[lit-ideas] The Modern U.N. at work
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:04:22 -0700
Obviously Phil is reading different things about the U.N. than I am, but
since the U.N. didn't do what it was originally intended to do and since
Phil says it is "far different from what it was originally intended to be,"
maybe that's all to the good - as long as it can keep the peace in some way.
Hmmm. Let's abandon this esoteric discussion and return to the real world
to check on what the UN does nowadays in regard to stopping a military
conflict. Let's pick a military conflict at random:
Georgian government says Russia is expanding its presence in Gori Here's an
LA Times article. Let's see how the UN is doing:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-ossetia15-2008aug15,0,37
29955.story Hmmm. No mention of the UN at all. Maybe I didn't read it
carefully enough. Let's try another article:
This one is by the AP:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gDNLWfQWKrQc48pITBUg9KT_6oVwD92I3F3O3
Hmmmm. No mention of the UN once again.
Okay, maybe the progressive UN doesn't settle disputes any longer. Maybe it
is doing bigger and better things that I'm just not familiar with being the
war-monger that I am (according to Mike). Okay, let's look at this thing
Phil says is "thankfully false," namely that when a nation is weak it wants
the stronger nation to rely on rules. But when it is strong it doesn't want
to be constrained by rules. The U.S. rather than the U.N. is trying to
keep the peace in Georgia by trying to get Russia to abide by the rules. As
George Friedman told us yesterday in the article Irene quoted, the U.S. is
at the present time "weak" in Georgia. Notice that it is trying to get
Russia to live up to the rules. Russia on the other hand is "strong" in
Georgia and as Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister says, "One can forget
about any talk about Georgia's territorial integrity because, I believe, it
is impossible to persuade South Ossetia and Abkhazia to agree with the logic
that they can be forced back into the Georgian state. . ."
So, since Russia is "strong" in Georgia and intends to support the removal
of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and, presumably, its reassertion into the
former Soviet Union - or its modern equivalent, it is ignoring the "rules,"
i.e., the cease fire agreement. The U.S., being "weak" is sending aid to
Georgia. Whoopee.
This example of the modern-day U.N. at work has been brought to you by,
Lawrence Helm
San Jacinto
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Phil Enns
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 1:43 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: LAUGH OR CRY?
Lawrence Helm wrote:
"Phil, I take it you are presenting a progressive idea. The U.N. was
not intended originally to be as you describe."
I don't know if it is progressive or not. The U.N. is far different
from what it was originally intended to be. But then so is the U.S.
I would argue that both are improvements in their present forms.
Lawrence:
"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."
Regarding 'moral suasion', see the UDHR. Regarding the UN being a
means of enforcing the will of the Security Council, see anything
about the General Assembly.
Lawrence again:
"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."
The fact that the U.N. does not work ideally can't be a rejection of
the fact that it works towards an ideal. Consider the ideal of the
U.S. and its reality.
Lawrence:
"We don't at present have any globally accept legal rules."
See, UDHR, WTO, ICJ.
Lawrence:
"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?"
Yes, in the same way that you and Mike are, in theory, equal before
the law in the U.S. It is this equality that makes a democracy
possible and without this equality, the U.S. would not be what it is.
Is it too much to think that something similar could be possible
between states so that there would be outcomes that all could consider
fair? It happens in the ICJ and the various disputes that come before
it.
Lawrence:
"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."
Fortunately, this is false. The U.N., founded and maintained by the
powerful, has increasingly worked to introduce a global set of rules
for addressing conflict between nations and human rights abuses. This
is the ICJ. None of the important work done by the ICJ would be
possible without the leadership of the U.S. Sadly, this work has been
undermined by the current administration but there is hope for the
next administration, whether it is Republican or Democratic.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Other related posts:
