[lit-ideas] Re: LAUGH OR CRY?

  • From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:12:13 -0700

Actually, I don't believe that's accurate, Phil.  There was disagreement in
the Bush administration about whether to go to the U.N.  Colin Powell wanted
to go to the U.N.  Cheney & Rumsfeld thought it was a mistake.   Bush
decided to let Colin Powell run with his idea.  So Bush did not have to
"acknowledge the UN."  And if he had his current Secretary of State at the
time, he wouldn't have.

 

As to anyone's seat on the Security Council being a "farce," the whole
Security Council is a farce when one compares it to what it was originally
intended: the wise war-weary powerful nations, stopping by means of their
superior power, smaller ignorant nations who still want to engage in
aggressive war.   When Russia boycotted the decision to support South Korea
in 1950, the UN acted as it was supposed to.  Now it is a different sort of
body; which may nevertheless have some value, but I'm not sure just what it
is.   

 

The U.N. cannot really resolve conflict between nations because it has no
"power" to do so.  That is it has no military force.  No nation can really
project a military force to stop smaller nations from engaging in wars -
except the U.S. - unless a nation is on one of the Security council's
nation's borders - or unless the nation is a former colony.  

 

Lawrence Helm

 

From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Phil Enns
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 7:21 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: LAUGH OR CRY?

 

Mike Geary wrote:

"Is it just me or do others find it laughable that Bush should condemn
Russia for its invasion of Ossetia?"

There is an important difference between the dance Bush engaged in before
invading Iraq and the immediate response from Russia.  It is legitimate to
question whether the Bush dance was a mere window-dressing for a decision
made much earlier, just as it is legitimate to ask whether Russia suckered
Georgia into this misadventure.  But the fact that Bush had to acknowledge
the UN before acting is an important difference.  No matter how empty, it
was a nod to the UN's role as an international body governing relations
between nations.  To this point, it appears Russia has ignored the UN,
making its seat on the Security Council a farce.  It seems to me that this
might be a defining moment for the UN.  Either the UN will assert itself as
a rule-based international body for resolving conflict between nations or it
will show itself to be a body whose sole purpose lies in being a venue for
grand speeches and empty gestures.

Sincerely,

Phil Enns
Yogyakarta, Indonesia



Other related posts: