Dominic Waghorn

And they can use that to block anything.

So you have resolutions at the UN.

The UN General Assembly resolutions are not binding.

They're kind of recommendations.

But the resolutions from the UN Security Council are binding.

If you break those resolutions, then you are breaking international law.

Now, that would be very effective if those five nations could agree.

But it's a bit like having a club where one member has gone rogue, is attacking the neighbours, continuing to do so, despite everyone in the club saying it's not a good thing to do.

Another member has just decided to rip up the rulebook and to attack Iran in alliance with only one other member.

And then the other member, China, is hoping to do the same thing at some point in the future against Taiwan.

So, you know, that's the problem here you've got.

At least three nations who've kind of ripped up the rulebook that went along with the foundation of the UN, which is the idea that might cannot be proven right, that unprovoked aggression cannot be rewarded.

And if you've got those three nations doing that, then that's an issue.

And it really, as you say, goes back 20 years or so.

when Russia decided to help Bashar al-Assad in Syria and basically decided cynically that it would use its position on the Security Council to block any investigation into Assad using chemical weapons.

That has set a precedent, and it's a precedent that Donald Trump, who has a lot of impatience with the UN, has eagerly kind of decided to follow.

Yes.

People who don't follow the UN very closely would be surprised to hear that Iran, which is a regime that egregiously breaches human rights in its own country against homosexuals, against minorities, against anybody who…

is a dissident against the government, has been the chair of the UN Human Rights Council.

And there are kind of, you know, numerous examples of that.