Thoughts on the UN

We, the American people, rely on our elected officials fix problems. The only tool our elected officials have available is to make a law.

In the international arena, we also ask or demand that the governing body (the UN) fix problems. The way the UN does this is through UN resolutions. These UN resolutions expect/demand other nations to behave in certain ways.

However, if you make a rule or a law, there has to be an organization to enforce the law. For the US the 'rule enforcer' is the local police force, FBI, etc. Who is the rule enforcer for the international community that works on behalf of the UN? There is no organization to fill that role - other than member-nation volunteers. But in a realist world view, nations will only volunteer if it is in their self interest.

In the absence of this international capability, the US has often taken on the role of 'rule enforcer'. One could argue that the US does this out of self-interest as opposed to an idealistic desire to enforce international laws. For example, many individuals have made the argument that we went to war in Iraq over oil. I am not discussing the supposed or stated purpose of any historical US intervention. This discussion is to explore an international 'rule enforcer' created to be free from the perception (or reality) of self-interest.

One possible solution is that each nation sends X soldiers as a percentage of their population and pays X dollars as a percentage of their GDP to create a truly international fighting force that only answers to the UN. This fighting force would be separate from the self interests of the member nations. However, looking at instability in the world, the size of this force would be incredible. Also, member nations may not support this plan; in particular, the US has fought any type of scenario in which US forces would be commanded by a foreign general.

Any other solutions to the international 'rule enforcer'?