UN- A Meaningless Forum?

[SummerMorning]

Unlike the "evil" USA/UK forces of liberal democracy, the Third World doesn't give a fig about your rights to counsel, fair trials, free speech, etc. They prefer gulags, show trials, and death squads.

Two words: Guantanamo Bay.

Oh, sorry ... officially it's still Cuban sovereign territory, only leased to the US "in perpetuity." What an interesting legalism.

 

[SummerMorning]

Look, just go read the damn thing over here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations

 

[SummerMorning]

And just for the record, my opinion:

The UN is often inefficient, often powerless, often corrupt, often mindlessly bureaucratic, wholly a child of World War 2, often anarchic, often just a forum, often sidelined, often a mess, often broke ...

And it's still better than nothing.

But. That doesn't excuse you, Severus, having your facts mucked up five miles from Tuesday.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Oh, shut up and listen for a change!

First of all, every institution has some kind of authority controlling it. That is what I meant by "governing body".

Also, the USA is entitled to its vetoes. It is one of the Five Permanent Members of the Security Council, and the co-founders of the UN (to its regret, in terms of excessive dues). No amount of complaining can change its right to veto.

Also, the seat in the UN was wrongfully taken from Taiwan and given to Red China. The Communist regime is a brutal one and has no claim to representing its people.

Furthermore, Qaddafi's infamous "Green Book" made it clear that his "Third Way" was a mixture of radical Islam, socialism (you got one of 3 right), and Arab nationalism.

Gitmo is a necessary protection against Cuban Communist expansion. We're not leaving anytime soon, certainly not at the behest of a tyrant like Castro.

I KNOW the definitions of war criminal and genocide, and I won't be caught up in the revisionist definitions of someone with evident sympathies for Third World tyrants.

I started this thread to present MY views on the UN, to which I am entitled. To me, it is an example of unbridled utopian diplomatic pipe dreams.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

A Proposal For A New World Order:

I propose the creation of a Community of Free States, which would include all nations with some form of constitution, legal guarantee of civil liberties and human rights, market-based economies, and free popular elections of at least their lower houses.

Proposed Members Would Include:

1. The United States of America.
2. The Dominion of Canada.
3. The United Kingdom.
4. The French Republic.
5. The Federal Republic of Germany.
6. The Italian Republic.
7. The Kingdom of Spain.
8. The Swiss Confederation.
9. The Turkish Republic.
10. The Hellenic Republic.
11. The Republic of Iraq.
12. The State of Israel.
13. The Republic of China (Taiwan).
14. The Portugese Republic.
15. The United Netherlands.
16. The Republic of Ireland.
17. The Empire of Japan.
18. The Republic of Korea (South Korea).
19. The Commonwealth of Australia.
20. New Zealand.
21. Belize.
22. South Africa.
23. Mexico.
24. Poland.
25. The Czech Republic.
26. The Russian Federation.
27. Romania.
28. Bulgaria.
29. Yugoslavia.
30. Cyprus.
31. Malta.
32. San Marino.
33. Belgium.
34. Luxembourg.
35. Austria.
36. Sweden.
37. Denmark.
38. Norway.
39. Iceland.
40. Finland.
41. Ukraine.
42. Slovakia.
43. Bosnia-Herzegovina.
44. Croatia.
45. Slovenia.
46. Kenya.
47. Colombia.
48. Peru.
49. Brazil.
50. Chile.
51. Argentina.
52. Ecuador.
53. Nicaragua.
54. Guatemala.
55. Costa Rica.
56. Hungary.
57. India.
58. The Philippines.
59. Indonesia.
60. Papua New Guinea.
61. Botswana.
62. Madagascar.
63. Estonia.
64. Latvia.
65. Lithuania.
66. Georgia.
67. Honduras.
68. Panama.
69. Guyana.
70. Nigeria.
71. Liberia.

 

[cantdog]

You propose this on a porn site?

 

[Guest]

You propose this on a porn site?

This is a porn site?

Damn.

Then what did I just post on ChristmasCookies .com?

 

[cantdog]

I hope the cookie mavens recover. You write about ass fucking! One of my favorite things, but I like cookies, too.

