True, but they have no problem attempting to impose their concept of "popular sovereignty" on other states under the guise of Universal Human Rights.
I am not sure that is accurate. What some would view as non-democratic leaders get elected all the time. But I do believe that is how "non-democratic" states see it. The main threat coming from the "popular sovereignty" contingent who would limit any regime's ability to impose its will on its population in ways democratic leaders might not be openly willing to agree with.For non-democratic nations the loss of sovereignty would threaten their hold on power.
Unfortunate reality.The UN thus becomes a political tool to wield in the service of the national interest.
I still have to agree with others here that we are better off with it than without it. That does not mean that it could not stand a little tweaking.
Bookmarks