Skip to comments.Obama Administration Loses Its Earlier Enthusiasm for the United Nations
Posted on 09/10/2013 2:17:41 PM PDT by Olog-hai
As it does every September, the State Department later this will week send a senior official to present U.S. goals and priorities for the upcoming session of the United Nations General Assembly, but this years speech comes at a time when the administration is sounding a lot less enthusiastic about the institution it once eagerly sought to engage and extol.
Frustration over failure to get a concerted U.N. stance against the Syrian regimeboth before but especially since the August 21 chemical weapons attackhas prompted uncharacteristically glum comments about the world body from an administration that presented itself as an antidote to its predecessors supposed unilateralism.
From the president down, officials have indicated a readiness to act outside the U.N. Security Council (UNSC), running in the face of multilateralists long-held views that it alone can legally authorize military action.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
That’s because the UN is not per se focused on advancing the Jehad.
One of the good things about the Syria debate is that noone is talking about getting UN approval is. Noone really cares about it—and they should not. The UN has no authority to authorize or not authorize war. The question about Syria is actually being correctly posed:
“Does Obama have to get Congressional approval before starting a war that is not a response to an immediate threat to the national security of the US.”
Having a debate about that instead of vaporous international norms and the UN is refreshing.
I acknowledge Obama’s authority to respond without congressional approval to an imminent threat to the US. But beyond that, I believe Congress needs to authorize it.
Was the UN a red line a few hours ago?