# UK Foreign Policy **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 31, 2013, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-foreign-policy/667648 "2013-08-31T09:28:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-foreign-policy/667648/41 "2013-09-04T15:56:21Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > What does this mean? Germany has a military and has for decades now. filmstar-en said: "The prosperity of national economies is guaranteed by trade. Trading takes place across the world and relies on free access via trade routes that must be protected. If those routes are compromised by other nations along the way, unfairly restricting or taxing goods, there needs to be a resort diplomacy or ultimately force of arms to keep them free. The alternative is to starve, endure cold and generally be impoverished. You may not like it, but the world is linked together by trade. The UK economy in particular is heavily integrated into the global trading network. UK government policy is to maintain the viability of its trading network guaranteed by treaties and trade agreements. But this is underlined by having a navy that has global reach as an insurance policy." I was merely pointing out how well Germany has done in the last 60 odd years WITHOUT an effective military of any size or strength. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-foreign-policy/667648/42 "2013-09-04T15:58:12Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > And have all the other armed forces remained the same size? The Royal Navy could fit in a bath-tub and we’re many years from having an aircraft carrier with planes flying off it. > > The Army has been cut yet again on the fantasy belief that part-time soldiers will make up the difference. The Territorial Army or whatever they call themselves nowadays is screaming about recruitment and retention crises as people figure out what they might be letting themselves in for. > > I’m hoping this is a turning point for us - one where we finally concede we’re a small regional power with no world pretentions any more. For at least 2 decades now our ‘world role’ has been to provide an international fig leaf for the USA. > > Makes no military difference if we’re present or not with our handful of soldiers, handful of planes and handful of ships. > > Let the Libya escapade be our world stage swansong. That’s the spirit- let’s just try to be a normal European Nation without stupid pretensions. Next to go- our nuclear arsenal! ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-foreign-policy/667648/43 "2013-09-04T16:02:53Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Regardless of what the British do the French would never surrender their permanent seat. China would never allow India, Indonesia or Japan to have permanent seats. > > I’m not sure any country would have a specific opposition to Brazil, but I’d assume at least one of the five would block it just on the principle of not diluting their own power. > > The five standing members of the UNSC have rendered the UN a joke in any case. It’s a guarantee that the UN only works when the national self-interest of the five powers are not being infringed interfered with at all. In the modern world that basically means the UNSC will never be able to respond to anything of note in world affairs, it’s basically a League of Nations type body now. It is a question of continued authority. How much attention will S American and South Asian countries give to UN proclamations when they are not represented at the top table as they become major economic powers and two fading powers- France and Britain retain theirs. The SC was based on Nuclear Weapons- a stupid idea now. Surely the SC should have representatives from non-US America, South Asia, Africa and so on. It is just a question of credibility. ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-foreign-policy/667648/44 "2013-09-04T16:06:24Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > I was merely pointing out how well Germany has done in the last 60 odd years WITHOUT an effective military of any size or strength. The Bundeswehr topped out at close to half a million men under arms during the cold war. That’s hardly negligible. Having said that they only spend 1.2% of GDP on their military these days. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-foreign-policy/667648/45 "2013-09-04T16:08:52Z")
> [@Malden\_Capell](#): > > I think there’s a lot to be said for the fact that a major reason why there is such relative\* peace in the world today is because of the military presence of the US and its allies. As much as we criticize the US for its adventurism, as world powers go, given its sheer might, it’s remarkably restrained. > > Without NATO (which has as its backbone the combined might of the US, UK and France, along with a major contribution from Germany), I could see Russia being a lot more aggressive and disrespectful of human rights, for example. > > The idea that Britain should disarm to a self-defence force or hand over its diplomatic muscle to the EU is about as ill-informed as those Tories/UKIPers who think withdrawing from the ECHR is a good idea. > > \*relative, as in it’s still a damned violent world, but I could envision it being a lot worse quite easily. Relative Peace??? The twentieth and Twenty first centuries have seen more real wars than any previous centuries- and many more deaths in wars. 1905-1914 and 1945-1950 were quite war free. Then we had Korea, Indonesia, East Africa, Suez, Vietnam, Israel/Egypt, Cambodia, Laos, and then a short term lapse from 1975 to 1980 and since then, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria. Not exactly a peaceful era. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-foreign-policy/667648/46 "2013-09-04T16:09:29Z")
@Pjen, I’d argue the USNC hasn’t had credibility for a long time if ever. During the Cold War the US or USSR typically vetoed each other constantly (the Soviets walked out in protest once and later learned that was strategically unwise since it vacated their ability to block all action from NATO countries through the UNSC.) I agree Germany has forged a path where it spends very little on military matters and does not engage in overseas adventurism. I was just confused when you used the phrase “total ban on armed forces” as that made it sound like they had no military at all ala Iceland. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-foreign-policy/667648/47 "2013-09-04T16:12:50Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > What the UK has is no business yapping around the heels of the US Big Dog. We cannot afford to make these symbolic contributions to the USA’s various wars of choice. > > I’m quite comfortable with a scaled back military unable to tag along on invasions or attacks on middle east countries. > > I would maybe more comfortable if I could trust either govts assessments of situations. > > I do not. I think they routinely lie. I would agree the UK should focus on its own interests in military affairs and not those of the United States, although I contend they often align. Stuff like Suez, the Falklands, and the Bush lead Iraq war show those interests are not always aligned and it can be both important to have some level of independent action while also important not to just follow the U.S. lead (as Blair did in Iraq.) I don’t know enough about the UK budget to say what the appropriate amount of military spending is. I do think around 2.5% of GDP where it is at now seems reasonable to me, and would suspect the UK forces might need reorganized to reflect changing realities more than they need more budget cutting. The U.S. on the other hand could afford to cut ours spending down to like 3-3.5% of GDP and we’d still be the biggest spenders in the world by a vast margin. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-foreign-policy/667648/48 "2013-09-04T16:13:28Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I’m not sure if it’s just part of the British natural character to be self-deprecating, but as an outsider I don’t think it’s so simple as “we’re a great power” or “we’re nothing but a small country in the northern Atlantic.” > > The United States is obviously (still) the world’s lone superpower. China is rapidly ascending, but still lack much force projection capability outside of their Pacific sphere of influence. Russia has built political alliances around the world now, many of them apparently directed at limiting or curtailing U.S. influence in certain regions–but Russia does not have the force projection capabilities it did as the Soviet Union. > > The United Kingdom is not as large obviously as Russia, China, or the U.S. However, it has the fourth-highest military budget in the world. While degraded in recent years, I would also argue that since it has clear technological sophistication over the Chinese, and since it spends much more per soldier than Russia or China the U.K.'s military is more powerful than it might seem at first glance. For example while it’s come up a lot in recent years that it’s questionable if the British could defend the Falklands if they were attacked again, I’d argue the British aside from the United States probably have the most credible ability to project force around the world. Not nearly as much force as the United States can, obviously–but the UK has the know-how and arguably the equipment it would need to deploy troops almost anywhere. > > The UK is not a superpower, but it’s certainly a “great power”, a term that to me would encompass the United States, Russia, China, the UK, and France and of those five I think the UK has the best ability to project force to any degree far away from its shores excluding the United States. > > I do think it’s worth noting that the UK should not be involved in the Falklands in order to avoid “humiliation.” International relations has no room for such emotion-laden thinking. The reason the British would have to defend the Falklands is one of self-determination, those people have been there for generations and they _choose to remain British_. The Argentinians only real claim to the islands is that they are “the closest physical country to them” a claim that if it was an international norm would result in a host of problems (oh, I guess Iceland is part of Canada now, or South Korea part of China!) As long as those people choose to be British there is an imperative as a sovereign state to protect those people from foreign invaders, otherwise you aren’t really a state at all–but a failed state. The UK has the same order of magnitude of budget in fourt equal place with Saudi Arabia, France and Japan- 60.8- 58.7 billion with the UK at 60.8- not a clearcut fourth at all. Quite happy to cut to Germany 45.8!! ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-foreign-policy/667648/49 "2013-09-04T16:15:34Z")
> [@Malden\_Capell](#): > > Oh, and I would say that claims that the vote last week on Syria is a watershed for how military action is decided in the UK are overblown. It’s a landmark in terms of how important the consent of the Commons can be, but a determined government can and should, in future, make a quick decision and get approval later. > > The Royal Prerogative is quite intact. At much greater risk now of not being able to get retrospective assent from Parliament or the country. That was Blair’s downfall- he lost the assent of the country and then lost office. ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-foreign-policy/667648/50 "2013-09-04T16:21:04Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > We’re not a world power. Get over it. > > As per the Falklands. You get back to us when Argentina presents any kind of military threat other than suffocating us with the hot air of their bluster. Yes we are. Get over the Empire guilt complex. > **[Great power](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_power)** > > A great power is a sovereign state that is recognized as having the ability and expertise to exert its influence on a global scale. Great powers characteristically possess military and economic strength, as well as diplomatic and soft power influence, which may cause middle or small powers to consider the great powers' opinions before taking actions of their own. International relations theorists have posited that great power status can be characterized into power capabilities, spatial aspects... Yeah, let’s have the mentality of ‘well at the moment they don’t have the capability’ attitude and see where that gets us. Having an independent military capability gives us the choice and freedom (if we want too use that) to do things in _our_ national interest. ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-foreign-policy/667648/51 "2013-09-04T16:27:36Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > It is a question of continued authority. How much attention will S American and South Asian countries give to UN proclamations when they are not represented at the top table as they become major economic powers and two fading powers- France and Britain retain theirs. > > The SC was based on Nuclear Weapons- a stupid idea now. Surely the SC should have representatives from non-US America, South Asia, Africa and so on. > > It is just a question of credibility. I would like to know why, due to an economic downturn and some budget cuts, this constitutes the UK and France as ‘fading powers’ economic downturns and downsizing of the military happens all the time, in fact, the downsizing in the military is only happening due to the relative peace in world affairs (barring the middle east) which is guaranteed by the US umbrella, I can guarantee if that was removed, we’d be looking at an even bigger UK military budget to make up for the short fall. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-foreign-policy/667648/52 "2013-09-04T16:40:34Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > The five standing members of the UNSC have rendered the UN a joke in any case. It’s a guarantee that the UN only works when the national self-interest of the five powers are not being infringed interfered with at all. In the modern world that basically means the UNSC will never be able to respond to anything of note in world affairs, it’s basically a League of Nations type body now. The UN was created this way on purpose. It is not a world government, it is a forum where countries on the verge of war can talk about issues. Of course the UN will do nothing if the “great powers” don’t all agree, because otherwise the great powers wouldn’t join in the first place. Stalin wasn’t going to join any organization that had pretentions to intervene in internal Soviet affairs. The UN is a talking shop where the WWII allies plus China try to regularize their disagreements via diplomacy rather than shoot each other. China and Russia threatening to veto UN action in Syria is an expected feature of the security council, not a bug. It never was and was never supposed to be anything else. If you want supranational governance then look to the European Union, not the UN. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-foreign-policy/667648/53 "2013-09-04T17:01:26Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > I would like to know why, due to an economic downturn and some budget cuts, this constitutes the UK and France as ‘fading powers’ > > economic downturns and downsizing of the military happens all the time, in fact, the downsizing in the military is only happening due to the relative peace in world affairs (barring the middle east) which is guaranteed by the US umbrella, I can guarantee if that was removed, we’d be looking at an even bigger UK military budget to make up for the short fall. World Power, Huh! US expenditure 682 billion dollars China 168 Russia 90.7 Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, Japan- about 60 billion. Then India and Germany about 45 billion Italy, Brazil, South Korea (still nominally at war) low thirties Basically third division; why should we not be as sensible as Germany or Italy? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-foreign-policy/667648/54 "2013-09-04T17:12:02Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > Basically third division; why should we not be as sensible as Germany or Italy? Because you are an island nation with interests that span the globe while German isn’t and has different and more localized strategic needs? The different in your defense budget is basically you HAVE a blue water navy while they don’t. The other difference is basically Germany is sponging off of NATO and to a lesser extent the US, optimizing their own budget by letting others pay their share of the cost to keep the world safe for Western Civilization™ and make sure all their trade and resources that they can’t get locally are protected so they can make more money. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-foreign-policy/667648/55 "2013-09-04T17:29:41Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Because you are an island nation with interests that span the globe while German isn’t and has different and more localized strategic needs? The different in your defense budget is basically you HAVE a blue water navy while they don’t. The other difference is basically Germany is sponging off of NATO and to a lesser extent the US, optimizing their own budget by letting others pay their share of the cost to keep the world safe for Western Civilization™ and make sure all their trade and resources that they can’t get locally are protected so they can make more money. What real interests do we have left? None that a Navy would help with. Gibraltar-no. Falklands-no. What else separates us from Germany. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-foreign-policy/667648/56 "2013-09-04T17:37:22Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > What real interests do we have left? None that a Navy would help with. Gibraltar-no. Falklands-no. What else separates us from Germany. Germany’s main trading partners are all in the EU, leaving aside the US…and I don’t think we are their number one trading partner, more a lucrative side line. Aside from oil, I don’t think that Germany is really dependent on anything they would need that they can’t get outside of the union. The UK, however, DOES have extensive trading partners outside of the mainland (China, South East Asia and India spring to mind, besides their trade relationships with Australia, Canada and the US of course) and also rely on overseas strategic resources beyond what Germany needs. Also, I don’t see the Brits being as cool with sponging off of the US and NATO to protect your interests for you…and you’d need to more fully join the EU AND be in a more dominant position such as German and France are to take advantage of the other benefits Germany enjoys, which I don’t see happening. You aren’t Germany. That’s the bottom line, so wishing you were or wishing you enjoyed the same position they have is fruitless. I suppose you could just give in and let the US and NATO carry all the water for you and protect your interests. It works for other countries in Europe after all, so that’s a viable option for you…as long as you are willing to just go along with what they say and do in your name I guess. Notice we didn’t ask or consult with Germany extensively in discussions about what could or would be done wrt Syria. