From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Sat May 03 2003 - 19:39:37 MDT
Lee Corbin writes:
> Yes, the U.N. has become quite corrupt. Is it time for it to go?
It might be preferrably for the UN to go. It was only as strong
as the good faith of the permanent security council members. Whether
it was moral or not there is widespread perception that the Iraq war
was illegal. (That I share that view is irrelevant. What matters I think
is that a wide variety of people who are interested in international law
-maybe not that many - also seem to be of a similar view). The
American government is widely feared and respected but not trusted.
In my opinion this distrust is now endemic in the developed world as
well. To rebuild the trust it may be necessary to let the US citizens
(who elect the US government) see and come to understand the
depth of unease that prevails amongst citizens of the developed world.
In my opinion the distrust is not anti-American. It is the distrust of
the disenfranchised and the disempowered. It is the same sort of
sentiment that caused an earlier generation of Americans to go to
war to assert their rights not to be taxed (governed) without being
represented.
Personally I would have preferred President Bush to have revoked
the Charter before invading Iraq. In the long term perhaps that would
have harmed the US reputation less (the US government reputation).
In my opinion there would have been less dishonour in breaking a
treaty that was revoked on the basis of having failed in its purpose.
Though there would still have been disagreement the hit to international
law would not have come from the worlds most powerful and probably
most advanced country.
I think it was a failure of diplomacy for Bush not to do what he said
he was going to do and to call that second security council resolution.
If the French had veto'd as they'd said they were going to and Bush
really felt the threat to security warranted it he could have threatened
to withdraw the US from the UN as the UN would have failed in its
charter.
A dead UN version 2 (League of Nations being version 1) without
the US breaching the Charter (and dishonouring itself and bringing
distrust on itself) might have been better. Perhaps we'd at least have
"level ground" on which to try and rebuild international law.
Lee again
> However, I think that the trouble with the U.S. leaving the U.N.
> would be that it would play right into the hands of America's
> enemies. "See! They're so out of control that they won't even
> talk anymore!"
I think the problem is worse than that now Lee. Its not that the
US government won't talk that I think people outside of the states
fear it is that they can't be trusted when they do. Its that the US
signature on a treaty may not be worth anything. I think this
perception is now widespread amongst many of the citizens of the
developed countries of the West. I don't trust the US government
or the Australian government). I am sure many intelligent US citizens
don't trust it either. But the level of distrust of government (especially
the powerful US goverment who doe not even have to pretend to
respect the bill of rights or constitutional rights for non US citizens)
is in my opinion much higher than the normal background level
of government distrust.
> Yet there comes a time when, whether it's trade negotiations or
> human rights issues, Americans should indeed worry about what the
> rest of the world will do. Allowing the French and Russians to
> set the standard for human rights, or allowing a lot of America-
> haters to weaken international trade is not in anyone's real
> interest.
No one nation can set the standards to the satisfaction of the
nationals of a majority of other nations. This is not essentially an
american problem. Its a representation problem. Without the
UN any single powerful country disenfranchises the citizens of the
other countries. That is not a formula for stability or dare I say
"extropy".
>
> So the U.S. should continue to support the same goofy charade at
> the U.N., and hope that over time irrational hatreds subside and
> cooperativeness and genuine humanitarianism increase.
I think the US will. I dunno whether they should. I think we are
looking now at some quite long time periods before international
cooperativeness and genuine humanitarianism increases. I hope
I'm wrong.
Regards,
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 03 2003 - 19:50:15 MDT