UN intervention (was Animal Farm)

[davewitley]

Melody wrote (about China):

> And why does the world do nothing?  Why hasn't the UN done 
anything? 
> Because China says they are shifting into an "UN approved" 
government,
> or because they are so big and their army can crush anyone that 
tries?

Haggridd has already addressed the immediate issue that China is a 
permanent Security Council member.

However, merely trying to 'do something' about Iraq (a much smaller 
and more clear cut case - I'm not sure the China of today is 
communist in any sense that Mao would recognise) has stretched 
western unity to the breaking point, and it remains to be seen 
whether the USA can really afford to maintain its level of 
engagement, as the US public deficit is steadily increasing 
(remember the discussion of conscription a few days ago?).  Not to 
mention the long term fall-out for international relations as every 
small nation gets jumpy about US intentions towards them.  

I think it's a pretty fine judgement whether the world as a whole 
will be better off in, say, two or five years time than it would 
have been, as a result of the invasion of Iraq.  (It's interesting 
to note, though, that if Bush had gone along with the French at the 
time, we would probably all have invaded anyway six months later, 
and we would have had a *real* test case for the value of 
intervention.)

In general the track record of countries who optimistically try to 
sort out the problems of other countries without their consent is 
dire - even when it may be supposed that the mass of ordinary people 
would support the solution proposed, against the wishes of their own 
government.

Finally, as a historical footnote, western powers *did* interfere 
militarily in the Russian civil war that followed the revolution of 
1917, with little effect.

David