Other nations worry that Donald Trump threatens the international order by offering peace with Russia.
Bloomberg reports the U.N. fears that Donald Trump threatens the “Balance of Power.”
President Donald Trump’s outreach to Russia is reverberating through the United Nations, where U.S. allies worry that a partnership between Washington and Moscow could undermine a historic balance of power dating to the early days of the Cold War.
For decades, the five veto-wielding members of the 15-nation Security Council have fallen into two camps — France, the U.K. and the U.S., referred to as the P3, on one side and Russia and China on the other.
Just days into his presidency, Trump is upsetting all that.
The result could reshape the world body’s response on conflicts from Syria to Ukraine and its approach to thorny decisions such as whether to deploy peacekeepers or condemn a country for human-rights violations. While the five permanent members can always veto resolutions or decisions, they usually try to win majority support from other Security Council members for their cause instead. That’s where the new American president’s approach comes in.
Foreign diplomats “will be flying blind” with Trump, said Richard Gowan, a fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations. “Many expect him to work more closely with Russia but are not sure how far this will go.”
Are we supposed to be afraid of this?
I remember when the Berlin wall came down. We were supposed to end “the balance of power dating to the early days of the Cold War.” There was no reason for it to continue. Yet, it turns out, that division has been perpetuated for decades after the fall of the Soviet Union.
This article pretty much admits that the scenario presented in George Orwell’s 1984 is fact not fiction. Oceana must always be at war with Eurasia, Eastasia or both, (remember those were the three regional regimes in his novel). The U.N., rather than actually working towards peace, preserves enmity.
Notice also that this article admits that “human rights violations” are nothing more than propaganda. Why is there a question about when to “condemn a country for human-rights violations”? If truth mattered, one would do so when a country violated human rights. But truth has never mattered. Whether a country is condemned depends on which side of the “balance of power” they are on.
I dearly hope these fears are justified. But some things Nikki Haley said make me wonder.
The article, however, presents Haley as Trump’s enforcer:
While Trump’s new UN ambassador, Nikki Haley, was known as a conciliator in her past job as governor of South Carolina, she arrived at her new post last week with a stern warning indicating she’s ready to pursue Trump’s pugnacious stance at the world body. The U.S. will “have the backs of our allies and make sure that our allies have our back as well,” she told reporters. “For those that don’t have our back, we’re taking names.
We’ll have to wait and see how it all pans out.
By the way, if you are worried about Russia as “a superpower” take a look at the country’s military budget. Are they worth being afraid of?