UN- A Meaningless Forum?

[SummerMorning]

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?

The UN is an organisation based on voluntary participation - if you kick them out (as the League of Nations used to do) then you just lost the only handle you actually had on them - talk and debate.

 

[SummerMorning]

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

National sovereignty is an ideological myth based on the 19th century notions of the nation-state. Systems of control within the UN are outlined in chapters VI and VII of the Charter, which I've already made available, but will do so again:

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

Basically, first it outlines peaceful settlement of disputes and various forms of mediation, dialogue and so on. If peaceful settlement fails it outlines a list of actions that the other members can take against ANY STATE (not necessarily a member of the UN, which means collective security has evolved into customary law, rather than just treaty law) breaching the peace. This ranges from notes of protest to armed force.

This part never really worked, because it turned out that the states most often involved in "breaches of the peace" where precisely those with veto powers. Practically the only time Charter VII was used successfully was during the Korean War. After that both the US and the USSR used their veto powers to do pretty much as they wanted, where they wanted ... from Hungary (56), Czech Republic (68), Vietnam (68), Chile (73), Afghanistan (80), Nicaragua (84) and so on.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

SO, like I said, it's just a debate club for Third World dictators. Thanks for reminding me of what I already knew.

Those failings of the various regimes that you took exception to are mostly in the PAST.

And I used the term "genocide", as well as "war crimes", because Qaddafi was doing this during his undeclared war on all Americans. He was going after innocent civilians . He was also behind the puppet regime he set up in Chad to kill sub-Saharan blacks there.

And I haven't heard of any formal partition of Yugoslavia since Kostunica came to power. Kosovo is controlled by the Kosovars.

Also, Liberia just held an election, if I recall correctly.

I'm afraid that we'll have to differ on objective values, in that I believe in one and you believe in none.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

National sovereignty is an ideological myth based on the 19th century notions of the nation-state. Systems of control within the UN are outlined in chapters VI and VII of the Charter, which I've already made available, but will do so again:

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

Basically, first it outlines peaceful settlement of disputes and various forms of mediation, dialogue and so on. If peaceful settlement fails it outlines a list of actions that the other members can take against ANY STATE (not necessarily a member of the UN, which means collective security has evolved into customary law, rather than just treaty law) breaching the peace. This ranges from notes of protest to armed force.

This part never really worked, because it turned out that the states most often involved in "breaches of the peace" where precisely those with veto powers. Practically the only time Charter VII was used successfully was during the Korean War. After that both the US and the USSR used their veto powers to do pretty much as they wanted, where they wanted ... from Hungary (56), Czech Republic (68), Vietnam (68), Chile (73), Afghanistan (80), Nicaragua (84) and so on.

I happen to regard national sovereignty as still valid. After all, who created the interNATIONAL community, anyway?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

It's fascinating that I get labeled "right-wing" by some people for being loyal to the American Revolution, since I am also labeled as "left-wing" by others for the same reason. It just proves that I'm on the right track, if both the far right and the far left hate me.

 

[SummerMorning]

SO, like I said, it's just a debate club for Third World dictators. Thanks for reminding me of what I already knew.

Those failings of the various regimes that you took exception to are mostly in the PAST.

And I used the term "genocide", as well as "war crimes", because Qaddafi was doing this during his undeclared war on all Americans. He was going after innocent civilians . He was also behind the puppet regime he set up in Chad to kill sub-Saharan blacks there.

And I haven't heard of any formal partition of Yugoslavia since Kostunica came to power. Kosovo is controlled by the Kosovars.

Also, Liberia just held an election, if I recall correctly.

I'm afraid that we'll have to differ on objective values, in that I believe in one and you believe in none.

No. It's a "debate club" for everybody. And most of the people being heard there are not silly 3rd world dictators. That's like saying the AH is a debate forum for trolls. It's not.

Do you think the failings of regimes are in the PAST just because they took place, oh, 3 years ago? Get a grip! Fixing a mess in a country takes a generation at least, not a few years.

On "war crimes" and "genocide": face it, you used the legal terms incorrectly.

Yugoslavia officially no longer exists. The rump state is now officially Serbia and Montenegro. That's also the placcard that gets set up at international conferences. Kosovo is NOT controlled by the Kosovars (there are no "Kosovars" as such in Kosovo/a. People mostly call themselves either Serb or Albanian (and a few Gypsies, and Greeks, and Vlachs, and Macedonians, and so on)). Kosovo is controlled by KFOR.

