Re: [Politics] Re: The United Nations: Unfit to govern

From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Sun May 04 2003 - 22:22:39 MDT

  • Next message: Dehede011@aol.com: "Re: [Politics] Re: The United Nations: Unfit to govern"

    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