Not that this will surprise anyone...but this really bothers me. We are told that the US shouldn't act alone. That we should run major policy decisions by nations like China, France, Russia and Chile before we act. We are told that we need the consensus of an organization consisting of member-states that are not democratic...that are absolutely tyrannical. We see this group have nations like Libya serve on the Human Rights Commission. Libya and human rights?? I'm thinking Lockerbie when I think Libya...I'm thinking dictatorship. And we want the support of these nations? We want them to be the moral compass through which we make policy? And please explain to me the concept behind "permanent seats" on the UN security council. Since it's American lives and American weaponry that does the bulk of any of the UN's enforcement work, why the hell isn't the US on that committee? Alliances are great...they're strategic...they're built out of real relationships between nations, economic and otherwise. Shared concerns and values. The United Nations is not an alliance. Getting NATO support for military action is one thing...getting UN support is another. I think the UN is showing its holes right now...its exposed. There are 17 UN orders telling Saddam to disarm. Now he won't comply and can't account for a mass of WMD. We have conversations of Iraqi officials hiding this stuff. And it's not enough. Unless Saddam holds up a nuclear weapon out in the open like a big middle finger, the UN says, "well...we need more inspections it seems." for what? for why? Welcome to the League of Nations. Such things lead to war. Appease dictators and the costs are just higher later. And then we have the World Court. We're the bad guys because we don't bend over for this. We're the bad guys because due process and soverignty are just a bit too important to us to turn over judicial authority to leaders of other nations. Leaders who have no political accountability to American voters. The World Court is a political body dressed up like a court house. The very idea that we would check the Constitution at the door for American citizens is not just ridiculous...it's disturbing. Sorry you had to fight in those awful wars and lose so many of your friends, grandpa...thanks for protecting us from the evil Axis powers...thanks for protecting concepts like Equal Protection and Due Process and limited government...but those rights you fought to protect...yeah, we're just gonna hand those over. No..it's no big deal. Self-government, as it turns out, isn't all we thought. Thanks, though.
Agree 100%. It would be rather comical if the stakes weren't so high. Incidentally, did you know that Iraq has been selected to head the UN's upcoming Commission on Disarmament? I thought that one was even better than Libya and the Human Rights Conference... The international governing bodies currently in place are absolutely a sick, stupid joke. They need to be replaced, or at the very least disbanded. But alas, they sound good in principle, so many are unwittingly all-to-eager to abdicate their rights.
i heard this...but my understanding is that it goes alphabetically..it just happened to fall on Iraq this year. they weren't "selected." nevertheless, it shows the ridiculousness of being involved in an organization where states like Iraq and Libya have any sort of leadership role.
We are; the US, UK, France, China and Russia hold the 5 permanent seats (and thus, veto power) on the Security Council.
No kidding. Useless wastes of resources. NATO too, in my opinion. There's no threat (to US interests) warrenting a US troop committment in Germany, now. let them take care of themselves.
The UN will never totally work until all countries are democratic and represent the free wills of their people. I kind of hope Bush can't get everyone on board and we go anyway. This will make the rest of the world realize that we are serious. I can not believe that France and Germany still do business with Iraq, even though the UN has slapped economic sanctions on them. I mean the only reason people are whining about us not attacking is to hide the other hand that is sticking out and asking for money. Russia, France, Germany, Holland...cough cough. DD
Considering they have the 3rd largest stockpile of Nuclear weapons, behind Russia and the United States, I'd say they belong on that list. Notice that 5 permanent countries on the Security council have the 5 largest and most advanced militaries and are the top 5 Nuclear armed nations.
You kinda lost me here. The recent World Court decision was wrt Mexican nationals sentenced to death in the US, right? If Mexico had sentenced a coupla US citizens to death, I suspect you might get behind the World Court on that one.
The sad thing is that these organizations are kept afloat through our resources and then our opinions and voice is taken down to the lowest common denominator. I would have no problem with us getting out of the UN and World Court. NATO I don't have a big a problem with because we don't just allow anyone to join and we actually do have a great deal of influence and leadership in it.
I for one am glad for the UN and the World Court--I think they provide important checks on overzealous politicians and overzealous nations. Maybe the UN is responding a little too slow regarding Iraq, maybe not, but I am glad they are there so we are as deliberate as possible--that is the safer side to error on matters like wars and foreign intervention. Also, our judges (certainly our highest ones are not) and courts by and large are not held accountable by the voters here either--so I don't get political accountability to American voters argument so much. Finally, it isn't like the US has a clean human rights record, we are certainly better than Libya or China, but we should not be throwing stones towards most 1st world democracies in this regard. Originally posted by No Worries You kinda lost me here. The recent World Court decision was wrt Mexican nationals sentenced to death in the US, right? If Mexico had sentenced a coupla US citizens to death, I suspect you might get behind the World Court on that one. Not me, I would want by government working for me and having some power to do so if I was faslely imprisoned, or imprisoned without what would be due process in any 1st world country. I think you are really in small minority here MM.
absolutely i would want my government working for me...this world court ain't the way i hope they'd work though. why does everyone feel like nations can't do anything unless it's through the UN?
Max, There's five permanent seats for the 5 predominant post WW2 powers. It was their incentive for joining. If it wasn't written in, then it would be another League of Nations (the one the US didn't join...) since no power wants another country to tell them where there business lies. It works on both ends of the spectrum. We've vetoed decisions on Israel, UN funding, nuclear proliferation, even some issues on human rights. We also haven't payed our 1 billion plus debt to the UN. Anti-American critics will be the first to tell you that the US has bent the UN over to its will (which is why the French are encouraged to act the way they are for the past 50 years) and that the UN is a totally undemocratic and unequal organization used to serve the Security Council's self interests. Despite its flaws, IMO, the lack of a world body that provides a neutral forum for diplomacy is a worse alternative. The League of Nations failed because it wasn't recognized by every country as genuine, and the remaining countries then pulled back their effort into it. Pre-WW2 history has shown that pitting age old millitary alliances against another will cleanse their hubris with blood and destruction. The UN isn't perfect, and it won't be for a long long time. But why not try to fix and improve it instead of totally throwing it out?
excellent and well-reasoned post, IF. let me think about it. i'm not totally against a UN organization existing...I just have concerns about being forced to "run things by" dictatorships. the name itself is a joke..united nations..united around what? united for what? there is no union...none at all...and for good reason. i want no union with tyrants and theocracies. economic partnerships are fine...military alliances make sense out of necessity. but a group that lets Iraq lecture us on disarmament and Libya lecture us on human rights doesn't have a hell of a lot of credibility. nor does an organization that never backs up what it says....that is the very essence of the League of Nations.
