Except that the US apparently has a specific treaty with the UN that says that the US will NOT spy on the UN headquarters on their soil...
US is at the blame here, not UN or those which US spies upon.
A "treaty" or "law" that can't be enforced doesn't merit the name--it's just lip service.
The fact that the US can bully its way wherever it wants and can afford to ignore every treaty it is signatory to is setting a fine example. I'd hold a tinpot dictator to a higher standard than this. It is recognized that some parties are stronger than others. That does not give the stronger parties the right to ignore their treaties, which count as solemn promises rather than lip-service.
Dumb shit like this is what got us into plenty of wars in the past.
If the United States does not want to be party to treaties then it should simply not sign them. (See: the ICC).
That naivete ignores the fact that from a thug's perspective, it is entirely advantageous to sign treaties, and then secretly ignore them.
Of course, I agree, but I'm not sure it can exist.
>I think that nation states once bound by treaty should abide by that treaty, even the largest, especially the largest.
Well, the US has demonstrated that it is not to be trusted. Move the UN HQ to... umm... I don't know where.
More generally, I think the U.N. serves a valuable humanitarian purpose. It serves as a great vehicle for coordinating international efforts. I think it's a total failure as a political organization. I'd have no problem disbanding the General Assembly and just preserving the useful agencies (UNICEF, ICAO, WHO, etc). It's unfortunately not politically practical in the U.S., because a certain segment of the country fetishizes world government.
We're so smugly confident of the security of our position at the top of the heap that we can bemuse idly about how interesting it will be to watch foreign affairs in the near future. BTW, I'm not trying to mock you, any more than I mock myself for the same thoughts. But it worries me that so few people seem to even consider the possibility that our prospects for the future might be anything other than world dominance.
>How seriously are other countries going to take things?
Diplomats from the countries involved have known or been aware to some degree, but now they can publicly rebuke US/NATO policy initiatives. For that matter, anyone may now criticize UN policy on the basis that it lacks independence.
>Could they apply sanctions against the US?
Well, maybe not through UN resolution! But, sure; it may not have an effect if it isn't unilateral to some degree. The US still holds a lot of cards in that respect, but fewer each day it seems. When, (not if) consensus turns against the US, it will turn quickly.
>Enough to get companies to effectively lobby against spying?
The pessimist in me thinks that by the time public opinion in the US (even among the businessmen you're referring to) turns against gov't policy, the damage will already have been done. Arguably/Possibly a good thing for the world.