opinions of the UN don't necessarily start from the same approach of consulting the UN charter itself.
So again, regardless of the UN charter, this is still a point of contention that makes an enormous amount of difference.
@volkris If nations choose not to abide by the fundamental Charter of the UN, then they are actively undermining the organisation, as without a commonly agreed mandate it cannot function effectively. I note that many countries in the Global South (including BRICS nations) are raising these very issues about the nature, function and representation of the UN. Presumably, this is because they believe in the Charter, but see it is not functioning effectively. eg https://www.onuitalia.com/2023/08/24/brics-joint-statement-calls-for-unsc-reform-with-greater-role-for-india-brazil-south-africa/
@KarunaX @volkris
A) participating even when things aren’t required is part of international cooperation.
B) the US consistently uses its Security Council veto to prevent binding decisions it doesn’t agree with.
I think it’s perfectly reasonable to point out that the nation that so often trumpets the importance of a “rules-based international order” demonstrably thinks those rules are only for others.