UN Discovers 'Sovereignty' When US Acts, Only Where Convenient
Mainstream media frames the US's latest unilateral action in Venezuela as a fresh threat to the 'rules-based order'. Yet, this 'order' has been decidedly flexible, if not entirely optional, for Washington since at least 1983 when the US invaded Grenada without UN approval. And let's not forget the 2003 invasion of Iraq, a move that prompted similar hand-wringing about international law but somehow
didn't render the UN 'obsolete' enough to stop the bombing. One might wonder if the UN's functional status is less about consistent principles and more about who is doing the striking. This selective outrage over international norms highlights a recurring pattern: when the US acts, the global body's relevance is questioned; when others act, often in self-defense against US-backed forces, the UN's
failure to intervene is decried. It appears the UN's obsolescence is directly proportional to Washington's willingness to respect it. How many times can an international body be declared 'on the brink' before we acknowledge its established role as a rubber stamp or a convenient scapegoat?