The state of the UN.

[amicus]

I agree, I was being facetious as you no doubt surmised. Were I to be tasked with forming an international organization with the expectations placed upon the United Nations, I would be hard pressed to come up with a workable system.

I think there need be an international body, but the one that exists is not functional and I think that is known by all.

Where do we go from here? Or does it necessitate another world conflict before resolution? That would be my guess...


amicus...

 

[BlackShanglan]

A shrewd guess, I think. The history of such organizations seems to be a pattern of enactment, decay, and replacement in the wake of the next horrific conflict.

Shanglan

 

[Liar]

Did I not say that all nations should pay an equal amount, regardless of ability to pay? That is to say if there are 220 nations in the United Nations then the US should pay 1/220th of the budget?

In the event of the UN being nothing than a debate club and dilplomacy playground, fair enough. If that also means that US's power and ability to affect desicions is reduced to the same level as Togo or Nepal. Pop goes the veto, first of all.

 

[amicus]

If the United Nations had no money and no power, but only the ability to organize humanitarian assistance such as the Asian Tsunami, and other natural disasters, would that be a bad thing?

amicus...

 

[BlackShanglan]

If the United Nations had no money and no power, but only the ability to organize humanitarian assistance such as the Asian Tsunami, and other natural disasters, would that be a bad thing?

amicus...

Can you explain how they're meant to do that without money?

Shanglan

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I don't know much about the current UN flap, but I agree with Bullet that the right has been pretty anti-UN for as long as I can remember, and that goes back to Goldwater.

On the extreme shack-in-the-Idaho-woods right, there's been for years this chronic fear of the "one-worlders" issuing from New York in their black helicopters to change all the street signs in America to Esperanto. For a while there in the 80's, serious reports of mysterious black helicopters were more common than UFO sitings.

As for the UN itself, just consider the alternatives.

Nothing, right?

---dr.M.

 

[thebullet]

Joe W. wrote:
I don't think the right wing is anti-UN, nor that it somehow hates foreign people or has a significantly greater history of chauvanism or racism than left-wing. I think it a great lack of fairness to confuse some ignorances with conservatism...

Joe, are you trying to say that the extreme Right is not anti-UN? Surely you jest.

Joe, at least you asked a valid question as opposed to the snide put-downs I received for posting my little blurb about right wing feellings and the UN.

I didn't even imagine I would receive a negative response for my post. I was merely stating history.

Amicus is a legitimate right wing anti-UN type. I'm not criticizing him. He is honest about his feelings. Why, then was I the target for snide remarks?

For those of you who are unaware of history, the League of Nations was the brainchild of Woodrow Wilson, the most progressive President in US history to his time (Teddy Roosevelt the possible exception). But the only major Western nation to not join the League was the United States. The American right wingers would have nothing to do with the League of Nations. That decision guaranteed the doom of the League.

for more imformation concerning the American rightwing feelings about the United Nations, check out the following websites:

Unirted Nations control over American Historical Landmarks

The Un-American United Nations

Get US out of the United Nations

United Nations. It's your world. We just want to own you.

Capitalism Magazine

The Phyllis Shafley Report

Exposing the United Nations

Free Republic Site

World Newstand - the UN wants your guns

Gee, I wonder how many of these websites are moderate or left wing?

By the way, there are dozens of more sites like these, all representing the American Right Wing. Is anyone surprised?

 

[BlackShanglan]

Joe, are you trying to say that the extreme Right is not anti-UN? Surely you jest.

Possibly Joe's point - although I would not presume to speak for him - is based on the fact that there is a difference between the extreme right wing and the majority of right wing people. The extreme left can do some very silly things too. Extremists nearly always make themselves ridiculous. For this reason, it doesn't accomplish a great deal to string together a list of the most egregious offences of extremists on either side of political spectrum. All that really tells us is that lunatics are lunatics.

As for pro- or anti-UN biases, I would throw this into the ring. While this has shifted a great deal recently, and particularly with the Bush administration, there was once a time when limiting and regionalizing government was a core value of conservative thinkers. They felt that most problems were best solved on a local level, and that it was important to limit the role of larger - in the US's case federal - overseeing bodies in order to preserve local autonomy. Opposing a powerful UN would be in keeping with this perspective. I mention this because I think that a reasonable person might agree that there are both benefits and disadvantages to having a large, over-arching beaurocracy that can take control away from local powers. There is nothing inherently immoral in being of the opinion that localized systems work better. I don't mean by this that smaller, more local government is necessarily better; I only suggest that there is nothing inherently paranoid or evil in believing that there may be problems with continuing to add new layers of federal, multinational, and global government.

Shanglan

 

[thebullet]

BlackShanglan wrote:
As for pro- or anti-UN biases, I would throw this into the ring and blah blah blah.

And I said that the right wing has a history of opposing the United Nations. How does my statement differ from yours? You are in fact confirming what I said.

The more vocal of the right are virulantly anti-UN. Why do you consider this statement by me to be prejudicial? I am merely stating facts that any right winger such as Amicus would agree with.

I made a simple statement of fact based upon historical precedent. I listed a number of websites hosted by right wing people who are opposed to the UN.

What's the big deal? The Bush Administration (who some might say is generally composed of extreme right wingers) has shown a prediliciton to ignore the United Nations unless it is absolutely unavoidable.

In the pre-war period Sec of State Powell apparantly had to beg Bush to agree to let him bring the case to the UN. Bush's opinion was the we could go it alone.

Surely no one disputes these statements.

 

[BlackShanglan]

And I said that the right wing has a history of opposing the United Nations. How does my statement differ from yours? You are in fact confirming what I said.

The more vocal of the right are virulantly anti-UN. Why do you consider this statement by me to be prejudicial? I am merely stating facts that any right winger such as Amicus would agree with.

I made a simple statement of fact based upon historical precedent. I listed a number of websites hosted by right wing people who are opposed to the UN.

What's the big deal? The Bush Administration (who some might say is generally composed of extreme right wingers) has shown a prediliciton to ignore the United Nations unless it is absolutely unavoidable.

In the pre-war period Sec of State Powell apparantly had to beg Bush to agree to let him bring the case to the UN. Bush's opinion was the we could go it alone.

Surely no one disputes these statements.

I agree. The fact that conservatism is generally opposed to stonger non-local governments is not under dispute.

However, I find it difficult to believe that an author is not aware of the connotative weight and value of words like "virulent," "chauvanism," "racism," and "insular," all of which have graced your posts to this thread.

This is why I posted above to state not only that the right wing does not, in fact, tend to favor the UN, but to point out that it arises from a system of belief not inherently racist, chauvanistic, insular, nor especially virulent. It comes from a preference different to your own, but one that does not occupy substantially different moral ground.

Shanglan

(Grammar edited.)

 

[thebullet]

BS:
Perhaps the words I used were weighted. For this I apologize. However, 'virulent' does properly reflect the attitude of the websites I pointed out on a previous post. (These websites were randomly selected without any intent to pick out the most 'virulent' of the available sites.)

Certainly one can agree that the conservative POV leans towards less government. The conservative's fear of the UN stems from their suspicion that the ultimate goal of the supporters of the UN is world government.

I'm pretty sure that the original purpose of the UN was to be an arbitor of world peace and to a lessor extent, to be a world policeman. It hasn't been particularly successful in either of these roles, but it is helpful to have a world forum to address international issues.

To me the UN has plenty of warts but it's all we have. It troubles me that an American administration could consider the UN to be so marginalized that it wasn't even worth going to with our grievances against Iraq until after we had already decided what to do.

 

[BlackShanglan]

To me the UN has plenty of warts but it's all we have. It troubles me that an American administration could consider the UN to be so marginalized that it wasn't even worth going to with our grievances against Iraq until after we had already decided what to do.

That's a fine argument if one accepts that a quasi-governmental global power is needed; however, "it's all we have" is unlikely to play well with the people who think that having nothing at all would be an improvement.

For myself, I'm quite torn. Part of me would like to believe in the UN; I would like to believe that when people come together in good faith and attempt to aid and understand one another, good things will happen. Part of me would like very much to believe that this is what actually happens in the UN. The rest of me has too much mistrust of political corruption - on all levels, and in all places - to have real hope that that is occurring.

In part this springs from my own beliefs about human oganizations. To my mind, any large organization - government, corporation, church, political party - wields a certain amount of power. And in any organization that wields power, there will be people who are tempted by it. By their nature, those who are more ruthless, less ethical, and more willing to sacrifice principles to advancement will rise over those who are not. Eventually, the institution becomes dominated by such people. The only thing that seems to help, at that point, is disbanding the organization and starting over with a new one not yet run by the ruthlessly ambitious. There's no real getting rid of them; the best bet seems to be to slash and burn once in a while and let the sunlight in.

Shanglan

 

[rgraham666]

To (mis)quote Thomas Jefferson, "A little revolution from time to time is a good thing."

I think perhaps, that it is a use of words thing that confuses us. 'Conservative' has been confused with 'backward' or 'retrograde'. It's that old 'dictatorship of the vocabulary' thing.

There is much good in the conservative world view. Low taxes are a good idea. There's no need for governments to take more money than necessary.

Local government is more responsive to local needs. It's doubtful some bureaucrat in Washington or Ottawa could run a city like New York or Toronto well.

But some people on the right take these things to (logical?) extremes. "All taxes are theft!" "All government is evil!" I once engaged a person in a debate who confused socialism with government.

And as BlackShanglan pointed out, organizations can reward the unethical, often even more than the ethical. As a buddy of mine used to say, "The cream rises to the top. But so does the scum."

It is, as always, a question of balance. We need organization at all levels of our species existence so that at the very least we can come up with some agreement on how we should act towards one another as both individuals and groups. But all organizations at some point stop worrying about utility and start worrying about their power.

That's when the trouble starts.

 

[BlackShanglan]

To (mis)quote Thomas Jefferson, "A little revolution from time to time is a good thing."

I think perhaps, that it is a use of words thing that confuses us. 'Conservative' has been confused with 'backward' or 'retrograde'. It's that old 'dictatorship of the vocabulary' thing.

There is much good in the conservative world view. Low taxes are a good idea. There's no need for governments to take more money than necessary.

Local government is more responsive to local needs. It's doubtful some bureaucrat in Washington or Ottawa could run a city like New York or Toronto well.

But some people on the right take these things to (logical?) extremes. "All taxes are theft!" "All government is evil!" I once engaged a person in a debate who confused socialism with government.

And as BlackShanglan pointed out, organizations can reward the unethical, often even more than the ethical. As a buddy of mine used to say, "The cream rises to the top. But so does the scum."

It is, as always, a question of balance. We need organization at all levels of our species existence so that at the very least we can come up with some agreement on how we should act towards one another as both individuals and groups. But all organizations at some point stop worrying about utility and start worrying about their power.

That's when the trouble starts.

That was genuinely pleasurable reading. Thank you.

Shanglan

 

[cantdog]

It's another political thread. Yaaay!

Colly said, in one of the 'stingy' threads:
Sorry if others disagree, but my current opinion of the UN is about as low as it has ever been


Trying to figure this one out. I hear this opinion being shouted from the rooftops lately. Suprisingly only by Americans.

So I'd just like to know, with as civilised discourse as possible: What is so much worse these days than, say, ten or twenty years ago? And what's the beef with Kofi Annan? I've heard some stuff about corruption involving his son. I can't find enough unbiased info about it on the net though to actually form an opinion about it, but even so does that mean he's been doing a bad job otherwise? I mean he's been the top dog there for quite a while. If he is so rotten, surely he woulda been replaced already? It is a democratic institution, after all. Or not?

The major problems for the UN in my uninformed opinion are two things:
-Genocidal despots and dictators hvaing the same membership status as progressive, open societies.
-The big kahuna nations' veto right clogging up every chance of efficient desicion making, obstructing diplomacy and consensus efforts.

Then there is also the problem of big, powerful nations, the actual core of the UN, acting with complete disregard of the congregation's desicions and conventions, because it just isn't convenient for them. Thus badly damaging the authority of the organisation.

It seems to me that the UN's hands are tied, in part by the same people accusing it of being inefficient. I'm not saying that that is the case, just that that's how it seems to one who have lived his life believing they were the epitome good guys of the world. Could someone with insight, and the ability to explain it in simple enough terms, educate me? What's up, and down with the United Nations?

#L

You have the nail on the head ge-hit.

The "New American Century" dudes ignore the UN, except for being careful to veto everything. Their World Court? We reject it. The indictments of our war criminals? We reject them too.

It does make the New Century fellas look bad to be condemned and indicted, though. Not paying our UN dues didn't work to stop that, so the subject is a "bitch of the month" in arch-conservative and neo-liberal circles from time to time.

Empire builders despise challenges to their sovereignty.

 

[cantdog]

To (mis)quote Thomas Jefferson, "A little revolution from time to time is a good thing."

I think perhaps, that it is a use of words thing that confuses us. 'Conservative' has been confused with 'backward' or 'retrograde'. It's that old 'dictatorship of the vocabulary' thing.

There is much good in the conservative world view. Low taxes are a good idea. There's no need for governments to take more money than necessary.

Local government is more responsive to local needs. It's doubtful some bureaucrat in Washington or Ottawa could run a city like New York or Toronto well.

But some people on the right take these things to (logical?) extremes. "All taxes are theft!" "All government is evil!" I once engaged a person in a debate who confused socialism with government.

And as BlackShanglan pointed out, organizations can reward the unethical, often even more than the ethical. As a buddy of mine used to say, "The cream rises to the top. But so does the scum."

It is, as always, a question of balance. We need organization at all levels of our species existence so that at the very least we can come up with some agreement on how we should act towards one another as both individuals and groups. But all organizations at some point stop worrying about utility and start worrying about their power.

That's when the trouble starts.

When you say local government is more responsive to local needs, I feel obliged to point out that pollution standards have proven impossible to apply locally. Locally, the plant discharging mercury into the river is a large landowner and a medium-sized employer. Locally, it is a sizable taxpayer. Thus, locally, no one can pass or get reliable enforcement of mercury-discharge standards.

Is that what you meant?

In the US, a man responsible for the deaths of thousands in a foreign country does not get an indictment, because he was working for the government at the time. Internationally, a man like that is more clearly seen as the war criminal he is.
Locally in the US, the man's crimes are not in the jurisdiction. Even if he lives there, he holds the Freedom Medal and some other honors and he makes good money on the lecture circuit. He pays good taxes and pays his bills, because he's as rich as Crassus.

There is a place for organization at all levels. Unless you're an empire-building nationalist or a war criminal.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I think cantdog right on pollution, but then I think of that as more than a local problem. I agree, certainly, that there is a place for broader-than-local legislative bodies; otherwise the aforementioned mercury plant just extends its outlet pipe to the city limits, and pours it into the next county without a qualm.

However, I would argue that any sufficiently broad global governing body would, in practical effects, be an empire, with all of the related problems. I also do feel that the larger the organization, the more pronounced the tendency toward a tyranny of the majority. It's good to have room for individual and minority variance.

Shanglan

 

[rgraham666]

When you say local government is more responsive to local needs, I feel obliged to point out that pollution standards have proven impossible to apply locally. Locally, the plant discharging mercury into the river is a large landowner and a medium-sized employer. Locally, it is a sizable taxpayer. Thus, locally, no one can pass or get reliable enforcement of mercury-discharge standards.

Is that what you meant?

In the US, a man responsible for the deaths of thousands in a foreign country does not get an indictment, because he was working for the government at the time. Internationally, a man like that is more clearly seen as the war criminal he is.
Locally in the US, the man's crimes are not in the jurisdiction. Even if he lives there, he holds the Freedom Medal and some other honors and he makes good money on the lecture circuit. He pays good taxes and pays his bills, because he's as rich as Crassus.

There is a place for organization at all levels. Unless you're an empire-building nationalist or a war criminal.

You're quite right cant. There can be a preponderance of power that can warp the reactive ability of a local government. Or any government for that matter. It's a case of appropriateness. 'What is the correct tool for this job?' is the question that should always be asked.

A useful metaphor I fall back on is construction. Building a house is a reasonably simple job, requiring reasonably simple tools. Building a small apartment building is more complex, and requires some more tools. Building a skyscraper is enormously complex, requiring yet more tools.

But tools are only of use in certain circumstances. Rivet guns, sky cranes and giant bulldozers aren't much use for a family home. And a bit of overkill.

And the hammers and saws required for a family home are of limited utility building a skyscraper.

To my mind, a society is created to limit human behaviour, to keep us from harming one another. I think personal ethics is a better way, but many human beings don't really spend much effort on thought about ethics. So tools are created to limit our actions.

Religion was the first of these tools with government a close second.

It's why I prefer democracy. Democracy at least tries to come up with a balance and summation of our individual ethics. Autocratic governments simply impose an ethic, whether it works or not.

This is why the U.N. is so unpopular. It was created to limit the actions of the autocrats and the autocrats don't like their actions being limited very much.

 

[amicus]

I do not wish to pick a fight with either Cantdog, rgraham or Shanglan and I promised Dr. Mab I would cool my heels for a bit, but I cannot help but respond to this:


"...To my mind, a society is created to limit human behaviour, to keep us from harming one another...."


The vast majority of human beings do not need to be 'limited in their behavior'. Only the .003 percent that are the criminal element need to be observed, limited and restricted in their actions.

We form societies/government for mutual self protection and agree to abide by such rules/ethics that provide that protection while still respecting our individual right to live as we choose.

When someone saw a gal taking a leak in a creek upstream from where the village drew its drinking water, there might have been a mild complaint.

'Original Sin' that religious concept that all men are born evil, seems to have dribbled over into mainstream thought. I am compelled to disagree.

That we survives as a prosperous species if proof by existence that the majority of men are basically good. Otherwise we would not have survived.

It is a long reach from urinating in a stream to the United Nations, but the principle remains the same.

Before human kind became agricultural and settled in one spot, it was not important to conserve and nurture the environment, we just moved on down the trail.

Transitions are not always achieved easily. Mankind continually used the rivers systems for both transportation and a sewage system. It took a while to learn better.

The mercuy dump in the stream...as referenced by someone, does not automatically suggest a governing force to halt such pollution. A better way would be to outline property rights and enforce those rights to all property owners and adjacent settlements that might be affected.

And if you see corruption in the private affairs of men, do you not also see that same corruption in government; as men are the operative factor in both.

From settlements to villages to towns and cities and states and nations, the vast majority wish to live to as to enhance their lives and the lives of those the relate to.

There are many organizations of a global nature that manage many things; trade agreements, mutual aid agreements, protection of sovreigns, many, many things.

I think would can justify the need for a global organization, such as the United Nations that 'coordinates' the efforts of member nations in a carefully limited scope of activities.

Those who respect the American way of life, our free market, our individual rights are loathe to hand over to an international organization any aspect of national sovreignty.

I do not see those as 'rabid right wing anti UN radicals' I see them as judicious citizens concerned about international interference in national affairs.

amicus

 

[Liar]

I do not see those as 'rabid right wing anti UN radicals' I see them as judicious citizens concerned about international interference in national affairs.

Just out of curiosity, please explain to me how doing war upon foreign soil can be defined as a national affair.

#L

 

[BlackShanglan]

Just out of curiosity, please explain to me how doing war upon foreign soil can be defined as a national affair.

#L

It's, ah ... it's, ah ... oh bollocks.

Shanglan

 

[amicus]

After the murder of 3000 innocent americans in New York City, it became in the national interest to pursue those guilty of murder. Not such a long stretch of the imagination, is it?

The 'national' interest follows american citizens overseas, that is why we have embassies and diplomatic officials.

As all the terrorists captured thus far are Islamic and since that religion exists in many countries, it becomes a more difficult matter to extract justice.

But, we will.



amicus...

 

[BlackShanglan]

After the murder of 3000 innocent americans in New York City, it became in the national interest to pursue those guilty of murder. Not such a long stretch of the imagination, is it?

The 'national' interest follows american citizens overseas, that is why we have embassies and diplomatic officials.

As all the terrorists captured thus far are Islamic and since that religion exists in many countries, it becomes a more difficult matter to extract justice.

But, we will.



amicus...

Amicus -

I believe that even the Bush admin acknowledges that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. And , yes, the terrorists were Islamic, and many countries have Islamic people in them. They were also male, and many countries have male people in them. They were brunettes as well, and I'm given to understand that even the United States makes a policy of harboring those. Are you proposing that we invade foregin countries based on the fact that 20 people with a shared religion attacked us? And if so, oughtn't we to be invading Saudi Arabia, the homeland of the vast majority of the hijackers?

Shanglan

 

[Liar]

After the murder of 3000 innocent americans in New York City, it became in the national interest to pursue those guilty of murder. Not such a long stretch of the imagination, is it?

The 'national' interest follows american citizens overseas, that is why we have embassies and diplomatic officials.

A national interrst, yes. But not national affairs. There was a whole flora of sovereign states involved here, the very definition of what constitutes international affairs. It's a pretty extreme stretch of the imagination to call either the war in Afghanistan or the one in Iraq domestic American issues.

As all the terrorists captured thus far are Islamic and since that religion exists in many countries, it becomes a more difficult matter to extract justice.

They were not as much muslims as they were homicidal fanatic maniacs.