Liberia is a shit-hole where nothing works and the whole country is basically being held together by foreign troops and the fact that there's nothing much left to destroy.

As to justice being an objective value - please, I'd like to see you argument that. Really. My position, that there are no objective values, is an argued position. Yours is a position of belief.

 

[amicus]

A Tip of the ole coonskin cap to both SeverusMax and SummerMorning for an interesting and well informed/searched debate. Nice to see a little class now and then...


amicus...

 

[dr_mabeuse]

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

You want it run by a country that uses torture and has suspended habeus corpus? Like the United States? We lost all the moral authority we had at Abu Ghraib. Arabs know all about what Americans mean by "human rights" now.

If we were really so wild about human rights, then we wouldn't keep giving Musharraf guns and money to keep him in power, would we? We could care less about freedom and rights when our $$$'s at stake.

No. If you want me to join your club, you have let me chair some committees too and you have to listen to my ideas, otherwise it's not a club. It's just your personal pulpit.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

You're entitled to believe that, but I consider yours a position of belief too.

Further, Liberia DID just elect a President.

Kosovo now has autonomy, albeit protected by KFOR, as you noted.

As for the crimes of various nations, most of those are being healed. Every nation has blood on its hands from the past. The Armenian genocide was a thing of the past, for instance. The Chechnya matter is being resolved, though perhaps not ideally, since the Chechens lost their bid for an independent state. They are now electing people to office under the Russian flag. I'll admit that Yeltsin's war was brutal, but is basically over.

And I'm not a lawyer. I use terms on a philosophical basis, not a purely legalistic one. I see Qaddafi's role in Chad as genocidal, as well as his war on all American civilians.

The name change is interesting, but it's still the same 2 remaining republics.

 

[SummerMorning]

I happen to regard national sovereignty as still valid. After all, who created the interNATIONAL community, anyway?

Actually, the international community is something of an enigma and people in the field are basically divided as to whether it exists at all, whether it is the sum of all states or something above and beyond the states comprising it. So, it's questionable whether anybody created or if it even exists.

Calling it the international community is also something of a misnomer, if you're taking an academic position, as a nation is not always a state (except in the discourse of nation states). Then you get the whole mess with what a nation is, how ethnicity figures into it and all that rot.

But, to backpedal. You're talking about sovereignty.

In political science theory there are basically two kinds of state (as in country) sovereignty - internal and external. The first is based on the state being able to do pretty much what it likes within its borders - this is the one that's pretty much accepted today (though "humanitarian" interventionists take issue to this one as well). External sovereignty was all the rage in the 19th century and essentially means that the state can do anything it likes, unless another state stops it. This kind of sovereignty pretty much ended with World War I.

And even internal sovereignty is pretty much a myth, as every state has to take into account other states, the market, the media, etc. etc. when deciding on internal matters.

Sure, the US is "sovereign," but if it suddenly made it illegal for Muslims to enter the US (bizarre example), it would probably run out of Middle Eastern oil very quickly.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

You want it run by a country that uses torture and has suspended habeus corpus? Like the United States? We lost all the moral authority we had at Abu Ghraib. Arabs know all about what Americans mean by "human rights" now.

If we were really so wild about human rights, then we wouldn't keep giving Musharraf guns and money to keep him in power, would we? We could care less about freedom and rights when our $$$'s at stake.

No. If you want me to join your club, you have let me chair some committees too and you have to listen to my ideas, otherwise it's not a club. It's just your personal pulpit.

Like that's morally equivalent to the activities of the Iranian secret police and its brutal repression of dissent?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Actually, the international community is something of an enigma and people in the field are basically divided as to whether it exists at all, whether it is the sum of all states or something above and beyond the states comprising it. So, it's questionable whether anybody created or if it even exists.

Calling it the international community is also something of a misnomer, if you're taking an academic position, as a nation is not always a state (except in the discourse of nation states). Then you get the whole mess with what a nation is, how ethnicity figures into it and all that rot.

But, to backpedal. You're talking about sovereignty.

In political science theory there are basically two kinds of state (as in country) sovereignty - internal and external. The first is based on the state being able to do pretty much what it likes within its borders - this is the one that's pretty much accepted today (though "humanitarian" interventionists take issue to this one as well). External sovereignty was all the rage in the 19th century and essentially means that the state can do anything it likes, unless another state stops it. This kind of sovereignty pretty much ended with World War I.

