Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: The UN | |
Author: Dave (UK) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 23:27:42 12/03/04 Fri In reply to: Kevin (U.S.) 's message, "U.N. really in control?" on 18:22:45 12/03/04 Fri The problem with the UN is that it is a fundamentally flawed concept. “United Nations” is the biggest Oxymoron I can think of, and while it is a very laudable creation, it suffers from the same intrinsic problems of many other admirable concepts devised by humanity over the ages. It looks good on paper, but does not work in practice. The UN lacks credibility for a number of reasons. Let’s forget the UN’s daily work with regard to the distribution of food parcels to the world’s incompetent governments, and the self-righteousness of their figurehead Kofi Annan, of which many people from tin-pot countries (and Charles Kennedy) pay po-paced deference, and look at the only bit of the organisation that matters - the Security Council. In order for the UN to be a credible organisation, it has to be able to back up its stance with action, and this can only come from the members of the SC and their allies. Whether we like it or not, the guarantor of UN rhetoric is the United States. Add to this, the wildcard of the other bastions of enlightenment: China and Russia, with their competing agendas, and you really have a better chance of pushing molasses up a sandy hill, than reaching agreement on any issue. The UN action in Korea was only possible as the Russians were in a huff at the time, and their empty-seat policy prevented their usual contribution of “niet!” With the risk of stating the blatantly obvious; for the UN to work, the nations that dictate its policy must be united in opinion. Recent examples have shown that the UN has been unable to agree on the Kosovo conflict, where NATO took responsibility, or recently in Iraq, where the “Coalition of the Willing” stepped in because of French and Russian vested interests. With US indifference to issues in Zimbabwe, Sudan, Equatorial Guinea, and [substitute African Country here], where are the United Nations? We can see that if the US or NATO are indifferent, the UN General Assembly may as well rave there as in bed! With Israel, any UN resolution that condemns them will see a British abstention and a US veto. In this chamber, the international consensus does not prevail, so the question should not be “what are the UN doing about it?” Forget the monkey; it’s the organ grinder that matters. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> Subject: If the UN has lost credibility, it's largely the fault of the USA, Israel, Russia and China. nt | |
|
Author: Hegel [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:18:23 12/04/04 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: UN has not lost credibility... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:37:02 12/04/04 Sat ...because it never had any in the first place. It is a fundamentally flawed idea arising from post-war emotions rather than any idea of logic. It does not work for the same reason for which voluntary policing does not work: people will only pursue criminals if their crimes affect them directly; in the same way, UN members are not prepared to sacrifice their own interests for the good of another country. And without policemen, there is no law, since something maybe classed as criminal but with no concomitant punishment it is not a law at all. Plato got it right in Protagoras, with the Ring of Gyges metaphor. For sure, the UN works in a climate in which there is a strong collective will to take action, but without that will, the thing is just a talking-shop, and there are already enough of those in the world. The whole thing should be abolished. It is quite clear from history that stability in the world comes from universal domination by one power or from equilibrium between the powers (which are totally beyond the remit of the UN to promote or enforce). Any situation in between these two extremes is dangerous, unstable, usually violent and univerally unpleasant to live in. I shudder to think what would happen if the USA were to enter a period of relative decline. Look what happened in the world when Britain lost its absolute power to dictate world affairs: it wasn't much fun between 1914 and 1945. Frankly, I rather think that the FC would neatly achieve this, and then where would we all be? Divided we stand, united we fall. Long may she wave. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: With all this current talk of expanding the UN Security Council... | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:10:43 12/04/04 Sat Wouldn't it make more sense to establish a club of nations that have (1) the ideals of freedom and justice, (2) the muscle to establish the conditions in which they can flourish and (3) the willpower to use it, and then start cleaning up not just regimes in oil-rich areas like Iraq, but ALL dictatorships starting (my personal list) with Zimbabwe and Burma? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: A suggestion | |
|
