From: Greg Jordan (jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu)
Date: Tue Mar 18 2003 - 09:04:55 MST
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Noah Horton wrote:
> Um, not really. Pre WW2, the USSR dropped out of the League of Nations
> because it would not take action against Hitler. Actually, the current
> situation has a lot in common with the diplomatic situation immediately
> before and at the start of WW2.
...which is what is disturbing.
> Furthermore, the concept of the irrelivence of these two bodies is pretty
> old news, it just has started getting headlines. Any historian will tell
> you that NATO is a cold-war era relic, and in fact that body has been
> working for some years to redefine itself. As for the UN, it has really
> not taken very much action over the years. It has a few successes, but
> not many. There are also some issues with it that have always made it a
> little suspect with regard to relevence and legitimacy, such as Libya
> heading the UN Human Rights commission.
I think NATO and the UN have had some role as institutions in preventing
WWIII. If they are defunct in practice, they may be replaced by
organizations and alliances which will again point the world toward
WWIII. From the Bush administration point of view, NATO and UN may be
defunct because they are unnecessary or because they won't cooperate with
the administration agenda. From other governments' points of view,
NATO and UN may be defunct because they cannot counter US
interventionism.
gej
resourcesoftheworld.org
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 18 2003 - 09:12:56 MST