I never understand why people hold the UN up as some great moral arbiter. Far from being some vehicle for the world’s collective good intentions, it is a classic balance of power institution whose main aim is to avoid a conflict between the great powers—and damn the consequences for the little people. Just look at how it is set up so that nothing can happen without the unanimous consent of the five permanent members of the Security Council.
While this might have been a necessary evil during the Cold War, given that any direct confrontation between the super powers could have turned nuclear very quickly, it is far less defensible today. The consequences of this need for unanimity have been all too apparent this week as the Russians and Chinese have moved to guarantee that the Burmese junta can deal with the protestors any way they want.
Britain’s best politics newsletters
You get two free articles each week when you sign up to The Spectator’s emails.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Comments
Join the debate, free for a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first month free.
UNLOCK ACCESS Try a month freeAlready a subscriber? Log in