Author: Kofi [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:34:01 12/04/04 Sat I'd like to put China at the top of the list, personally. Inhumane regime that doesn't even get recognised as such any more, because trade is more important than human rights or democracy. Seriously - Burma, North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe all at least have to deal with economic sanctions: they are seen as "bad" even if we do not intervene with troops. Why not China? Or Pakistan, for that matter? Or even (shock horror) America's best friend - Saudi Arabia? I'd agree with Ian here: what we need is some kind of "Union of Democratic Nations" to further the interests of the free world. It would bar the memberships of China, Russia, Pakistan, all of the Arab states except maybe Lebanon and Iraq (and I have my doubts about Allawi's democratic credentials, in truth), Zimbabwe, North Korea and so on... The Security Council members could be the USA, the FC (if it ever comes to pass, and if not then the UK could have its seat), Brazil, India, Japan, France and Germany. Maybe Nigeria and South Africa as well. Even Indonesia, come to think of it. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: It is absurd... | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:10:07 12/04/04 Sat that in the Security Council the vote of Libya counts as much as that of Germany. The structure is completely outdated and based on a set of principles incompatible with many nation's internal politics. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: why Brazil and Indonesia? | |
|
Author: Frank (US) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 04:52:46 12/05/04 Sun I agree that the security council needs restructuring...but I dont know but y would u suggest Brazil and Indonesia get a permanent seat? I mean they're really not as significant as Germany and Japan... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Brazil and Indonesia are regionally significant, but... | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:49:02 12/05/04 Sun ... having lived in one and visited the other, I don't see them as members of this group. Indonesia, because I have yet to see much evidence of their being champions of freedom and justice, and Brazil because they don't have either the muscle or the willpower to do anything about them. Brazil sent peacekeeping troops to Haiti, but only after they convinced the USA to pay for the mission. They also started crying and asking to come home when they discovered that there was the possibility of being shot at. They did, however, put on a goodwill soccer game, which did much to establish the rule of law in one of the poorest, most violent countries in the Americas. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Freedom and Justice? Very novel. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:01:12 12/05/04 Sun I don't know if you've been inside Westminster Abbey, but just before you get to the Great East Door, there's a roundel set in the floor by George V, commemorating those who died in WWI "for the sacred cause of Justice and the Freedom of the World". One doesn't hear much about such grandiose 'causes' these days.... except, of course, in the USA. Food for thought, there, I should think. But my main point is essentially to agree with you. A body of countries which share the ideals of freedom and democracy would be a very different creature from the UN, in which, not long ago, the Libyan delegation was given the secretaryship of the Anti-Terrorism Committee and the [former] Iraqi delegation was given the secretaryship of the Non-Proliferation Committee. What, at the end of the day, is point of the whole bloody organisation if such things can even be considered, let alone done? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: The thing is... | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:35:58 12/05/04 Sun ... the whole UN business was set up with the idea that the members would be serious countries. What we have now is a daft situation where the serious countries are outnumbered by the non-serious ones. The ones that make no real attempt to ensure basic freedoms for their people, for example, or have no economy to speak of, or are unable to defend their own territory. The ones whose people do not – by even the most romantic stretch of the imagination – have the life that they would like to have. I don't want to sound excessively Kiplingesque about this, but isn’t it partly our responsibility? It could be argued that certain problems in Zimbabwe, for example, are a result of British colonialism. Rather than saying “No, not me, nothing to do with me”, wouldn’t it make the world a better place if we said “Well, they’ve probably got a point, poor buggers”, rolled up our sleeves and tried to help sort it out with them? And wouldn’t sorting it out be more likely to involve helping the people of Zimbabwe to set up a government that would actually serve their interests – and hanging around for a while to help them make sure it worked – rather than on saying “well, they’re big boys and girls now, let’s leave it to them to sort it out and pretend we haven’t noticed”? (One day, I hope to visit London, at which point I will visit Westminster Abbey to see George V's roundel.) [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: That's quite a thing... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:00:43 12/05/04 Sun I wholeheartedly agree, but this does make us sound rather like rabid neo-cons, doesn't it? Precise intervention with the idea of promoting freedom and prosperity and the ability to govern one's own country in security may be fashionable in American polical circles, but not really in many other places. As for Rhodesia (Zimbabwe is a silly name, I have no objection to Botswana for Bechuanaland, Tanzania for Tanganyika, or many another name-change, but Zimbabwe makes no sense), I think that it is our responsibility to do something. Say what you like about our old way of doing things, but under the old regime South African tanks would long since have rolled across the border. This would have prevented the idea of forced land-grabs becoming fashionable in Namibia, where they're starting the same sort of thing, and from whence it will no doubt spread to other neighbouring countries with white populations... fortunately for me, my Zambian relatives are all townies and can just sell up and move back to Blighty, as many have done. Others will not be so lucky. But it's not the British population for whom I feel most in all of this, since, much as we might gnash our teeth, we ain't going to starve. It's the poor benighted Africans whose lives are being made immesurably worse by these acts, especially since the pride of some of these people, Mugabe in particular, means that famine relief is not being accepted and starvation is now a reality in one of the only fertile countries in Africa. Shocking, the whole thing. If the Commonwealth as it is can not do anything even about this sort of thing on its doorstep, then the whole institution might just as well be wound up. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: China+Pakistan | |
|
Author: Ben.M(UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:39:05 12/04/04 Sat Kofi, are you mad? China and Pakistan are nuclear powers. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: It's a problem, isn't it? | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:54:04 12/04/04 Sat Obviously freedom and justice for all is the ultimate goal, but it's a balance-of-power situation where there are some things that are achievable and some things that would come at too high a price. This being the real world, blind eyes must occasionally be turned. We worked with Stalin's Soviet Union to defeat Hitler's Germany, which was perceived as a greater threat. Accepting that we can't do anything to help the Chinese people is perhaps a sad necessity rather than a mortal sin. Pretending that we have no responsibility to help the people of Zimbabwe (because someone might say we are racist or neo-colonialists), or that Australia should sign a non-aggression pact with ASEAN (including Burma) because trade is more important than people: these are mortal sins. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: On a cynical note... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:07:39 12/04/04 Sat Yes, alliances are formed using criteria that will best meet our aims, rather than on idealistic or altruistic principles. Trying to create an orderly society based on consensus is as misguided as the redistribution of wealth is for eliminating poverty. We must learn to admit that humanity is still fundamentally tribal in nature. The law of the jungle prevails to this day, from the school playground, to the UN General Assembly. With regard to Zimbabwe, it is evidently clear that we are not going to waste energy chasing the boar, when we are not hungry. The fact that out kith-and-kin were being slaughtered shows us that political expediency triumphs over principle. On a cynical note, our best hope for the future is that we remain part of the oppressor, rather than become the oppressed. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: "our kith-and-kin were being slaughtered " | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:31:24 12/04/04 Sat By "kith and kin", I assume you mean any member of the human species? Our best hope for the future is to ensure that we are among those who make the rules and that we make rules that do not merely serve our own narrow interests. The best of all possible world's is the one where Leviathan has a conscience. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: well... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:44:50 12/04/04 Sat By Kith and Kin I meant blood relations, as you well know. Rather than trying to draw racist connotations from my statement, I would hope that you recognised my main point was that foreign policy, alliances and wars, are sadly all too often aimed at protecting our interests rather than our friends/relations/ideals/princliples, or indeed, any member of the human species. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I don't actually have any blood relations in Zimbabwe | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:23:09 12/04/04 Sat I was not suggesting racism. I was suggesting that our quiet little lives will have a better chance of staying quiet if we remove sources of violence and injustice, because whoever is affected directly, we are all affected in the long run. Ultimately, promoting development all around the world is the best way of achieving peace and stability at home, and development can only take root where there is liberty and justice. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: ... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:31:25 12/04/04 Sat ... and I agree. My statements are my observations, not my policy. I believe that it is a fundamental nature of human society to have laudable principles that are discarded as soon as they come into conflict with our interests. Unfortunately, this is something that will not be resolved by any rules the you, I, or anyone else can come up with. Changing our endemic approach requires the changing of the tenet of human instinct. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: *sigh* | |
|
Author: Ian [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 02:36:11 12/05/04 Sun [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |