WHAT ROUGH BEAST? America sits of the edge

I hadn't noticed the foaming mouth, the drooping head, NIMH!

0 Replies

fishin' my first firearm, a gift from my grandfather on my 12th birthday was a Monkey Wards 22 single shot bolt action. Also I quit the NRA about 15 yrs ago over the issue of assault weapons.

0 Replies

I'll shoot anyone who tries to give me a gun.

0 Replies

Nimh wrote:

Yes. I therefore consider it a good development that, ever so slowly, the "holy" concepts of national sovereignty and territorial integrity have become a little more questioned and relativated.

Yes but the point remains that as long as the UN Charter legalizes the sanctity of sovereignty thugs like Mugabe of Zimbabwe, and Charles Taylor lately of Liberia will continue to styme the world. The ICC can try them in abstentia forever and ever but the end result is a waste of money(but it does provide employment for a lot of lawyers and judges) Cool

Nimh wrote:

In fact, the problem you sketch may still be one of the most acute ones of the modern world, but perhaps looks less dire now than at any time since the days of Cold War and decolonisation

On the contrary---I believe it is much more dire now than at any time----any crook or gang can take over a country and be legitimate----look at Somalia----isn't that a "fine kettle of fish". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to observe how the UN Charter ties the hands of the UN even if they had the guts to do anything about. Thugs all over the world are observing and scheming.

Then when you consider that many of these little fiefdoms have a vote in the UN with the same import as a country that is responsible to it's citizens---well I think even Tartarin can see what a sham it is Laughing

0 Replies

I believe access to guns should be controlled. And assault weapons should be banned.

0 Replies

perception wrote:

Yes but the point remains that as long as the UN Charter legalizes the sanctity of sovereignty thugs like Mugabe of Zimbabwe, and Charles Taylor lately of Liberia will continue to styme the world. The ICC can try them in abstentia forever and ever but the end result is a waste of money(but it does provide employment for a lot of lawyers and judges)

[..] I believe it is much more dire now than at any time----any crook or gang can take over a country and be legitimate----look at Somalia----isn't that a "fine kettle of fish". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to observe how the UN Charter ties the hands of the UN even if they had the guts to do anything about. Thugs all over the world are observing and scheming.

Then when you consider that many of these little fiefdoms have a vote in the UN with the same import as a country that is responsible to it's citizens---well I think even Tartarin can see what a sham it is

Well, for sure the problem's only been dented, but you will have noticed that Taylor's been dealt with (for now) ... thanks to an international intervention, of the kind that's been implemented (partly by the UN, partly by regional international organisations) ever more often these past fifteen years.

Compare that to the Sixties, Seventies and Eighties, when any outside intervention got snared or bogged down in the Cold War showdown. West and East would each protect "its own SOBs" in the Third World against any possible UN intervention (the thought alone ...), and if either would "intervene" on its own initiative in any of these countries, it would be to prop up one's own dictator or thug against the one pushed by the other side. Think the decades-long terror and civil war in Angola, Mozambique, Namibia, Central America, Southeast Asia ...

The current-day proliferation of UN peacekeeping missions, for one, is an example of how the international community is increasingly willing to go around the 'untouchable national sovereignty' to tackle the problem of "thugs running countries", to prevent anarchy from following dictatorship. In the 90s, 31 new peacekeeping missions were launched. In the 80s - 5, and in the 70s - 3. Compare. And it wasn't because there were fewer armed conflicts back then. In fact, even of today's significant armed conflicts a majority stems from back in the 60s/70s/80s.

The ICC of course still has to prove itself, but you will have noticed that the War Crimes Tribunals have brought someone like Milosevic to court - of course, it's only a beginning, but that would never have happened in the days of Mobutu, when the concept of national sovereignty and territorial integrity truly did still ensure a dictator could do whatever he wanted to his own people as long as his terror didnt cross the national border (and he didnt ally himself with Moscow) ...

0 Replies

I hate guns. I remember sitting in a kitchen in Dallas and being coaxed into holding a six-gun -- only gun I'd ever had in my hands except my brother's rifle when I was about eight. The six-gun was really heavy and unnaturally cold. Nasty thing.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

[
The current-day proliferation of UN peacekeeping missions, for one, is an example of how the international community is increasingly willing to go around the 'untouchable national sovereignty' to tackle the problem of "thugs running countries", to prevent anarchy from following dictatorship. In the 90s, 31 new peacekeeping missions were launched. In the 80s - 5, and in the 70s - 3.

The ICC of course still has to prove itself, but you will have noticed that the War Crimes Tribunals have brought someone like Milosevic to court - of course, it's only a beginning, but that would never have happened in the days of Mobutu, when the concept of national sovereignty and territorial integrity truly did still ensure a dictator could do whatever he wanted to his own people as long as his terror didnt cross the national border (and he didnt ally himself with Moscow) ...

I believe Nimh gives "the international community" far more credit than it deserves in this matter. The Bosnia/Kosovo interventions occurred only because the United States made a major political issue out of it. Indeed it was done WITHOUT any UN authorization. The vaunted European international community had already demonstrated its inability to either work beyond its various national sympathies (Germany for Croatia, Italy for Slovenia, and Russia for Serbia, France for greater influence everywhere) or to summon the will to act in the face of genocide. Even then its military forces merely stood by while people were slaughtered in a few notable cases in Bosnia. The 'justice' being meted out by the international tribunal has been heavily politicised - it has been quite unevenly applied and is hardly justice at all.

The great majority of UN peacekeeping operations involve low consequence, low risk situations. They are certainly beneficial, but are hardly a major contribution to the solution of the most pressing problems in the world.

The record of the UN and the 'international community' with regard to murderous or 'thug' governments is nothing to brag about. Certainly we have seen damn little support for the removal of Saddam Hussein on the part of the principal advocates of the ICC - and I believe he qualified as a 'thug'.. What did the international community (or even the former European colonial powers) do to deal with the unravelling situation in Rwanda a decade ago? Nothing ! What is being done today about Mugawbe in Zimbabwe? Nothing ! The international community has allowed the situations in Liberia and the Ivory coasts to deteriorate for a decade before taking even minimal action.

The problem here of course arises from the fact that the levels of political development among the peoples and countries of the world is quite uneven. Because of this and because of the differing self interests of the nations of the world, we have been unable to create international institutions with the strength, political accountability, and power to make and enforce laws. The least common denominator has given us the UN as it is - and that isn't much. Further, I don't believe the political realities of the world permit much more. More harm than good would arise from the attempt to empower inept international institutions beyond the limits of the real world.

The hell of it is that we don't yet have a better, more reliable method of governance than sovereign nations. The European powers are taken up with the process of forming the European Union, and in many areas have found benefits in surrendering certain aspects of sovereignty. I believe this has clouded the perceptions and perhaps judgement of many Europeans. Theirs is a special case and even there their achievements have not yet been seriously tested. The new additions of central European nations may tell us all a great deal. However, the world is not just Europe, and in the disintegration of Yugoslavia, Europe amply demonstrated that it unable to solve even serious European problems.

0 Replies

george,

You're such a pessimist!

0 Replies

I think we are narrowing this down to point where we can propose theoretical solutions. If we accept the proposition that many of todays problems which the UN is not capable of controlling, are caused by criminals illegally seizing control of countries then the solutions must come from:
1. The world community recognizing this FACT.
2. Developing a mechanism within the legal framework of the UN that will immediately call for an emergency session of the security council to:
A. Officially call for an urgent investigation to determine the legality of the change in gov't of that particular country.
B. While the investigation is in progress the country in question would be placed on probation and it's voting power immediately suspended pending the outcome of the investigation.
C. The security council would authorize formation of a military force to take temporary control of the country in order to prevent abuse of it's citizens.
D. The offending party or group would be placed under house arrest pending the outcome of the investigation while at the same time implementing procedures to maintain a functioning gov't to provide minimum essential services to it's citizens. Any financial assistance could be coordinated with the IMF and the World Bank.
E. If it was determined that the take-over did not have the support of a majority of that countries citizens, the offenders would be turned over to the ICC for trial.

I realize this is simplistic approach but it's a start that could succeed-----any comments are welcomed.

0 Replies

Quote:

However, the world is not just Europe, and in the disintegration of Yugoslavia, Europe amply demonstrated that it unable to solve even serious European problems.

And the US has done just a crack up job in the Americas? Or...anywhere?

There is a compelling moral argument for intervention where human and civil rights are in serious jeapordy. If that was actually the demonstrable motivation for US involvement in the affairs of other sovereign states, I'd cheer. But other than in a very very few cases, it has not been. US foreign activity is correlative with financial interest or perceived strategic interest. Instances of propping up thugs are far far more numerous than any attempts to remove them.

So the US gets no pass here for special or unusual purity.

We, in the west, have fought back the notions and the political dynamics which push towards autocracy and dictatorial rule. There are principles here which we not only hold very dear, but which form the very basis for our sense of what it is that makes our polities admirable and moral.

To then turn and argue that our special goodness permits us to act in contradiction with what forms our special goodness, is morally and intellectually vulgar.

0 Replies

Blatham

Glad you're no longer "dealing in guns" and have added your massive mental acuity to the problem.

However if you could just for a moment reign in your vindictiveness toward the US per se, and lend your energy to solving the world crisis of the proliferation of illegal country take-overs, I'm certain we could solve this issue in just a few months. Laughing

What is to be gained by continuing to ignore recognition of the problem?

Suppose for a moment that we acknowledge all past mistakes and lump them together under the category of a "learning experience". There is nothing to be gained from constantly "dredging up" past mistakes except furthering the already out hand polarization caused by extreme opinions.

Would you agree that the UN charter as written, causes more problems than it solves and since you and others here insist that the UN must be allowed to solve problems through the exercise of multilateralism, it would seem only common sense that something must be done to enhance the ability of UN to function as something other than a "talk show".

I realize it is a "stretch" for you to agree with anything I have written but come on,give it a try.

0 Replies

In general the actions of ALL nations are to advance their self interest. Many, where some element of human suffering is involved, also take credit for that when it occurs. However the instances of purely unselfish intervention by any power in the affairs of another are rare indeed.

No one talked much of intervening in China while Mao wiped out about 20 million landowners in the late '40s and early '50s, or later during the cultural revolution either. Same story with the actions of Stalin and Hitler in their own countries. Action occurred only after the other powers were attacked. Did Germany or France intervene on behalf of the Hungarian revolutionaries in 1958? Or on behalf of the leaders of the Prague Spring in 1967? NO, on the contrary there were numerous expressions of concern that we might do something stupid and intervene ourselves. With Hungary the situation was made worse as Britain and France chose that moment to invade Egypt, with the Israeli army in tow.

U.S. interventions in Central America and the Caribbean have been generally a result of a combination of strategic, commercial and humanitarian concerns. Few did any lasting harm or made the situations worse - or made much improvement either. Some situations cannot easily be improved by any means - consider Clinton's fruitless intervention in Haiti.

The point here is the world has not yet come up with anything better than the power of sovereign nations. The attempt to push international institutions past their ability to cope will create only illusion, frustration, and harm.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

george,

You're such a pessimist!

Actually Lola I am a wise and confident optimist. You are the prophetess of doom here. However, I forgive you for it - Blatham too.

0 Replies

george wrote:

Quote:

Actually Lola I am a wise and confident optimist. You are the prophetess of doom here.

We each can self assign labels to ourselves. I think you are entirely too eager to see unsolvable problems where solutions are actually possible. If it's impossible.........then we don't have to worry ourselves over a better solution than sovereign nations. We can just bow our heads and accept ourselves as sinners in need of redemption.......and go right on sinning. Oh well, what's a sincere man to do?

0 Replies

perc wrote:

Quote:

What is to be gained by continuing to ignore recognition of the problem?

Exactly, perc, but what is the problem? Your definition of the problem is quite different from mine. You see it as the UN not functioning optimally.......and it doesn't, but to me that's simply the reality we have to deal with. My definition of the problem is that there are those (and they are presently in power in my country) who are impatient and unwilling to tolerate the pain of maturation and development. They want to coerce premature development rather than work to enhance development of other countries or of the UN or of ourselves. Where there's a threat to our own security, then force is needed.........but Iraq doesn't fall into this category IMO.

It's really a question of what will result in the best, most secure change. Coercion never works except in self defense.

0 Replies

Quote:

However if you could just for a moment reign in your vindictiveness toward the US per se, and lend your energy to solving the world crisis of the proliferation of illegal country take-overs, I'm certain we could solve this issue in just a few months.

What is to be gained by continuing to ignore recognition of the problem?

Suppose for a moment that we acknowledge all past mistakes and lump them together under the category of a "learning experience". There is nothing to be gained from constantly "dredging up" past mistakes except furthering the already out hand polarization caused by extreme opinions.

George

My 'vindictiveness' (wrong word, but I'll leave it there) is targeted. Hubris, self-delusion and absolutism gain my arrows. Chuck that stuff overboard, and then you are in the running for greatest civilization ever. But those elements make the US a grave danger.

As to 'ignoring the problem'...that is the issue. What, precisely, is the problem? (though clearly we ought to speak in the plural...problems)

We have not worked out a satisfactory structure for international values or international cooperative action. That is, we haven't got this stuff perfect. But we've got lots done in this direction. Presently, among the western nations, it is the US who is most guilty of declining invitations to internationalism, and of revoking previous agreements of this nature. In each case, justification is forwarded - the ICC, Iraq, Kyoto, etc etc.

After a while, one begins to see not individual cases, but pattern. It becomes a bit like a wife who's been beat by her husband for decades hanging on the hope that this time he means it.

And there is the issue of honesty. How can we - how can YOU - continue to accept profited rationales and claims from an entity which has been this deceitful and this unforthcoming?

A year ago, I argued that the amount of manpower, brainpower, money, military activity, administration activity, etc that was being put towards the war on Iraq could achieve miracles if it was instead put towards working out effective internationalism. We know now that Blix was mainly correct, that Iraq was NOT a threat. So, the question presents itself, 'what factors about the US led them down the path they took?'

0 Replies

ps

the problem re 'sovereignty' isn't particularly tough, other than where states refuse to allow constraints. But that is precisely how we operate in community. It is the individual who refuses to accept cooperatively and democratically established constraints who we consider, correctly, to be the problematic citizen.

0 Replies

george wrote:

Quote:

In general the actions of ALL nations are to advance their self interest.

george,

This is a fundamental Freudian psychoanalytic principle. And I agree wholeheartedly. However, there is something to be said for making the wisest judgement about what is in one's best self interest. A long term view, with an emphasis on the process is usually better than a knee jerk response to any situation. It can be in the interest of my own benefit if I rob a bank.......I'll love having the money. But it seems wiser to me to work for it, compete for it, since the danger is less and I'll have more fun and companionship along the way.

It's a messy world, and I'd rather get messy and struggle to work with others than to aim for a simplistic ideal that doesn't really exist. We're doing harm in Iraq......and it's harm that will follow not only us but the rest of the world for some time to come now. We should be directing our efforts into the development of strong alliances rather than attacking one small part of the very dangerous problem that Saddam represents.

What we're doing in Iraq is like trying to fill the Grand Canyon by throwing bricks into the gapping expanse, one at a time. It's a foolish waste of effort. It's pissing off the violent, dangerous types. And we're doing much more harm than good.

0 Replies

Lola,

Well my self label is 'just right'. I'm not opposed in principle to international norms, indeed I welcome them when they are enforceable and there is a basis on which they can be applied more or less uniformly and with justice. I am opposed to the form of law in the absence of substance, and involving mechanisms that invite misuse (as we have already seen with respect to the absurd Belgian claim that its courts have universal jurisdiction.).

Blatham,

I was a bit put off by the tone of one of your posts a ways back, but concede that despite some looney ideas you have a good heart and are not at all vindictive. (just like me!). As noted above my concerns are not directed at international action in principle, but rather against the unrealistic attempts to put form in place in the absence of substance. Some may see an element of progress in that. I don't. I believe the record will show that the United States has been more willing than most of our critics to intervene in meaningful, occasionally risky ways to right particularly bad situations. Odd that those who had to be shamed by us into combatting genocide on their borders are now criticizing us for a supposed reluctance to employ international coalitions to enforce international norms of behavior. Odd too that these same critics are so opposed to the intervention in Iraq.

I do agree that hubris or an exaggerated sense of power is, in historical terms, the most likely pitfall for us to fall into. Certainly France, Britain and Germany fell victim to it during all of their moments in the historical sun. Your concerns are justified on that basis alone. However I just don't see the evidence to convince me that this is what is happening now. The timid intransigence of out critics who have not made clear exactly what they want or how they would deal with the challenge of Islamism, certainly don't inspire my confidence in their ability to either make the right choices or act on them if made.

0 Replies

WHAT ROUGH BEAST? America sits of the edge

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know