UN takes over Tsunami relief

Remove all ads!

The anti-US paranoia of many European nations is just as mystifying to me as the anti-UN paranoia here. The UN can't hurt the US in a military or political way, and the US has the same inabilitiy in relation to Europe. And I don't see anyone calling for China or Britain to lose their veto powers.

 

This is simply absurd. The US is solely responsible for the UN's problems? I'd be tempted to call that statement satire, but...

Look at how it's organized: five member nations have veto power. They can veto whatever they like, whenever they like, and cannot be overriden. Does that seem like a good structure for governance to you?

Look at how it "enforces" its resolutions.

The UN, as I see it, is less strong than the US's central government was under the Articles of Confederation, pre-Constitution. And that's weak.

You can't expect to govern effectively if all you can do is to ask people--nicely--to do what you want them to do.

 

Slith,

I dissent, and agree with Tal. US decisions have a fundamental impact on Europe. Take the war in Iraq and this example: German security says iraqi Ansar al-Islam militants behind Allawi assassination plot are sending fighters from Iraq to Europe.

You underestimate the substantial impact of US power and US policies worldwide. There is a substantial blowback from mislead US policies.

It isn't anti-US paranoia but bitter reality that atm in Washington there again is a president who has blundered but for the sake of consistency won't revoke failed policies and who doesn't talk to anyone but his balls, what he thinks is god and his inner circle.

A lot of the beef Europe has with the US over Middle East policy is that the Bush administration made 'bold' decisions that are still harming and affecting Europe - without consulting Europe first, or heeding european advice and concerns (btw, one of the concerns by Chriac, who has served in Algeria and so knew a bit about fighting in Arab countries, was that he saw the risk of an insurgency destabilising Iraq and the Middle East - preposterous if you consult pre-war editorials in the US media ) - we get hit by the 'fallout' first, the Middle East is just across the Mediterranean from here, three hours by plane.

AMaster,

The point is that the UN wouldn't be irrelevant for US policies if they had enough military power to stop the US, and when the US wouldn't be in the privileged position of a veto wielding power.

The UN's proclaimed 'irrelevance' to the US has much to do with the fact that the UN couldn't prevent the the veto-wielding power America from her invasion of Iraq. Ordinary Iraq, outside the elite veto club of WW-II winners, was unable to do anything about the sanctions - therefor the UN was highly relevant for them.

The problem isn't so much the US. It's that the US are so powerful atm - coupled with their silly self-perception of being exceptional. The problem would be similar with China and Russia and their ordinary nationalism as well if they held a comparable position of unrivalled military power.

It's about the fox guarding the henhouse, a rogueish veto-wielding power.

The proponents of neocon policy think the US is only restrained by the UN and international law and that inherent US goodness and inherent US virtues and US leadership can transcend the current world order to something better for the greater good of all other countries.

America doesn't do harm and can't be wrong. It's a force of good.

That children prayer is the simple foundation of neocon foreign policy and their rejection of human rights and international law - they think America can do better and change the world to something better - because America is better.

To give the neocons some credit: They do have, despite all their biases and hardcore power politics, a deep moralistic streak.

To them, and many Americans, America is special, the exception from the rule that power corrupts - America doesn't need to be restrained, because America as a moral nation is immune to the cathastrophic side-effects of unrestrained power.

A pity that their big moralistic experiment ended with a hooded man on a battery with electrodes on his testicles (to be activated when he falls down from fatigue) and all the other unpleasant pics from US detention camps and prisons.
I imagine it is hard to accept this as fact when you have deep faith in your nations moral infallibility and America's semi-religious nationalism and messianic sense of mission.

Maybe, in the end, human rights and international law DO make sense - as America had to find out, or rather still has to: Even she can fail.

[ January 09, 2005, 11:26: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

I agree with about 90% of what he's saying, so I read it pretty well. Or understand it pretty well. I guess it depends on your perspective.

I've mentioned, in the past, that I'm done with the UN. At least for awhile...

 

I'll pipe in with my theories on the U.N.

American's are terrified of the U.N./World government for a very simple reason. We do not think it could in any way improve our lives and in all probability would make our lives worse. You have to remember the American mind set. We believe that we are the greatest nation on earth, we believe that our way of life is the best there is, and lastly we believe that we are the most successful nation-state in the history of the planet.

Now I know that those statements are blasphemy to people who oppose patriotism or national pride, but we don't care.

We firmly believe that a vast majority of the planet is a hell-hole and no reasonable American would ever want to visit nevermind to live there.

Now combine these beliefs with another belief that people who believe in the U.N. tend to be socialists, or even that if the world was democratic (one vote per person) we would be vastly out-voted. I think this would translate into whatever the Chinese voted would happen. To Americans giving up our soverignity to the U.N. would be a kin to giving up everything we hold dear. We fear that our wealth would be stripped away to help other parts of the world, that our lives, laws, and freedoms could be changed in ways we do not want them to be.

Overall, it paints a pretty dim picture. If you have the best house on the street, the last thing you want to have happen is the government take all of the land and pay everyone on the street the same price.

True Americans still live by the American dream. We firmly believe that anything is possible if you work hard enough for it. We also still have a little of the Jamestown in us, "You don't work, you don't eat."

Lastly, we don't like being told what to do. We have enough trouble fighting amongst ourselves (politically that is) that the last thing we need is other people getting involved.

Obviously, replace we for Snookie's opinion. I'm sure there are plenty of Americans who do not feel this way. I just happen to be one that does.

Hopefully, this clears up the issue.

 

Is that the arguement here? Obviously, the answer is it can't. But that's no different than the UN's ability to do the same to any other country in the world. The UN can't make ANY country give up it's soverieignty (sp?). The US is certianly not unique in this regard.