And even internal sovereignty is pretty much a myth, as every state has to take into account other states, the market, the media, etc. etc. when deciding on internal matters.

Sure, the US is "sovereign," but if it suddenly made it illegal for Muslims to enter the US (bizarre example), it would probably run out of Middle Eastern oil very quickly.

Outside popular opinion doesn't take away national sovereignty. One must tread carefully, avoiding bad precedents. Limited steps to pressure countries are useful, provided that they don't take away the right to, say, adopt a national language.

 

[SummerMorning]

It's fascinating that I get labeled "right-wing" by some people for being loyal to the American Revolution, since I am also labeled as "left-wing" by others for the same reason. It just proves that I'm on the right track, if both the far right and the far left hate me.

You assume I am "left-wing" just because I consider materialist dialectics a valid theory for explaining the Capitalist phenomenon? That's new.

No, I am primarily labelling you as someone who doesn't get their facts straight, but instead argues from misconceptions, "common sense" and ethnocentrism. If you want to have a merited argument about the value of the UN, or any other subject, you have to have a basic grasp of intersubjectively valid facts. It just so happens, that I do in fact have a grasp of those facts, which is why I actually called you out on them.

 

[SummerMorning]

Like that's morally equivalent to the activities of the Iranian secret police and its brutal repression of dissent?

Yes, it is. Once you step over the line, you're over the line. Some things are simply beyond the pale.

 

[SummerMorning]

Outside popular opinion doesn't take away national sovereignty. One must tread carefully, avoiding bad precedents. Limited steps to pressure countries are useful, provided that they don't take away the right to, say, adopt a national language.

Sovereignty is a political science term. If you have to tread carefully and avoid bad precedents, you DO NOT HAVE sovereignty. Period.

Sovereignty is an either/or concept - you have it or you don't.

The concept you're looking for is power and force, for example. A country definitely should have a monopoly on both the repressive and ideological state apparati. Fancy terms, huh?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

You assume I am "left-wing" just because I consider materialist dialectics a valid theory for explaining the Capitalist phenomenon? That's new.

No, I am primarily labelling you as someone who doesn't get their facts straight, but instead argues from misconceptions, "common sense" and ethnocentrism. If you want to have a merited argument about the value of the UN, or any other subject, you have to have a basic grasp of intersubjectively valid facts. It just so happens, that I do in fact have a grasp of those facts, which is why I actually called you out on them.

Some grasp!

There is such a thing as proportion. Brief, temporary, local violations are not the same as a systematic campaign to persecute someone.

And, since you keep repeating nonsense like the claim that RED CHINA somehow represents the people of China, then, yes, I think that you're left-wing. Who else would buy that crap?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Sovereignty is a political science term. If you have to tread carefully and avoid bad precedents, you DO NOT HAVE sovereignty. Period.

Sovereignty is an either/or concept - you have it or you don't.

The concept you're looking for is power and force, for example. A country definitely should have a monopoly on both the repressive and ideological state apparati. Fancy terms, huh?

I meant to avoid trampling the right of the people's representatives, FREELY elected (unlike in RED CHINA), and operating under the limits and constraints of their supreme law, to exercise such powers as they deem necessary for national defense, without global socialist police imposing the will of radical world bureaucrats on them.

 

[SummerMorning]

You're entitled to believe that, but I consider yours a position of belief too.

Further, Liberia DID just elect a President.

Kosovo now has autonomy, albeit protected by KFOR, as you noted.

As for the crimes of various nations, most of those are being healed. Every nation has blood on its hands from the past. The Armenian genocide was a thing of the past, for instance. The Chechnya matter is being resolved, though perhaps not ideally, since the Chechens lost their bid for an independent state. They are now electing people to office under the Russian flag. I'll admit that Yeltsin's war was brutal, but is basically over.

And I'm not a lawyer. I use terms on a philosophical basis, not a purely legalistic one. I see Qaddafi's role in Chad as genocidal, as well as his war on all American civilians.

The name change is interesting, but it's still the same 2 remaining republics.

Liberia doesn't WORK as a country. Kosovo has no autonomy, Kosovo is in legal limbo. De facto it is a KFOR protectorate, de iure it is an "autonomous province" of Serbia. The name change is not just interesting, it is an important fact determining issues regarding state succession as far as the other former Yugoslav republics are concerned. Also, the relationship between Serbia and Montenegro is coming under severe strain and there is a referendum under preparation regarding the future of the union.

