From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Sun May 04 2003 - 22:22:39 MDT
Lee Daniel Crocker writes:
> .. you might try asking the survey question this way: do you
> favor giving planetwide control to an organization composed
> of delegates most of whom were appointed by governments
> that do not represent the interests of their people?
Favor it in relation to what though? The prospect of Libya
"championing" human rights certainly doesn't appeal to me
personally. But at this stage in civilization we (humanity) don't
get to do things in fine brush strokes. Its crude broad brush
strokes and ugly compromises only. But simply because there
are no all pleasant choices in how to organise or establish
international law doesn't mean we can't find optimals amongst
the unpleasant choices.
Perhaps it really is the case that the UN needs to be put out of
its misery to clear a path for a better institution. But to reach that
sort of conclusion it would seem prudent to make sure we have
a pretty good idea of what was systemically wrong with it in the
first place.
I don't have pat answers. I do think that these are genuinely
extropic problems though. Or to put it another way. Whether we
(extropes) are capable of handling these issues or not, it is not like
we can live in an oasis free from the problems of the rest of the
world. All the problems of this generation are ours, not just the
technological ones, as are the consequences of whether we find
the solutions to them or not.
> The UN charter is fundamentally based on the idea that
> oppressive governments, military dictatorships, inherited
> monarchies, and other non-representative governments are
> legitimate and entitled to a voice in international affairs. Any
> talk of "human rights" is an afterthought; mere lip service from
> an organization that serves to legitimize and perpetuate tyranny
> accross the world.
There is a lot of truth in this I think. The first purpose of the UN
was and should be international peace and security. Without that
working the human rights stuff and the world court stuff is ultimately
farcical (and increasingly it is being seen to be farcical).
It was in an effort to get the physical force, the military might
necessary to put power behind the UN resolutions that the
permanent security council members (US, UK, Russia, China,
and France - the victorious WW11 powers) became the
permanent security council.
In these five was not high nobility. But there was, it seemed
real military power, so long as they agreed. Hence the importance
of the veto. Any one of the five could effective stymie a resolution
by the others and deprive it of UN legitimacy if they so choose. Of
such imperfect compromises was the current UN forged. And as
I understand it much of the dissatisfaction with the UN amongst
ordinary folk seems to me to have been based on this
misunderstanding of the power of the veto. I think many folks
not understanding the structure of the UN were constantly surprised
at it manifest failures to deliver what they regarded as just outcomes.
It was never more than a crude instrument. In practice any one of
the five permanent security council members could exercise
the veto a prevent a resolution that was not in their national
interest.
But, in the five, there was at least some semblance of
representativeness of the various peoples on the planet. Not directly
as citizens but at least as members of nations. But heres the rub,
crude instrument or not, the UN is the best "symbol", the best
effort, however bad, towards international law that we have had
so far.
Where do we go now?
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun May 04 2003 - 22:33:42 MDT