No, instead of expect others to deal with the US foreign policy when it comes to spying, fix the offending foreign policy.
US is at the blame here, not UN or those which US spies upon.
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.