Fine - use terms on a legalistic basis - however, I warn you, genocide is the ultimate form of condemnation available and Qaddafi's actions, whether in Chad or over Lockerby, fall far short of the kind of things the word genocide is applicable to. Things like Auschwitz, Rwanda, Srebrenica, Darfur, Cambodia, probably Chechnya (but the veto will take care of that), Armenia and so on.

The Chechen war is basically over? No, you don't understand how hatred works. You don't understand how memory works. Russia essentially demolished and slaughtered an ethnic minority ... that's not alright. That's not something that's "over" ...

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I meant to avoid trampling the right of the people's representatives, FREELY elected (unlike in RED CHINA), and operating under the limits and constraints of their supreme law, to exercise such powers as they deem necessary for national defense, without global socialist police imposing the will of radical world bureaucrats on them.

Of course, those constraints include the Bill of Rights in our case. President Bush is accountable to the American people and their electoral representatives, not appointed functionaries like Zhu Rongji.

 

[SummerMorning]

Some grasp!

There is such a thing as proportion. Brief, temporary, local violations are not the same as a systematic campaign to persecute someone.

And, since you keep repeating nonsense like the claim that RED CHINA somehow represents the people of China, then, yes, I think that you're left-wing. Who else would buy that crap?

They are the effective government of their state, therefore they represent the people of that state. Sounds an eminently realist proposition.

If you think representation is just "elected representatives" and yadda yadda, then you have a very limited view of representation.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Liberia doesn't WORK as a country. Kosovo has no autonomy, Kosovo is in legal limbo. De facto it is a KFOR protectorate, de iure it is an "autonomous province" of Serbia. The name change is not just interesting, it is an important fact determining issues regarding state succession as far as the other former Yugoslav republics are concerned. Also, the relationship between Serbia and Montenegro is coming under severe strain and there is a referendum under preparation regarding the future of the union.

Fine - use terms on a legalistic basis - however, I warn you, genocide is the ultimate form of condemnation available and Qaddafi's actions, whether in Chad or over Lockerby, fall far short of the kind of things the word genocide is applicable to. Things like Auschwitz, Rwanda, Srebrenica, Darfur, Cambodia, probably Chechnya (but the veto will take care of that), Armenia and so on.

The Chechen war is basically over? No, you don't understand how hatred works. You don't understand how memory works. Russia essentially demolished and slaughtered an ethnic minority ... that's not alright. That's not something that's "over" ...

A lot of post-war countries are in ruins. That doesn't mean that they won't recover. There are still Liberians, Kosovar Albanians, and Chechens. They haven't been wiped out.

What Qaddafi did was a ruthless war to forcibly Islamize Chad.

I don't see Montenegro breaking away, but, anyway, until it does, it is part of the same legal entity as Serbia.

 

[SummerMorning]

global socialist police imposing the will of radical world bureaucrats

Who are they?

Oh - and what you're talking about isn't sovereignty. I think you're referring to a checks-and-balances system similar to the American one. That's just one of the solutions for governing. Not my favourite, but better than the Chinese model.

Essentially, what you conceive under "national sovereignty" then, is pretty much that a country has a right to decide on it's own internal policies and so on?

 

[amicus]

"...You assume I am "left-wing" just because I consider materialist dialectics a valid theory for explaining the Capitalist phenomenon? That's new...."

No, it is not new. you left out 'Marxist' in your description of "...materialist dialectics...explaining Capitalism phenomenon (sic)

Marxism is a 'faith' based on a political and philosophical assumption. Free market capitalism, with a small 'c', is a rational, objective, scientific study of the market place.

amicus...

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

They are the effective government of their state, therefore they represent the people of that state. Sounds an eminently realist proposition.

If you think representation is just "elected representatives" and yadda yadda, then you have a very limited view of representation.

I have a very precise and accurate view of representation. I won't dilute it for the benefit of tyrants (like Zhu Rongji). There must be either direct or indirect connection to the people (the Supreme Court is an example of the latter). I have little use for unconstitutional bodies like the FCC, either.

 

[SummerMorning]

Of course, those constraints include the Bill of Rights in our case. President Bush is accountable to the American people and their electoral representatives, not appointed functionaries like Zhu Rongji.

No, they are responsible to the Communist Party of China and via the Communist Party the Workers of China. Of course, that is utterly unlike the American system.