>>So why is UN important? Simply because it is only true (whole) world body by it's very definition, as opposed to 'international community' which I now see more like collection of powers (and vanities) acting together or agains each other, depending on current interest. By screwing up and undermining UN rather then promoting it, all that is remaining on world political scene is 'vanity fair'. <g>
>>And dangerous one at that.
>
>I agree with you that the international community is nothing more than a collection of powers looking out for their own self-interest. I think the EU is a good counter-balance to the international power the U.S. previously held. I don't think the U.S. is still the leader in foreign affairs and power, nor on the economic field.
>
>While I think economically it makes sense,I don't think the EU as a separate entity from the U.S. and the UN is a good idea for the world. I think that a UN with a backbone would have been better. If the UN enforced its resolutions (including those against Israel), then it would be a better world-wide stabalizing force. Now I foresee bitter political bargaining between the EU and the U.S. instead of an international group truly looking out for everyone's best interest. I guess it may be some time (or never) before a true world-wide community exists. The UN charter was much more geared towards that goal while the EU is more of an economic, political, and military force to counteract the bargaining power of the U.S.

Exactly. It's a brilliant idea from the POV of the Europeans. I was skeptical when it was first proposed but if anything it is working out even better than they hoped.

Re the U.S., if I were them I wouldn't want to be too dependent on the U.S., either.