03-24-2003, 05:54 PM
Hi,
As to Korea, I guess we will have to see how things play out. While I do not consider them to be a modern or progressive nation, neither do I consider them to be threat to anyone outside their borders. And I've made my position on interference in the internal affairs of other nations clear in the past -- basically, each nation has the right to go to hell in a fashion of their choosing. If the population puts up with it, then (IMO) they aren't ready for anything better.
You almost sound as if a world without UN would be a better place to settle conflicts/deal with problems on an international level. Surely I misunderstood?!
In general, I think that super-national organizations are both a necessity and the hope for the future. A congress of nations where fairness prevails, where the good of humanity is put before national agendas, where disputes can be settled without bloodshed is a desirable goal. Although how the force needed to back up that organization will come about is not clear to me. And the danger of that organization becoming the ultimate tyrant is very great and very real. But, at least in principle, I do believe that that is the way we should go.
However, when looking at that goal and then looking at the UN, I don't see the UN becoming that organization. Or at least not without so many and so great a set of changes that the resulting organization would be, at best, only the UN in name. The very structure of the UN with permanent members of the Security Council, term members of the Security Council, Members of the General Assembly, and Observer Stares reflects a word situation of half a century ago, only slightly modified for the realities of the present. The unconditional veto power of the permanent members of the Security Council reflects the necessities of WW II, not those of the start of the third millennium. The inability of the UN to generate the funds it needs except at the pleasure of the member nations makes a joke of any "power" it might have. The lack of a substantial independent and powerful military force makes the enforcement of UN policy a question of the willingness of certain individual nations, thus effectively making that policy the policy of the nations willing to enforce it.
No, as it is I don't see the UN being much more than a debating society as far as world peace is concerned. The value of the UN, in that it has any value at all, is in its humanitarian activities, and even there it is hindered by national policies and massive bureaucracy.
So, what I would like to see is probably an unrealizable dream, but it definitely isn't the UN of today or any probably development of that UN.
--Pete
As to Korea, I guess we will have to see how things play out. While I do not consider them to be a modern or progressive nation, neither do I consider them to be threat to anyone outside their borders. And I've made my position on interference in the internal affairs of other nations clear in the past -- basically, each nation has the right to go to hell in a fashion of their choosing. If the population puts up with it, then (IMO) they aren't ready for anything better.
You almost sound as if a world without UN would be a better place to settle conflicts/deal with problems on an international level. Surely I misunderstood?!
In general, I think that super-national organizations are both a necessity and the hope for the future. A congress of nations where fairness prevails, where the good of humanity is put before national agendas, where disputes can be settled without bloodshed is a desirable goal. Although how the force needed to back up that organization will come about is not clear to me. And the danger of that organization becoming the ultimate tyrant is very great and very real. But, at least in principle, I do believe that that is the way we should go.
However, when looking at that goal and then looking at the UN, I don't see the UN becoming that organization. Or at least not without so many and so great a set of changes that the resulting organization would be, at best, only the UN in name. The very structure of the UN with permanent members of the Security Council, term members of the Security Council, Members of the General Assembly, and Observer Stares reflects a word situation of half a century ago, only slightly modified for the realities of the present. The unconditional veto power of the permanent members of the Security Council reflects the necessities of WW II, not those of the start of the third millennium. The inability of the UN to generate the funds it needs except at the pleasure of the member nations makes a joke of any "power" it might have. The lack of a substantial independent and powerful military force makes the enforcement of UN policy a question of the willingness of certain individual nations, thus effectively making that policy the policy of the nations willing to enforce it.
No, as it is I don't see the UN being much more than a debating society as far as world peace is concerned. The value of the UN, in that it has any value at all, is in its humanitarian activities, and even there it is hindered by national policies and massive bureaucracy.
So, what I would like to see is probably an unrealizable dream, but it definitely isn't the UN of today or any probably development of that UN.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?