According to claim 6 UN Security Council resolution 1890 (2009) on 08.10.2009 (http://www.un.org/russian/documen/scresol/res2009/res1890.htm) Security Council invited the leadership of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) “continue to regularly inform the Security Council through the Secretary-General on the implementation of their mandate, including through the submission of quarterly reports”.

You mentioned the positive assessment of the UN General Secretary’s intention to send additional troops to Afghanistan, but that does not report to the UN Security Council and its decision on the matter.

Concerning the “authoritarian” behavior of the U.S. in the international arena, and I hold my opinion – the U.S. Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, the Philippines, Somalia was started illegally. As a result of the actions of Somali pirates suffered almost all the countries of the world that are in the area its merchant ships.

Therefore, UN Security Council stressed in these conditions “the central and impartial role that the United Nations continues to play in promoting peace and stability in Afghanistan by leading the international community’s efforts, noting in this context, the synergies in the objectives of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) and ISAF”.

«No nation, by its memberships, sacrifices the sovereign prerogative to make its own security decisions and to act in its defense, if necessary, independently of the UN» — in accordance with any provision of international law? This is the “authoritarianism” – allow themselves to be above international law the UN.

End of communication.

Your understanding of the meaning of “authoritarian” is significantly different from mine.

When I last responded to you I referred to the NATO role in Afghanistan and neglected to mention the ISAF, the U.N. International Security Assistance Force, now being commanded by NATO. Though to everyone’s satisfaction but that of the U.S. the brunt of combat in Afghanistan is borne by U.S. troops, the eight-year effort in that country has been jointly one of the U.S., NATO, and the U.N. Just last week Ban Ki-moon praised Obama’s decision to send the additional 30,000 troops.

All that said, the U.N. – an international organization the existence and operation of which I support and believe extremely important – is simultaneously a very flawed organization and not a world government. No nation, by its memberships, sacrifices the sovereign prerogative to make its own security decisions and to act in its defense, if necessary, independently of the U.N. That said, too, you seem to overlook that no nation has more often sought – and received – the support of the United Nations in its security actions than has the U.S.

In my opinion, nothing was put in our (former USSR), elected president. This led to duplication of representative functions of the president and parliament and their subsequent conflict. In most cases in favor of the first, creating a system of authoritarian government (about Honduran).

This is also observed in world politics. The next U.S. administration takes over the role of leader of the world, but behaves in a critical moment in international life so authoritarian, that is a fair criticism of other countries not included in the definition of “West”.

It would be logical to expect from the outpost of “democracy” of the same democratic behavior in international affairs. But this does not happen. All at once pretentious American justice is eroded, as soon as it comes on the evaluation of U.S. actions abroad.

I would have understood the steps the U.S. administration with regard to Afghanistan, if its representatives were invited to the UN Security Council to discuss ways to resolve this source of tension created by the previous U.S. administration. If as a result of the discussion, taking into account the views of all interested parties, it would be supported by the current decision of the President of the United States, then it would be legal. I would have any moral right to exercise.

And so – no.

Regarding other issues, they stem from the fact that conservatives call “concessions” U.S. … On the contrary, the current uncertain policy of the Administration toward the improvement of international life, ie what the U.S. expects from the whole world, speaks of her weakness and slipping back.

Unless, of course not “give peace a chance”.