posted
It was either attack or be attacked, Fo2. I could have talked about UNICEF, or those many peacekeeping operations that the UN has undertaken, or the fact that some countries actually listen to the UN and look to it for aid. But, alas, it would have fallen on deaf ears, and I can bet that there would have been some link to some website saying how "disastrously incompetent" the UN was at keeping order.
posted
Anyway, the real answer is: no, of course not. The only superpower around ignores them, and when other groups want to oppose said superpower they form their own coalitions to do so. It sure would be nice to have a functioning global civil society.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
I'm afraid you're a number of years too early for that.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: It sure would be nice to have a functioning global civil society.
Really? Under who's control and with what goals? How could small countries have the same vote as countries with millions more in populations? How would strife be handled? I could sure see Britan or the US sending their troops to battle on befalf of, say...Iran. Sure. Globalization just means "money talks".
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
How in the world did you get from "civil society" to "Imperial Government"? I've got this mouse. It isn't a very fancy one, but it works. Some Chinese people made it for me. I gave them some hard American currency in exchange. Then they gave me Jet Li. I gave them Real American Rock & Roll, and The Gap. They gave me SARS. We're in a society. The best part is, when I'm at odds with them, our respective governments hash out a compromise. Sure, it's civility at the point of an ICBM, forced into shape by the haphazard rulings of the World Bank, but it beats endless decades of grinding horror. It's also proving to be completely inadequate at handling the 21st century, and if I'm a citizen of the Congo having problems with my Zamibian neighbor, instead of long and boring documents written by poorly-dressed bureaucrats I get a short and exciting machete to the limbs. I think the downside here is obvious.
And of course, one only has to watch the news to see what potential replacements might come about. The neocons' Pax Americana v2.0. Global Europe. The United Islamic Caliphate. And so on.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
You're right: it does'nt work: Small countries have (as a rule) nothing the West needs or wants.
The only way to make a World Government work would be to make altruism the rule of law. That is to say, America, Japan and United Europe all "pay it forward" for a few decades and hope for the best with no intent of ever being paid back. Currently when we really help out a struggling counrty it's with the express notion that they owe us....or more to the point: we own them.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
The UN rescued South Korea. That was a good thing.
Veers is right, UNICEF, at least, is a good thing.
As to whether the peacekeeping missions are "successes" or not, I suppose it depends on how you describe successes.
If success = stop people from wantonly killing each other for a while, then the UN has succeeded many times, and failed a few times (Most notably, Rwanda, Ivory Coast, and the Congo)
If success = stop people from killing each other, and then implement a successful long-term strategy for maintaining peace, and then LEAVE, and have it not disintegrate, well, the UN's successes are somewhat more limited.
But then again, so are the US's. Our last big success in that arena was probably Imperial Japan. The UN's might have been Cambodia.
On yet another hand, many UN successes are actually US successes by proxy... and many UN failures can be said to be US failures by proxy. The same holds true for other UNSC permanent members.
If it wasn't for the fact that the Permanent Member UNSC vetoes override the danger of "tyranny by tyrannies," (ie. less-than-democratic nations ganging up to form a majority) I'd say it was probably time to eliminate that privilege.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Just to toss an metaphorical grenade into the discussion, I'd like to link to this article at CNN.com: UN: World Can't Afford a Rich China.
The idea of a world community is possible, but to be honest, I don't think it's realistic until more nations are on something that comes close to equal footing economically.
But as for the UN... well, may I point out the Cuban Missile Crisis from some 40 years ago? Granted, that was mainly resolved privately between the US and the Soviets, but it still provided an international forum for discussion -- which, I'd wager, at least offered an opportunity to talk first before launching the nukes. That alone would make the organization worthwhile in my book.
As for today... well, I know I commented on this earlier, but I might as well offer more ideas. Given the UNSC's rubber-stamp action to legitimize the "coalition" occupation of Iraq as an official occupation (using that term) only made the Council look weaker, and makes it nothing more than an approval arm of the US/UK clique.
Now, I think that in some ways, there's a very big misconception about the United Nations. Or perhaps a confused sense of purpose that makes it ineffectual.
Simply put, the United Nations has no capability of enforcing its decisions. At all. The organization of the UN is based in part on the "discussion forum" ideas from the old League of Nations, but I believe that the current UN has the same fatal flaws that the League did -- that it can't enforce its resolutions on its own. The sole reason that the League crashed and burned while the UN has plodded along is because nations are more willing to use military force in this day and age, having learned the lessons of the appeasement policy.
The UN is an excellent body for discussion and cooperation, but this takes place primarily in the realm of social issues, and to a lesser extent in economics. There, the various members can discuss the plan of action, but it's all still completely voluntary -- and the members are more willing to cooperate. (Bush and the Kyoto Treaty being an exception, but you get my drift, I hope...) In the realm of "power politics," on the other hand, there's frequently much less cooperation, much higher stakes, and greater likelihood of nations choosing to go their own way.
Consider that the UN's greatest successes have developed when just about the entire body stood united. The Korean War (yes, I know the USSR was boycotting then, but the point is valid), Gulf War I (prior to its weak conclusion).
But when you've got true factions involved with a more equal balance of power inside the UN, there's a much greater likelihood of one side going its own way. Why doesn't Delaware or Maryland suddenly just decide to start trading with Canada on their own because they want more timber at a lower tariff rate than Congress legislated? Because the Federal government would enforce the laws, specifically the part of the Constitution which says that individual states may not form separate relationships with foreign governments. It's enforced.
Until the UN can actually enforce its rulings -- and that will never be able to happen in the current organization of the body -- then it won't be able to prevent these kinds of disagreements. And the UN will be caught in between.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: Uh, once again, if you're reading something about a "world government" you are not in the same thread I am.
Uh because you posted this:
quote:It sure would be nice to have a functioning global civil society.
"global civil society" sure sounds like world government to me, and after all, that is the idea behind the U.N. (with the former Allied Powers controling it).
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
glob�al of, relating to, or involving the entire world.
civ�il of or relating to citizens, of, relating to, or involving the general public, their activities, needs, or ways, or civic affairs as distinguished from special (as military or religious) affairs; adequate in courtesy and politeness.
so�ci�e�ty a part of a community that is a unit distinguishable by particular aims or standards of living or conduct; companionship or association with one's fellows : friendly or intimate intercourse; an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another.
It's like that REM song, with the Shiny and Happy People.
Orwell stay back.
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I just wanted to say: Good luck. We're all counting on you.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
