0
   

Globo cop :: the US shouldn't be globo cop, but what then?

 
 
Reply Mon 20 Jan, 2003 08:03 pm
Many people decry the US's unofficial title of globo cop. Much of the criticism is valid, however, reality does not provide easy alternatives.

This is based on the assumption that the US is globo cop. Yes there is a United Nations but they can't do much without our backing.

To start this discussion I'd like a simple Q&A.

1) Ideally, would one nation be the globo cop or a group of nations.

2) Do you think that other countries would do a better job of being globo cop?

3) What alternatives are there to "might is right"?

4) Seeing as we have never been able to realize an alternative to "might is right" how do you think an alternative can be brought about?

------

1) Group of nations.

2) It's possible but for a power of this magnitude I think we've done a splendid job. There is always room for improvement and we should always vociferate till we get it but I think considering what could be done with this power we are doing very well.

3) None, the alternatives will just be the new "might". What's tricky is getting the might transferred.

4) Those with the power must relinquish some of it. I think those with power have valid concerns about this. More on this later.


-----

I have a few more questions before we start babbling I'll post them later.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,240 • Replies: 23
No top replies

 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jan, 2003 08:10 pm
BTW, I argued against the "we are cop by default" on another topic. Here I will continue and also argue it.

If it seems that I'm switching I'd like to clarify that I do not think we are doing as good as we could be doing but at the same time think that criticism should be constructive.

If you don't like the status quo suggest an alternative. The difficulty in suggesting an alternative will shed light on why the status quo is the way it is.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jan, 2003 08:14 pm
Just checkin' in. Provocative questions. Gonna think on this some, but my first take is that you've given little case of or cause for rebuttal from me.



timber
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jan, 2003 08:16 pm
Please do return. I'd appreciate the input.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jan, 2003 08:24 pm
Good Qs, Craven. In general I think we have a responsibility to the less fortunate world because of our power and wealth. I think that I'd like a slightly more benevelant approach, but I'm not sure how I'd implement that. I do think we should have a group that governs rather than a single nation (checks and balances and all).
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jan, 2003 08:24 pm
1." Ideally, would one nation be the globo cop or a group of nations"
a group of nations is far less efficient than one nation ergo i pick a group of nations as then less to fear the "efficiency of power".

more to follow.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jan, 2003 08:25 pm
I too would like to see our power harnessed toward certain aims. I don't think it's too realistic however to expect it to happen. I'll get back to this.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jan, 2003 08:26 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
I too would like to see our power harnessed toward certain aims. I don't think it's too realistic however to expect it to happen. I'll get back to this.


Unfortunately I agree that it's an unrealistic aim.
0 Replies
 
fbaezer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jan, 2003 08:56 pm
1. Group of nations
2. Not other country alone could do a better job. But I wouldn't give the US a "splendid job" A+. Rather a C+.
3. Depends on what you define by "might". Finance will always count. Military might will too. I only hope they count less than what they do now, and compliance to international law and common sense count more.
4. How do you relinquish power? By creating institutions (international, in this case) that make a more democratic access to power, a more democratic exercise of power and a more democratic distribution of power.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jan, 2003 09:33 pm
Re: Globo cop :: the US shouldn't be globo cop, but what the
Craven de Kere wrote:
1) Ideally, would one nation be the globo cop or a group of nations.


A group of nations is the ethical and logical ideal ... and the larger the group, the better. Except for the matter of getting things done. The theoretic group exists in The UN. In practical terms, The UN is a business-driven cocktail circuit occasionally distracted by natural calamity or armed conflict.

Suspicions, agendas, jealousies, enmities, and treacheries are the day-to-day trade of nations, always have been, likley always will be. Perhaps the problem lies at least partially in the very concept of "Nations" itself. I think that probable, and explanitory of the enormous difficulty attendant on consensus, let alone cooperation among nations.

Dys makes a cogent observation re the dangers of efficiency. The Romans were efficient. Napoleon was efficient. More contemporary, and more disturbing examples of effiency abound. Efficiency too often becomes its own rationalization.

The only practical solution is a consortium of nations, perhaps with clear "Divisions of Labor" therein ... yet that invites a "Mercenary Elite". An undefeatable army can name an emporor if it decides to. Uniting the tribes is one thing ... uniting them militantly behind a single standard is entirely another.

In the real world, there will be, and are, relatively few real "Powers". There currently is a single Mega Power, then there are a few with more or less comparable technology, shared sensibilities and interests, and both less robust economies and smaller populations. Individually no one of them has near the power of the lone giant. Cooperatively, they are more than the equal of any tin-hat local dictator. That The UN and the EU tolerated the Balkan mess as long as it did is indefensible. With that as example, and an example not unique in recent history, it is apparent that only The Giant cares. If the others do not care for the way the Giant handles things, they should handle things before the Giant feels compelled to become involved.

I'll be back after a bit more thinkin'



timber
0 Replies
 
Lash Goth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jan, 2003 10:26 pm
Very interesting subject, and framed for free thinking.
Kudos, Craven.


1) Ideally, would one nation be the globo cop or a group of nations.
Ideally, IMO, a group. However, the current group (UN) again, IMO, does not bode well for the group option.

2) Do you think that other countries would do a better job of being globo cop?
Better job, no. But I would love to step aside and let some other country take the heat.

3) What alternatives are there to "might is right"?
I don't think that simple phrase reflects on the US' behavior. We were independant before we had a pot to pee in. We felt we were right breaking from the Brits, and at different times throughout American history, when we had no 'might'. Might just makes it easier to enforce what we think is right.

4) Seeing as we have never been able to realize an alternative to "might is right" how do you think an alternative can be brought about?
Stumped. Looking forward to seeing other's contributions for this one.

------
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jan, 2003 12:04 am
My thoughts:

The UN is a US creation and is vastly unfair. It's poorly structured as well. It's unfairness lies in how much power the WW2 victors have. I think this is correct in a way. If population were to determine things India and China would be very powerful.


Creating institutions is the way to go. I don't think it's easy. The WCC is one such organization and we fought it hard because it is a move in that direction (there were a few semi valid reasons but the big reason is that it could negate our military might).

A democratic organization is both inefficient and likely to be equivocal. The majority of the world is not very advanced. Hostilities abound. How would the power be divided? By population? A population/power formula?

Aside to timber:

I agree that it was absurd for the EU and UN to sit on their hands re the Balkans. But I disagree with the notion that they should do something before we do. I think they'd be smart to do so but don't think their inaction validates action (though in that case I feel inaction is criminal).

Lash,

"Might is right" is not a description of America, it's a description of the status quo. Many people complain about America weilding it's power but the status quo is that you weild your power.

No nation is powerful by international appointment. We are a superpower and therin lies our mandate. By might is right I mean that we are the "police" due to might and not appointment.

This is the way things have been. I think it will change, it will still be might is right but might might become less military, then less financial and eventually more in solidarity.

I'll post my dream solution tomorrow.
0 Replies
 
Lash Goth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jan, 2003 12:10 am
The New Sim World Order
by Craven De Kere.

Waiting with baited breath!!!! (whatever that means). :wink:
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jan, 2003 12:20 am
I consider it a fantasy. I'll detail as much as i can about how to realize it but harbor no illusions that I'll see this happen in my lifetime.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jan, 2003 12:26 am
Actually, Lash, it believe means something like "Holding your breath" ... "(a)bated breath". Probably one of those words that got trimmed to fit the scan or meter of a poet's line.

Doubt its a hunting or fishing term ...

tho eating bait could do something to one's breath which could be noticeable to others who had not similarly dined.



timber
0 Replies
 
Lash Goth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jan, 2003 09:46 pm
timber--

Many thanks. The 'baited' breath always caused concern.

Flies, worms, crickets... How to choose the correct bait for each situation?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jan, 2003 09:53 pm
Bated is an abbreviation of abated through loss of the first vowel, and which has the meaning "reduced, lessened, lowered in force". So bated breath means that you almost stop breathing through terror, or awe, or extreme anticipation or anxiety.

Shakespeare used it in The Merchant of Venice: "Shall I bend low and, in a bondman's key, / With bated breath and whisp'ring humbleness, Say this: ... ". So did Mark Twain in Tom Sawyer: "Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale".
0 Replies
 
Lash Goth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jan, 2003 10:04 pm
(I picked up on that from timber, poetic friend, but enjoyed the example all the same.)
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jan, 2003 10:21 pm
Lash Goth wrote:
Flies, worms, crickets... How to choose the correct bait for each situation?


Even worse, how do you go about choosing the right wine?





timber
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jan, 2003 10:43 am
I forgot to post it yesterday. I'll try to post it sometime soon but I'd also like to hear any suggestions you all have.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Globo cop :: the US shouldn't be globo cop, but what then?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 09/25/2021 at 04:00:11