The Chiang and Mao thing is ancient history now, I would have thought. I was there for that one, since i was born in 1953. Mao had a far greater claim to representing the Chinese as a whole than any dictator of Formosa. And it was actually Chiang at the time. Mao was the general who beat the Japanese.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

My understanding of the UN is as a place where all the nations of the world can come and talk and bitch and moan and argue and try and make each other look bad or good and gossip and spy and lie and occasionally help each other and in general do all those things that people and nations do with and to each other, all in one place.

As such, it has to be a place for ALL nations, and not just those we like and approve of. It's not The League of Super Pals.

So what's the problem?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Mao, with a brutal, one-party state, represented people better than a benevolent dictator like Chiang? Face it, I don't recall Mao's regime being even REMOTELY democratic or liberal. This was the guy that killed more people than anyone but Stalin! The guy was responsible for the Cultural Revolution and several purges. The whole reason that Deng won the power struggle was that people at all levels were tired of Mao's nonsense and brutality.

Furthermore, I don't see anything weird about making political points and ideas on a porn site. To me, porn is nothing shameful.

Back on topic, I regard the Taiwanese state as a de facto nation ruled as a liberal democracy. Unless you actually favor a regime that executes dissidents and harvest their organs, such as the Communist Chinese government. It has NO legitimacy in my book, whatsoever. I don't recall free elections in Mainland, like there were on Taiwan last year and in 1996 and 2000.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

My understanding of the UN is as a place where all the nations of the world can come and talk and bitch and moan and argue and try and make each other look bad or good and gossip and spy and lie and occasionally help each other and in general do all those things that people and nations do with and to each other, all in one place.

As such, it has to be a place for ALL nations, and not just those we like and approve of. It's not The League of Super Pals.

So what's the problem?

Do you actually want a Human Rights Commission run by countries with no respect for human rights? Iran, for instance? Or Pakistan?

 

[amicus]

This is a porn site?

Damn.

Then what did I just post on ChristmasCookies .com?

Up and about a little early this day, m'love and you gave me my first chuckle of the day, just gotta say 'thanks!' for that.

Porn site....a hidden, subtle, embarassed guilt expressed here? And by the way, the site is called, "Literotica" which one might understand as a combination of Literature and Erotica.

Severus makes a good point. This qualifying issue he posted, in general, reflect the 'charter' of the UN, to which member nations are supposed to adhere.

Just why socialist graveyards such as the former Soviet Union, the current Communist mainland China, Syria, Iran and North Korea are considered qualified is beyond me.

Perhaps Mab reflects a point that there are no absolute values, and who then can judge if socialist slavery and oppression is any better or worse than any other system.

Perhaps it is time to question the quest for enrolling all nations in the United Nations just because they exist, regardless of human values expressed and protected.

Good point.


amicus...

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Up and about a little early this day, m'love and you gave me my first chuckle of the day, just gotta say 'thanks!' for that.

Porn site....a hidden, subtle, embarassed guilt expressed here? And by the way, the site is called, "Literotica" which one might understand as a combination of Literature and Erotica.

Severus makes a good point. This qualifying issue he posted, in general, reflect the 'charter' of the UN, to which member nations are supposed to adhere.

Just why socialist graveyards such as the former Soviet Union, the current Communist mainland China, Syria, Iran and North Korea are considered qualified is beyond me.

Perhaps Mab reflects a point that there are no absolute values, and who then can judge if socialist slavery and oppression is any better or worse than any other system.

Perhaps it is time to question the quest for enrolling all nations in the United Nations just because they exist, regardless of human values expressed and protected.

Good point.


amicus...

Once again, I can find some things to agree with here. While I'm not a moral absolutist in the usual sense of word, I DO believe in one moral absolute: justice.

 

[amicus]

Once again, I can find some things to agree with here. While I'm not a moral absolutist in the usual sense of word, I DO believe in one moral absolute: justice.

"...moral absolutist..."

I most likely resemble that remark. Would you care to define just what a 'moral absolutist' is?

Not that I don't understand the definition of the concept, I do, but I wonder what your definition might be.

thanx...


amicus...

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

It's someone who believes in objective values that are universal and transcend mere expediency. I believe in one of these: justice. All other values are subordinate to justice in my view. (And, since justice demands freedom, freedom is more important than peace.)

 

[SummerMorning]

First of all, every institution has some kind of authority controlling it. That is what I meant by "governing body".

Then you obviously mean the Secretariat. Qaddafi, Assad and Castro do not control the Secretariat. And neither does Bush. Or Chirac. Or Putin. Or Hu. Which is probably what annoys you.

Also, the USA is entitled to its vetoes. It is one of the Five Permanent Members of the Security Council, and the co-founders of the UN (to its regret, in terms of excessive dues). No amount of complaining can change its right to veto.

No, you're right. It is one of the five permanent members of the SC as a result of historical circumstances. Along with Russia, China, the UK and France. And their vetoes can't be changed either.

Also, the seat in the UN was wrongfully taken from Taiwan and given to Red China. The Communist regime is a brutal one and has no claim to representing its people.

Incorrect. Saying it was wrongfully taken is assuming that your moral position is the superior one. The UN is a political forum, the decision to replace the Republic of China (Taiwan's official title) with the People's Republic of China (not Red China) was based on politics of the time. On real-politik, not the neo-con global happy democratic reich ideology-politik you advocate. The PRC, with 1.2 bn people seems to represent "china" (as the "co-victor" over Japan) better than the RC, with 50 mn people.

Furthermore, Qaddafi's infamous "Green Book" made it clear that his "Third Way" was a mixture of radical Islam, socialism (you got one of 3 right), and Arab nationalism.

Look at his politics. He wasn't supporting radical Islam. Qaddafi is a remnant of the 60s and 70s, when secularism (also called Arab nationalism) and socialism were the political ideologies of choice in the Middle East - witness Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Algeria ... In the late 70s the shift ocurred to radical Islam, in Iran, not in the arab states.

Gitmo is a necessary protection against Cuban Communist expansion. We're not leaving anytime soon, certainly not at the behest of a tyrant like Castro.

And that's just paranoia. Guantanamo bay is an area beyond the law, and you simply wave it away as "necessary protection"? You torture people, and it's just necessary? In what way does that leave you better than "Third World Tyrants"?

I KNOW the definitions of war criminal and genocide, and I won't be caught up in the revisionist definitions of someone with evident sympathies for Third World tyrants.

Then why did you say Qaddafi is a war criminal and had committed genocides? Answer me this.

I started this thread to present MY views on the UN, to which I am entitled. To me, it is an example of unbridled utopian diplomatic pipe dreams.

Yes, those are your views. Fine, I understand them. I agree to an extent. But you have no facts on your side, only ideology, bigotry and miscomprehension.

 

[amicus]

It's someone who believes in objective values that are universal and transcend mere expediency. I believe in one of these: justice. All other values are subordinate to justice in my view. (And, since justice demands freedom, freedom is more important than peace.)

SeverusMax....I really don't want to create a division of thought between us as I find you one of the few rational minds on this forum. But...you can't have it both ways.

"Objective values..." to quote you from above, do not require 'belief', rather, rational logical comprehension, i.e. 'thinking', not faith.

Your claim to 'believe' in Justice, or anything else, leaves you open to the kind of criticism just delivered against your 'belief's' by SummerMorning.

If you cannot provide a rational, objective set of inter connecting and supportive values that can be explained and defended rationally, then your proclamations carry the same weight as SummerMornings, absolutely none, as all opinions are subjective and can be dismissed as 'faith' or belief and have no real, objective value.

amicus...

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I was saying that having Gitmo as a BASE is necessary, not the fucking fascist Bush neo-con Nazi concentration camp is (damn it, where you come off calling me a "neo-con"; I'm a mix of Libertarian and centrist).

Qaddafi engaged in slaughter through terror of innocent civilians. What can be more criminal or genocidal than the Pan Am bombing?

Red China is a criminal regime that murders dissidents and harvests their organs, imposes martial-law on demonstrators, forces people to abort their children, and represses religious freedom. And just HOW does that represent the Chinese people again?

I wasn't just talking about the Secretariat (although I think Kofi Annan a poor choice for Secretary-General, given his dubious role in Rwanda during the massacre of Tutsis). I also meant the General Assembly, which has ultimate power over all other UN bodies.

 

[SummerMorning]

A Proposal For A New World Order:

I propose the creation of a Community of Free States, which would include all nations with some form of constitution, legal guarantee of civil liberties and human rights, market-based economies, and free popular elections of at least their lower houses.

Proposed Members Would Include:

1. The United States of America.
...list...
71. Liberia.

And what would this community of "Free States" actually do? You really don't get it, do you? The UN is not a "military alliance" or any kind of alliance at all. The UN represents a collective security organisation as opposed to a collective defense organisation - there is a big difference between the two. This facti is emphasised in the UN preamble, which I've shortened into two paragraphs here, but you can check it out at the original address: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/


"an international organization" established "to save succeeding generations from ... war," "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights ... equal rights of men and women ... of nations large and small," "to establish conditions under which justice ... arising from TREATIES and other sources of INTERNATIONAL LAW can be maintained," and "to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom."

For these ends [these nations joining the UN] have determined to "practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite [their] strength to maintain international peace and security, to ensure ... that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and ... economic and social advancement of all peoples."


Of course, I'm sure you can guess which parts of the preamble came from the socialists and which came from the liberalists.

See, the reason you're supposed to have everyone INSIDE THE ORGANISATION is because you can't do anything to them if they're OUTSIDE. Well, apart from bombing them into the stone age - something that has been considered a "BAD THING" ever since World War I and more concretely since the adoption of the Briand-Kellogg Pacts outlawing aggressive warfare.

Now, if they're inside, you can pressure them in other ways, you can also address your grievances in other ways than lobbing nuclear-tipped warheads. If you have no permanent forum, well it's very easy to end up with another big war. Which is, repeating myself here, generally considered a "BAD THING" since the 1920s on. That's also why everyone considers Germany and Japan to be the "bad guys" of WW2, because they started it (although the USSR certainly helped 3R with Poland, and also took the Baltic states and Finland for its own - an oft overlooked fact).

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

SeverusMax....I really don't want to create a division of thought between us as I find you one of the few rational minds on this forum. But...you can't have it both ways.

"Objective values..." to quote you from above, do not require 'belief', rather, rational logical comprehension, i.e. 'thinking', not faith.

Your claim to 'believe' in Justice, or anything else, leaves you open to the kind of criticism just delivered against your 'belief's' by SummerMorning.

If you cannot provide a rational, objective set of inter connecting and supportive values that can be explained and defended rationally, then your proclamations carry the same weight as SummerMornings, absolutely none, as all opinions are subjective and can be dismissed as 'faith' or belief and have no real, objective value.

amicus...

I'm simply saying that I don't believe that MOST values are absolute. In my view, values have a hierarchy of importance. Only the top value is absolute.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

And what would this community of "Free States" actually do? You really don't get it, do you? The UN is not a "military alliance" or any kind of alliance at all. The UN represents a collective security organisation as opposed to a collective defense organisation - there is a big difference between the two. This facti is emphasised in the UN preamble, which I've shortened into two paragraphs here, but you can check it out at the original address: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/


"an international organization" established "to save succeeding generations from ... war," "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights ... equal rights of men and women ... of nations large and small," "to establish conditions under which justice ... arising from TREATIES and other sources of INTERNATIONAL LAW can be maintained," and "to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom."

For these ends [these nations joining the UN] have determined to "practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite [their] strength to maintain international peace and security, to ensure ... that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and ... economic and social advancement of all peoples."


Of course, I'm sure you can guess which parts of the preamble came from the socialists and which came from the liberalists.

See, the reason you're supposed to have everyone INSIDE THE ORGANISATION is because you can't do anything to them if they're OUTSIDE. Well, apart from bombing them into the stone age - something that has been considered a "BAD THING" ever since World War I and more concretely since the adoption of the Briand-Kellogg Pacts outlawing aggressive warfare.

Now, if they're inside, you can pressure them in other ways, you can also address your grievances in other ways than lobbing nuclear-tipped warheads. If you have no permanent forum, well it's very easy to end up with another big war. Which is, repeating myself here, generally considered a "BAD THING" since the 1920s on. That's also why everyone considers Germany and Japan to be the "bad guys" of WW2, because they started it (although the USSR certainly helped 3R with Poland, and also took the Baltic states and Finland for its own - an oft overlooked fact).

A Charter like that is meaningless if its members are allowed to stay after violating it. What good is "collective security" if you have a mole in your midst?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Further, "controlling" members only works if you can violate their national sovereignty. NOT a good precedent. Better to set conditions BEFORE they join.

 

[SummerMorning]

I was saying that having Gitmo as a BASE is necessary, not the fucking fascist Bush neo-con Nazi concentration camp is (damn it, where you come off calling me a "neo-con"; I'm a mix of Libertarian and centrist).

Qaddafi engaged in slaughter through terror of innocent civilians. What can be more criminal or genocidal than the Pan Am bombing?