 

And that is exactly the way we want it. We are not willing to give the U.N. any small victories that we consider dangerous. Some good parables would be the abortion debate or gun control. The Pro-choice crowd vehemently defend any and all restrictions on abortion and the 2nd amendment crowd goes bezerk over any type of gun regulation. The rationale is you never want your opponent to get a foot in the door.

People have had way too much experience with government to trust it. Have you ever heard of a "temporary" increase in taxes? Of course not, they say they are temporary, but we all know they become permament.

Since Tal mentioned Iraq lets think about it. If the U.S. had "buckled" to the U.N. and decided to give sanctions another ten to fifteen years to work, who knows what we would have been forced into next?

No retreat, No surrender

 

So it is better to dive into the known disaster than to maybe suffer suffer a disaster in the future?

 

dmc,

Well, the UN includes dozens of sub-agenciey that are highly successful - just take the WHO that excelled in quelling SARS worldwide - there is no replacement for it.
Same for the international court (highly successful where countries agreed to use it - pretty frequent actually), other agencies regulating international telecommunications, air travel etc.

There is no alternative to the UN as a coordiator of international affairs.

The only organ that regularly fails is the most political one - the security council where forteign policy interests collide. The US veto-status here, and that of other permanent members, is a problem. It also doesn't anymore reflect the actual power situation in the world.

Problem here: The decision to reform the UN security council requires an unanimous vote of the permanent members ... you get the idea.

More, the reform decision would be made in the general assembly by majority vote, without any US veto privilege.
A reform would likely bring Japan, Germany (both for economic power), Indonesia (largest muslim country), India and Brazil (for population), as well as likely south Africa or Nigeria (economic power/ population) in the security council - because the continents want to be represanted by their major powers.

Some six more veto-powers would unavoidably result in a loss of US influence. The US, while it's right decries the irrelevance of the UN, profits very well from it's unchallenged position in the security council. It's an open questions if US interests are served with a reform.

And for all those decrying the UN's 'bloated' buereaucracy. The UN is responsible to coordinate affairs all over the world. Unavoidable in a multinational organisation, all members want their share of positions, too.
However, the size of the actual UN bueraucracy compares well to the buereaucracy of the state of Vermont. So think again.

Reform is said and demanded easier than made.

The anti-UN polemists pick the easiest part of the game. They don't even need to be realistic.

But one for them The New World Government by the Communist UN, controlled by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission Anyone played Deus Ex?

[ January 12, 2005, 23:07: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Yes, let's do that, and a lot of people are thinking that it was a poor idea. And that may be an understatement.


Let's thank the neocons:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6814437/

Game Over:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6814588/

 

dmc,

Well, the UN didn't push the issue of Iraq after the lost war for Kuwait because of the interests of the security council members.

It was because the Arabs would have no longer supported anything further, regime change especially - that was because the US under Bush I then didn't pursue Iraq further - the status quo ante was reinstituted, Iraq beaten and there were very very harsh sanctions and it's economy strangled.

To make my counterpoint: The UN didn't smack down Iraq politically but economically. That disarmed him just as good.

Like it or not, the subjects of the US liberation effort probably suffered more under the liberation and sanctions than under Saddams rule in a decade. The welfare of the subjects of an effort is a thing that can't be left out in a calulation. When the US think it was worth it, the Iraqis who do the bleeding and dieing may well disagree wholeheartedly.

It would have been nice to push Saddam to exile, with his sons, but the result at that time was the best the US and the world could possibly achieve under the circumstances.

Ironically the US eventiually fell for their own distorted propaganda image of Saddam, the omnipotent super villain .

The reason why America eventually attacked Iraq under Bush II was not a sort of danger Saddam posed, but the somewhat understandable desire to kick someone's ass for 911 (plenty of Americans still have faith in the ridiculous idea Saddam had anything to do with 911) and the grandiose neocon concept (it seems an american tendency to think big, even in folly) of spreading democracy by force.

That didn't work out all that well, actually it looks as if short of disposing off Saddam the US will achieve none of their original war goals</font>

• no wave of democracy because the US have discredited the idea with their occupation of Iraq and their heavy handed israeliesque tactics (which may perhaps serve the Israelis who have long ago given up on winning Arabs)
• no solution to the problem of terror (which is perceived way out of proportion to the risks and dangers it actually poses) - to the contrary
• the very low likelyness that any sovereign Iraqi gvt worth the name will tolerate US bases after what the US did to Iraq
• no substantial oil output from devastated Iraq to the worlds markets
• and finally a country not in prosperity and as a beacon of a good democratic civil society and an example to the rest of the Arab world but a devastated country on the edge of civil war.

Yes, the opposite of 'well done' is 'well meant'.

It now looks as if some of the worst blunderers qietly seek private sector employment. Not as good as the trials they deserve but good news anyway.

The importance of having international support is especially perceivable today for the US, when they wonder about fiercely critical public opinion all over the world. Bush's father was aware of that factor, much unlike his son or his neocon advisors who thought that if the US leads boldly, the world would naturally foillow. Oh contraire.

To be followed, global leadership would require not only a president charismatic and persuasive to the world but especially legitimacy - a my-way-or-the-highway approach is unavoidably destined to fail. Bush persuaded the US of the necessity of attacking Iraq, but no one else.

I understand your point however. And I share your second point that it is ridiculous how can anyone in the US can have the slightest worry about the UN as it is presently constituted. With the US wielding a veto right nothing can happen to them coming from the US.

[ January 13, 2005, 07:43: Message edited by: Ragusa ]