Then you will see the problem: laws are written by humans, and enforced by humans, too.

International law is an attempt to organize and codify the six hundred and sixty-six million little treaties and trade agreements made by individual nations and groups of nations. The object is to find the common threads that weave their ways through the myriad cultures and economic and political interests that drive the treaties and trade agreements.

What can we all agree on? Can we at least agree that children should remain with their families? That international waters enjoy a uniform code of behavior and will begin at x number of miles/kilometers from shore? That killing people because you want their property is wrong?

To tell a nation that, because of the structure of their government, they are not to participate or to take a leadership role in this debate is to tell them that the rules of humane behavior don't apply to them. Perhaps they wouldn't have abided by the rules anyway, but that would be their decision. They would actively have to turn their backs on international cooperation. By excluding them, they can say that it's a private club to which they were not invited.

America has a long history of isolationism. This sounds like more of the same. If the US is going to take a leadership role in the world, we need to be engaged as more than a gunslinger.

In one classic western, the little boy calls out after the retreating back of the heroic loner, "Shane! Come back, Shane!" This is how we see ourselves. It's time to build the farmhouse and settle down on the ranch. If we don't like our neighbors, since running them off the planet is really no option, we have to call town meetings and talk to them, at them and about them.

This is a process. It's not complete. We can agree to do things and refuse to do other things. We can model the behavior we wish to see displayed. We can only affect the process positively by our participation.

Regards--
Mary Anne