I agree. It is criminal and reprehensible. But it is neither a war crime nor a genocide. Like I said - you don't know the definition of either. "War crime" and "Genocide" are legal terms for different acts, considered illegal under international law. Just like "first degree murder" and "manslaughter" are legal terms under your national law. Or "sodomy" for that matter, since we're on Lit.

A "war crime" can only occur during a war - that's basically why it's called a WAR crime. Libya was not at war at the time, that's why it's called an ACT OF TERRORISM and not a WAR CRIME. The slaughter of men and boys in Srebrenica in July, 1995 by the Serbs under the command of Ratko Mladić IS a WAR crime, because it took place during war time.

The Pan Am bombing is not a genocidal act, because a genocide is something else. The legal definition follows from the 1948 Convention on the Prevention of Genocide, adopted by the GA of the UN (which you describe as ruled by 3W tyrants), you can find the full version here: http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html

Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:

1) the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and

2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide."

Article III described five punishable forms of the crime of genocide: genocide; conspiracy, incitement, attempt and complicity.

So, a genocide doesn't have to be a war crime (witness Saddams indictment for the gassing of Kurds in peace time) and a war crime doesn't have to be a genocide. Since the Pan Am bombing included neither the mental nor the physical element of genocide, it was not a genocidal act. Whereas, again Srebrenica, July 11-14, 1995, was.

Genocide is pretty much the biggest "BAD THING" in the legal arsenal, and calling every single violent incident a "genocide" is ridiculous. That's like calling an isolated case of "vehicular manslaughter" "serial murder". Both are tragic, but one of them is worse.

Red China is a criminal regime that murders dissidents and harvests their organs, imposes martial-law on demonstrators, forces people to abort their children, and represses religious freedom. And just HOW does that represent the Chinese people again?

It represents them bloodily, with no respect for human rights, and quite impressively in an economic sense. But it still represents them. Representation is not quite as cut-and-dried as you might like.

I wasn't just talking about the Secretariat (although I think Kofi Annan a poor choice for Secretary-General, given his dubious role in Rwanda during the massacre of Tutsis). I also meant the General Assembly, which has ultimate power over all other UN bodies.

Yes, I agree, old Coffee was a real ass in the Rwandan events. Again, the trick is in the legal terminology - calling something genocide means that everybody is under obligation to intervene. Nobody wanted that, so everybody muddied the waters while the people got slaughtered. I'm familiar with that example.

The General Assembly has very little "ultimate power." It is primarily a debating forum, most of it's debates are actually delegated to subsidiary organs and the only thing it really decides on is the budget.

 

[SummerMorning]

A Proposal For A New World Order:

I propose the creation of a Community of Free States, which would include all nations with some form of constitution, legal guarantee of civil liberties and human rights, market-based economies, and free popular elections of at least their lower houses.

Proposed Members Would Include:

1. The United States of America.
...list...
71. Liberia.

I wanted to take issue with your list. There are factual errors. Namely, the following states you mention have utterly execrable human rights records, few civil liberties, and so on ...

9. The Turkish Republic. (witness the Kurds)
12. The State of Israel. (witness the Palestinians)
26. The Russian Federation. (witness the Chechens, the Ingush, the Abhazi, the Kabardino-Balkarians, the Karachai-Cherkezi, the Dagestani, the Cossacks, etc.)
29. Yugoslavia. (doesn't exist anymore - you must be referring to Serbia and Monte Negro, still there is the problem of Kosovo / Kosova no matter how you dice it)
41. Ukraine. (witness the Russians and Tatars)
43. Bosnia-Herzegovina. (long story short - it's not working)
46. Kenya. (besides execrable corruption also a long list of oppression of opposition parties)
58. The Philippines. (witness the various seperatist movements)
59. Indonesia. (witness East Timor and various other regions)
62. Madagascar. (currently divided internally)
64. Latvia. (poor treatment of Russian minority)
70. Nigeria. (north-south divide)
71. Liberia. (failed state)

and of course: 11. The Republic of Iraq. (war zone)

 

[SummerMorning]

I'm simply saying that I don't believe that MOST values are absolute. In my view, values have a hierarchy of importance. Only the top value is absolute.

No value is absolute. But it helps us to pretend it is so. I have values that I will defend to the death, but that doesn't change the fact that no value applies to everyone, everywhere and everywhen.