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-foreign-policy/667648/57 "2013-09-04T17:47:34Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Germany’s main trading partners are all in the EU, leaving aside the US…and I don’t think we are their number one trading partner, more a lucrative side line. Aside from oil, I don’t think that Germany is really dependent on anything they would need that they can’t get outside of the union. The UK, however, DOES have extensive trading partners outside of the mainland (China, South East Asia and India spring to mind, besides their trade relationships with Australia, Canada and the US of course) and also rely on overseas strategic resources beyond what Germany needs. Also, I don’t see the Brits being as cool with sponging off of the US and NATO to protect your interests for you…and you’d need to more fully join the EU AND be in a more dominant position such as German and France are to take advantage of the other benefits Germany enjoys, which I don’t see happening. > > You aren’t Germany. That’s the bottom line, so wishing you were or wishing you enjoyed the same position they have is fruitless. I suppose you could just give in and let the US and NATO carry all the water for you and protect your interests. It works for other countries in Europe after all, so that’s a viable option for you…as long as you are willing to just go along with what they say and do in your name I guess. Notice we didn’t ask or consult with Germany extensively in discussions about what could or would be done wrt Syria. Not entirely so: > **[Going global: Germany is slowly shifting its trade away from the EU (or why...](http://openeuropeblog.blogspot.com/2013/05/going-global-germany-is-shifting-trade.html)** > > On top of the release of UK trade data, Germany has also put out its latest trade statistics . As this is Germany we're talking about, the f... [UK export and import in 2011: top products and trading partners | News | theguardian.com](http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/feb/24/uk-trade-exports-imports). ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-foreign-policy/667648/58 "2013-09-04T18:40:54Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > Not entirely so: > > [Open Europe: Going global: Germany is slowly shifting its trade away from the EU (or why German growth alone cannot save the eurozone periphery)](http://openeuropeblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/going-global-germany-is-shifting-trade.html) > > [UK export and import in 2011: top products and trading partners | News | theguardian.com](http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/feb/24/uk-trade-exports-imports). Germany has for its existence been primarily a land power, the UK hasn’t and can’t be due to it being an island dependent on trade over sea lanes. Also, it’s defence budget is negligible in effecting the terms of its trade balance. > [@](#): > > What real interests do we have left? None that a Navy would help with. Gibraltar-no. Falklands-no. What else separates us from Germany. Please how explain how not having a navy to protect the Falklands wouldn’t make a difference. > [@](#): > > Basically third division; why should we not be as sensible as Germany or Italy? Russia defense budget is 90 billion dollars and it is the largest country in the world, it’s army is 3 million (in taking the reserve) that amount of money is not alot of investment to spread around. Where as the UK military spends 60 billion over a much smaller force, it seems to me that Russia is basically 3rd Division, not the UK at all, and we can project power alot more effectively than they ever have. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-foreign-policy/667648/59 "2013-09-04T18:54:38Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > The UN was created this way on purpose. It is not a world government, it is a forum where countries on the verge of war can talk about issues. Of course the UN will do nothing if the “great powers” don’t all agree, because otherwise the great powers wouldn’t join in the first place. Stalin wasn’t going to join any organization that had pretentions to intervene in internal Soviet affairs. > > The UN is a talking shop where the WWII allies plus China try to regularize their disagreements via diplomacy rather than shoot each other. China and Russia threatening to veto UN action in Syria is an expected feature of the security council, not a bug. It never was and was never supposed to be anything else. If you want supranational governance then look to the European Union, not the UN. I think the UN serves good purposes, I was responding to **Pjen** who was pushing the concept _of_ UN as world government, with EU like or greater powers sort of thing and where more and more countries have “permanent SC status.” Maybe that wasn’t what he was arguing, but it seemed his initial posts were very much in the vein of “world government rah rah!” Like you say, in terms of that sort of thing the UN is basically a joke. I wasn’t actually insulting it when I said it was a League of Nations body–while it failed to prevent WWII the League served some purposes just as the UN does. But people who expect(ed) it to be anything more are deluding themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-foreign-policy/667648/60 "2013-09-04T18:57:47Z")
It’s also worth noting, there is a contradictory line of thought. There are IR idealists (I won’t use the term “liberals” because people will think I’m being political) who feel great powers have an obligation to “do something” about humanitarian abuses. These are people that said we should have been there in Rwanda with boots on the ground, that advocated getting involved in the Balkans to stop ethnic cleansing and some who say we should be in Syria to stop humanitarian abuses. Strangely this same group of people feel international action in regards to such things **must** go through the UN. But it simply cannot be, those two beliefs are not compatible, because as long as China and Russia (who care nothing about human rights in other countries) have permanent SC member status the UN simply cannot be viewed as the appropriate body to respond to humanitarian abuses. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-foreign-policy/667648.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-foreign-policy/667648.md?page=4)