Downfalls of Diplomacy

An article in The New York Times today reflects the one of the greatest struggles in international relations and the UN: how do we foster international cooperation, and especially enforce commitments, without violating national sovereignty? This is indeed a touchy subject- everyone wants to involve the UN to convict their opponents, to use force to get our side's point acrosss, but when it comes to convicting ourselves, we are much less likely to do so. I repeatedly accuse the US of this tactic, of employing the term "national sovereignty" at times of our convinience, but then willing to violate other's soveriegnty or even international rights simply because it conflicts with what we want. (See another intersting article in The New York Times) You can't have it both ways, there must be a middle ground.

The crisis in the middle east embodies all these issues. Lebanon agreed to a UN resolution to end fighting on the condition that their national sovereignty was respected. This seems like a just cause, especially as the US has used this reasoning to withhold signatures of many treaties. Yet respecting national sovereignty means the UN has little force. Currently, UN forces deployed in Lebanon are feeling a torn, as they are told to only assist in situations when the Lebanese government asks them to. Yet as of now, the Lebanese government hasn't ask them to do anything. This poses an interesting question that has plauged UN activists/advocates in many an issue: when should one step aside and mind their own business, and when is intervening absolutely necessary? Unfortunately, there is no clear cut answer.