The idea that UN commitments should be followed by action is indeed a radical one, especially for the United States, where wilful neglect of its own commitments is the rule.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
It may surprise people to know that I advocate the reform of the United Nations, not its abolishment.
Hollow commitments to action in the future are insufficient. Deferring difficult issues must not be tolerated. Our children and grandchildren expect us to speak and act decisively.
But if the UN cannot or will not revise its rules in ways that establish beyond question the legality of the measures the United States must take to protect the American people, then we should unashamedly and explicitly reject the jurisdiction of these rules.
The reality is that international institutions like the UN can only be as effective as its members allow it to be.
Ordinary citizens are obliged and, if need be, compelled by force to meet their commitments. But let higher obligations of an international order be involved, and governments repudiate them, more often than not with a disdainful shrug of the shoulders.
In the euphoria after the Cold War, there was a misplaced notion that the UN could solve every problem anywhere.
Of course the UN brings in a lot of moral authority.
Well, there's been plenty of ultimatums, and one thing that we better be very clear is that we can't continue to have the kind of defiance of the United Nations, the defiance of the international community that we've had.
Whether addressing immediate crises or building long-term foundations of peace, the United Nations will remain committed to solutions that advance the global good.
We must abandon the unworkable notion that it is morally reprehensible for some countries to pursue weapons of mass destruction, yet morally acceptable for others to rely on them for security - and indeed to continue to refine their capacities and postulate plans for their use.
No opposing quotes found.