Ottomaton, I'm on a high from Bill making Chris Wallace look like a complete idiot, and maybe even being the difference in the November elections, in one freakin' interview. Why are you going down this path with China and the UN and Taiwan and yada, yada, yada? Why don't we bask in the glow of a great victory won by the good guys? Just a thought. Of course, I have opinions on the subject, but does it really have anything to do with Chavez, Chomsky, Emerson, Lake, and Palmer?? Keep D&D Civil.
Didn't I say that I support removing all veto powers? That includes China, who has used veto only once. UN has to be reformed, but I don't have a clear idea of how it should be. It has to be ballanced, to prevent large countries abusing the veto rights, but also help large countries affect world events more than others. If everyone is contributing equally, one vote for each country works, but it's not the case now. We can discuss further in another thread. Let's stop derailing this one.
The point actually was germane to the thread. I was seeking to determine how much the comments about veto are specifically related to dislike of the current administration, and how much related to actual abstract philosophical ideas about the makeup of the UN. Would you really be happy if a coalition of two Banana Republics like Tuvalu (est. pop. 11,636) and Cape Verde (est. pop. 418,224) would have more power than countries with well developed modern economies and large populations like China (est. pop. 1,306,313,812) or France (est. pop. 60,656,178)?
Like I said, one country one vote doesn't work for current UN, because the contribution is so different. US contributed the most financially. However, the veto system enables those 5 countries to block any resolution with that power, which prevented lots of good thing happening, and failed to stop lots of bad things. I don't have a clear solution for that, as I just said earlier. What's your suggestion for a UN reform?
I think you were misinformed. Taiwan has never got to get its application to a vote because it never could secure majority of the 15 member security concil, therefore its application was never on the official agenda. If we are pushing for real democracy, if we are to make UN worth a damn, then every one of the big 5 has to let go its safety net and make some compromises.
No, the rest of the world would pass a resolution condemning so-called preemptive war, effectively prevented Bush from declaring the war. Then we wouldn't be where we are now.
But US is the country that has used veto power most since the fall of USSR. If I remembered right, 14 times. Russia used 3 times, and China once. I don't remember if UK and France have vetoed anything since 1989. I am all for getting rid of the veto power. Don't you want to get something done about Iran and NK?
In the senate, California has as many vote as RI. There are ways to make it more reasonable, such as giving coutries different classes of voting rights, such as granting current big 5 "soft" veto power. But the current absolute veto mechanism has to go if we want anything meaningful done at the UN.
I will. I think Chinese will respect world opinion. Now also for the sake of argument lets assume for a second a straight vote in UN will condemn Israel and order it to withdraw from disputed territory, would you support the removal of US's veto? That is basically what happened this July.
In deference to Deckard I will not debate this issue, but at the same time I can't tacitly allow you to believe that I accept your word on this subject. Can we say we both believe different things and save discussion of the issue for a more relevant thread? As long as you are willing to accept the outcomes of your solution when they are not favorable to you as well as when they are I can't particularly fault your position. There are, in my opinion, a couple of complications. I would ask, however, if it is really democracy when Idi Amin uses Uganda's vote? Is it really democracy when King Abdullah exercises his rules? I genuinely do appreciate and applaud the central idea of your focus in this mater, but I am not quite so sure that it would be quite correct to call any UN body a real form of 'democracy'. Additionally, in the tradition of American Democracy there is a strong force which is embodied in the Supreme Court in order to prevent what is described as the tyrany of the masses. A pure 'mob rule' sort of democracy does sometimes go wrong. The link I showed indicates civil rights as a classic American example of this. I would suggest that if the security council veto is removed then some other entity would need to exist in some form to prevent a 'tyrany of the masses'.
You are the one who is 'campaigning' for the removal of the veto, not I so no. My previous post indicates that I think there is a need to retain some sort of unit that can prevent mob rule. I just want to make sure that you are willing to live with the potential negative concequences of removing the veto. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I believe, is the classic phrase. But you seem to be willing to live with all concequences of your plan so I have no major issue with your position.
So even before anything is done, you are already labeling the world "mob"? Come on, most of the countries are responsible countries. Is calling them "mob" an attempt to deny them a fair say? Let's say the big 5 are give "soft" veto powers, which once exercised will require 70% of UN members to override. You cannot just say "no, you are all wrong, I am always right". Insisting on keeping the current veto mechanism will only keep UN powerless on every sensitive issue.
The words involved were created long before the United Nation even existed. See Alexis de Tocqueville and his book Democracy in America. The word is not used in a particularly negative way.
I know what you meant. I was just saying that considering the rest of the world "mob" or irresponsible or substandard or not trustworthy or simply below yourself, is not the way to start a push of democracy. There may be some merit to your concern, but let's not use it as an exuse for doing nothing. And I noticed that you haven't responded a single word to my proposal of "soft" veto. IMO, there are ways to improve UN, but some people just refuse to even consider them.
I didn't say anything because I have no fundamental problem with it. I won't be out on the streets campaigning for it, but you may be right. I generally only respond when I disagree with something, I would like some sort of clarification, or I very actively agree in a course of action. For the record, I consider myself a member of that mob. In my ideal world I think I would prefer some sort of body analogous to the Supreme Court with a very narrow mandate for veto but absolute veto power as opposed to keeping the veto with individual member states, but how that Supreme Court is created and configured I have no idea. I am, in addition, a firm believer in the value of internal conflict and inaction in some cases. I think the US Government, for instance, works best when one party controls the legislature and another controls the President. Sometimes no action and additional reflection and discussion is better than bold, but rash, action. I would agree that in the case of the UN the tendency towards inaction is too great, but I wouldn't want to completely eliminate it. I can try to come up with some examples of where I think internal disagreement and tension creating inaction have been beneficial if you would like.
5. A Boston city councilor wants the Citgo sign that towers over Fenway Park's Green Monster taken down in response to Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez's calling President Bush "the devil." Citgo is a subsidiary of Venezuela's state oil company. The Beantown politician added that Chavez's claim about Bush is ludicrous on its face, since everyone knows that George Steinbrenner is the devil. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/pete_mcentegart/09/26/ten.spot/index.html
Pass a resolution? You mean like the thousands of toothless resolutions the GA has passed in its lifetime that have zero practical effect? LOL, sorry but unless the member nations are willing to go to war, either economically or militarily to back up their actions, such resolutions are meaningless. A UN without power that is tilted towards those that are willing to do so is correspodingly not that useful.
Somehow I don't see US go against a passed UN resolution. Being a "leader" does require you to behave. The last thing US wants is a united world against it. Going against UN resolutions is a sure way to make it happen.
