The US, UN & Iraq III

Kara, I agree with you 100 percent. What is troubling is the fact the over 70 percent of Americans supports Bush and this war. c.i.

If they're anything like me, about 20% of them joined the ranks of "supporters" with a heavy sigh after realizing there was nothing we could do but hope for the best, because the goddamn fool was going to have his war regardless.

I don't really disagree with you either, Kara. I am not at all comfortable with the US assuming the self appointed role of global cop. There definitely has to be a better way. Unfortunately, The UN appears disinclined to play the role itself.

c.i., I believe and have believed for years that the UN is the last best hope of the world. It could be better administered, it could have better members -- more perfect, more globally orientated, less self-interested -- just like our House and Senate could be better. There are powerful political interests at work in the UN, and it could not be otherwise. But we have no other vehicle to forge the running of this planet. That the Masters of this globe should be one country, the US, which has an overweening self-interest., (as does every sovereign country,) is something I can't get my mind around. No matter how altruistic we see ourselves, we cannot deny that our country and its interests around the world are the core of our political philosophy.

Kara, I couldn't agree with you more; I also believe that the UN is the only hope for world peace. Nothing in this world will ever be perfect, and to expect any political or social organization to be perfect is unrealistic. All we can do is set goals that are attainable, and let the world body work through the problems at hand. Just because the US is now the superpower in this world today doesn't necessarily guarantee that status in the future. This world is too small for one country to decide what is correct for the rest. The UN is our only hope. c.i.

Kara and C.I.

Please read the UN charter and you will probably come to the same conclusion that I have----It cannot maintain peace because it has no authority to gather or maintain a military force for enforcement ---- recent happenings have made this self evident.

In order for the UN to do what you want, the Charter must be re-written and what are the chances of that happening? It was designed to be a "talk show" when it comes to enforcement but is useful for humanitarian aid.

For those who want the truth about the reality of the Un I am re-posting an excerpt from a very factual article from Foreign Affairs.

We should all thank Tartarin for bringing this article to our attention.

<Why the Security Council Failed

Summary: One thing the current Iraq crisis has made clear is that a grand experiment of the twentieth century--the attempt to impose binding international law on the use of force--has failed. As Washington showed, nations need consider not whether armed intervention abroad is legal, merely whether it is preferable to the alternatives. The structure and rules of the UN Security Council really reflected the hopes of its founders rather than the realities of the way states work. And these hopes were no match for American hyperpower. >
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030501faessay11217/michael-j-glennon/why-the-security-council-failed.html

I hope this link activates properly--- It's a long article but please read it

Another excerpt from the above article that I consider to be a self evident truth:

The likelihood is that had France, Russia, or China found itself in the position of the United States during the Iraq crisis, each of these countries would have used the council -- or threatened to ignore it -- just as the United States did. Similarly, had Washington found itself in the position of Paris, Moscow, or Beijing, it would likely have used its veto in the same way they did. States act to enhance their own power -- not that of potential competitors. That is no novel insight; it traces at least to Thucydides, who had his Athenian generals tell the hapless Melians, "You and everybody else, having the same power as we have, would do the same as we do." This insight involves no normative judgment; it simply describes how nations behave.

Timber wrote:
I've been trying to think of a more disingenuous statement from any source, but I can't. "The US did provide lab samples of biologics to Iraq's Public Health Ministry, Can you say Anthrax? "Lab samples of biologics to Iraq's Public Health Ministry" sounds like we might have been sending polio vaccines, but we weren't, were we? Rumsfeld, acting for the Reagan Administration, actively encouraged Hussein to create new weapons of mass destruction to use against the Iranians, and he did. 30,000 Iranians still suffer from the gas attacks they survived in the Iraq/Iran War. Need I add this was AFTER Hussein had gassed the Kurds in the northern districts. The distribution of Anthrax to the Iraqis at that point in time may in fact been a war crime, but who's counting? Can anyone tell what they think the Reagan Administration was thinking when they opened diplomatic relations with these thugs??
And how nice to describe satellite data imagery, radio transcripts and radar station locations as 'some intelligence', ah well, I know the retort that will come: well, we weren't as bad as the __________(fill in the blanks) or the _______.
Yeah, I know, but the USA is the premier power in the world and while those fill-in-the-blank countries say disdainful things about us, they do follow our lead. So we must always operate in the most aboveboard manner as possible, that is why when I see and hear the likes of a Rumsfeld speaking for my country, I feel deep shame and I want the rest of the world's citizens to know that if I can do anything about it, he won't be speaking for this country two years from now.
He'll be writing his memoirs, describing how he was not a war criminal, all the time getting good advice from Henry Kissinger on what to leave out.

Peace. Still possible....
JOE

Another self evident truth about the foremost objective of the Un Charter:


<The high duty of the Security Council, assigned it by the charter, was the maintenance of international peace and security. The charter laid out a blueprint for managing this task under the council's auspices. The UN's founders constructed a Gothic edifice of multiple levels, with grand porticos, ponderous buttresses, and lofty spires -- and with convincing façades and scary gargoyles to keep away evil spirits>

Self-evident truths that have been put forth over the years include "you can't be in two places at once," "something either is or it isn't," "everything exists." But often, what is self-evident to one person is not self-evident to another. "God exists" is perhaps the most obvious one -- some people disagree with it quite vigorously. Or "the universe had to have a beginning" -- some people believe it has always been. A familiar use of the phrase "self-evident" is Thomas Jefferson's use of it in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal...." But it is pretty obvious to most that this is not, really, true. Instead, it is a rhetorical device, that is, it sounds good to put it that way!

Timber -- We are the UN; the UN is us. All of us. That's where the failure should be assigned.

perception, I do not know where you found that. And you have no attribution. Speak to me carefully about an institution that I revere.

quote: "The high duty of the Security Council, assigned it by the charter, was the maintenance of international peace and security." It's up to the Security Council and the International Community to find a way to make the UN work towards "international peace and security." If the UN fails, we all fail, the world fails. c.i.

I believe the UN has simply replaced the Warren court as a whipping boy for the ultra right. We have these comments from those same rightwing John Birchers disguised as neocon republicans: Columnist Vox Day urges the United States to withdraw from the United Nations: "The United States should pull out of the U.N. because it is the greatest threat to life, liberty and justice that humanity has ever known, and it has now begun to attempt to exert its will over the American people and their government."
followed by: "Eagle Forum says that "2003 is the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Warren Court revolution. Surely there could be no better observance of this history-changing event than the launching of a counter-revolution to reclaim America's courts and the Constitution from the constitutional black hole into which the Warren Court first plunged us.

Kara wrote:

<perception, I do not know where you found that. And you have no attribution. Speak to me carefully about an institution that I revere.>

You are not specific enough----where did I find what exactly? All of my last 3 or 4 postings came from the same article which originated in the Foreign Affairs mag which in turn was posted by Tartarin and reposted by me on page 53. It is the finest article that I have had the pleasure of reading in many a moon and I think you will enjoy it however you may not like the implications it draws.

If you revere the UN as it currently operates then I have found the basis for our divergence of opinion.


Summary: One thing the current Iraq crisis has made clear is that a grand experiment of the twentieth century--the attempt to impose binding international law on the use of force--has failed. As Washington showed, nations need consider not whether armed intervention abroad is legal, merely whether it is preferable to the alternatives. The structure and rules of the UN Security Council really reflected the hopes of its founders rather than the realities of the way states work. And these hopes were no match for American hyperpower. >
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030501faessay11217/michael-j-glennon/why-the-security-council-failed.html

Read the Article Dys---but then again you may be afraid to read it.
Tartarin posted it----

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030501faessay11217/michael-j-glennon/why-the-security-council-failed.html

Absolutely no argument with that ... it is what the collective "We" have made it.

Timber wrote:

Tartarin wrote:
Timber -- We are the UN; the UN is us. All of us. That's where the failure should be assigned.

Absolutely no argument with that ... it is what the collective "We" have made it.

Timber --- why should you or I or anyone take the blame for the failure of an institution that was doomed to failure by the people who wrote the Charter---it is full of lofty ideals but has no substance---I know you're read it so how can you take the blame for it? If I am missing something please set me straight.

To me, that says it all. Either we, the US, rule the world in accordance with our own needs and wants and grand-schemes, or we look to a reasoned and considered world view, listening to a group of wise elders who have known war after war. They might guide us.

But I am not naive. I see that diplomatic pressure has caused a remarkable change in Palestine, just today. We can do so much good, if we see that it is in our interests..