[lit-ideas] Re: LAUGH OR CRY?
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 00:31:06 -0700
Phil, I take it you are presenting a progressive idea. The U.N. was not
intended originally to be as you describe. The military power after World
War II resided in just a few nations. The fears were WWII-type fears:
perhaps German or Japan would at some future time once again engage in
military aggression. We know what our mistakes were in the past: we were
too slow to combat these aggressors militarily; so we won't make that
mistake again. America, the Soviet Union, and Britain were the chief
victors; so they were in the Security council. Britain insisted that France
be added and the U.S. wanted China. France and China weren't military
powers at the time, but Britain and the U.S. believed that France and China
would be. I don't recall that the U.N. was supposed to exercise moral
suasion. It was intended to enforce the will of the Security Council
through military force, or the threat of military force.
But time has passed and that early idea hasn't worked very well. You say
the U.N. "represents an alternative to the idea that international conflicts
can only be resolved through the use of power." That certainly wasn't the
original idea. The original idea was that the power of all us good guys
(the U.S., Britain, France, China and the USSR) will deter the lesser power
of all those bad guys (Japan, Germany & Italy).
I actually don't recognize your "It represents a projection onto the global
stage of the democratic belief
that rules based relationships are a rational and pragmatic advance on
relations structured around the threat of violence" as an actuality. If you
said it was desirable, I wouldn't argue, but I don't recognize it as present
day reality. Yes there is a form of democracy existing in the UN, but any
democracy that places Libya or Syria on a board to judge the morality of the
U.S. isn't something the U.S. is going to take seriously. That others take
it seriously speaks ill of the U.N.'s vision of democracy.
As to globally accepted rules. The originators hoped to create some, but
they failed. Or rather they did create some, but they aren't globally
accepted.
We don't at present have any globally accept legal rules. But if we did, how
would they work? Do you want the U.S. or Russia to consider themselves the
absolute equal of Syria or Costa Rica? That is never going to happen.
Also, it goes against the intent of the original U.N. which was based upon
military power.
You write, "To paraphrase Habermas, the question is whether governments are
willing to constrain political goals with the law." The answer to that
question is "no." I watched a review on CSPAN that described a principle
that all nations have adhered to historically. When they are weak they want
to constrain the more powerful nations with a set of rules. But when they
become powerful, they don't want to be so constrained. This may not be as
it ought to be, but it is as it is.
Lawrence Helm
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Phil Enns
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 10:28 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: LAUGH OR CRY?
Lawrence Helm wrote:
"The U.N. cannot really resolve conflict between nations because it
has no 'power' to do so. That is it has no military force."
The U.N. represents an alternative to the idea that international
conflicts can only be resolved through the use of power. It
represents a projection onto the global stage of the democratic belief
that rules based relationships are a rational and pragmatic advance on
relations structured around the threat of violence. This is not to
deny that there is a role for the threat of violence, but rather to
deny that this threat is the best that human beings can do in
developing social and political relationships. The U.N. can resolve
conflict between nations by turning to a process that adjudicates
conflicting claims on the basis of globally accepted rules. Something
similar occurs at the level of trade with the WTO. By turning to a
legal process, rather than brute force, there is a greater probability
of outcomes being accepted as fair, even if these outcomes are not
always in one's own favour.
To paraphrase Habermas, the question is whether governments are
willing to constrain political goals with the law. Traditionally, the
U.S. has led the way in acknowledging the importance of developing the
rule of law. The administration of George W. Bush represents a
reversal on this, allowing politics to trump the rule of law both
within the U.S. and in its relationships with other countries. Many
people around the world hope that the next U.S. president will return
to a form of governance that continues to develop the rule of law.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Other related posts:
