I agree there are egregious flaws, but its the only global court we've got, and it's really not that old. The "global community" in itself is just a baby. Obviously, we need generations to continually work on these problems and rectify injustices.
I just get tired hearing "abandon the UN" and other woefully myopic isolationist hoo-ha.
And, yes, I would trust the UN to deploy my son or daughter. Bosnia, for instance. And I would expect our troops to adhere to the same standard of conduct set for other countries' troops.
On 9/11, Harry Belafonte was on "Today", expressing his displeasure with the US for not sending a representative to the UN conference on "racism." Racism, according to the UN, is what America practices by not engaging in dialogue regarding "reparations" to descendants of slaves in the US. "Racism" according to the UN, has nothing to do with the modern day enslavement of christians, or the murder of millions in Rwanda, because these are/were crimes perpetrated by black people on black people.
The UN is morally bankrupt. They have turned a blind eye to genocide to avoid antagonizing petty dictators.
America is no longer committed to a "World Court", thank God for Bush, having the back bone to refuse to sign on to a litigious nightmare.
It is interesting that you believe that the UN, which has proven to be a cesspool of mismanagement and fraud, is the organization best equipped to deal with these problems.
The political response to "over-population" is the one child policy of China. The political response to hunger has been to appease the war lords who feed their armies with UN supplies (Taliban). The problems of industrialization and pollution are actually the same. Emerging nations sacrifice the environment for quick profit and jobs. Being green is a luxury that most third world countries cannot yet afford. The solution, as we are beginning to see in South America, is more industry, to create more wealth so that once the most urgent priority, survival, is taken care of, resources can be conserved. But that is an economic solution, not a political one, and therefore it cannot be embraced by the UN marxists.
as for Bosnia. USA Today, not a conservative publication, described our involvement this way:
NATO in Bosnia: NATO is responsible for patrolling the no-fly zone over Bosnia, designed to stop an air war. NATO airstrikes have been called when U.N. commanders on the ground, their civilian chief and NATO commanders agree on them. On Wednesday, U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali delegated his authority to the U.N. commander in former Yugoslavia, meaning military men will now decide whether to engage in more vigorous air strikes. (mine) US troops are under Nato, not UN command.)
Originally, U.N. peacekeepers were to go to former Yugoslavia to patrol the truce in Croatia. By summer of 1992, their role had broadened to include ensuring humanitarian aid deliveries to millions of needy, especially in Bosnia. Since then, the Security Council has passed about 70 vague and often conflicting resolutions governing the peacekeepers' mission across former Yugoslavia. The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees has been the principle deliverer of aid on which millions depend in Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia.
I work with severla Bosnian refugees. They described the corruption of the UN seen first hand. They were assisted out by Catholic Charities.