![]() Citizens are being executed, insurrections and rebellions are spreading like rabbits, and thousands of innocents are being killed, kidnapped, raped, and enslaved. Not to mention that the Geneva Convention was just COMPLETELY thrown out the window when countries like Iran and whatnot aimed for these gains. When you look to these border skirmishes, it isn't war, in most cases. In my opinion, their reason behind such a strong opposition to border changes is the means by which the parties trying to acquire these additions are doing it. I think part of the reason that the UN has issues with Middle Eastern and African countries trying to build and change their borders isn't the concept of border changes itself (though maps and globes would need to change with each power shift). These sorts of organizations cannot possibly account for all the change the Earth will go through in those longer periods of time. I understand the grand high moral stance that this notion of peace is based on, but is it predicated on the notion that all of Earth's national borders were to be set in stone forever into infinity from the year 1946 onwards? How was and is this hypocrisy justified coming from the stance of the great powers to any number of small nations in their own growth stages today?Īdditionally, how is seen as fair, and is it even wise, to have permanent members of the "Security Council"? Sure seems like that is bound to cause problems in the long run, and I mean long run i.e. How is it fair to say, that for hundreds upon hundreds of years, the great Imperialist nations, (the USA, UK, Russia, etc.) all carved out territories and nations for themselves around the globe, and then say that no young nations could have their own annexations or sphere of influence? We are witnessing this today in the middle east and in Africa as nations wish to create new territories and build and change their borders, and we say "no, you aren't allowed to do that." That seems a bit hypocritical to me.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |