What and Who Does the U.N. Represent?

[bloodyminded]

I understood that and I agree 100%. We don't need a mega-bureaucracy in order to establish such things.

No, order of sorts can also be established by brute force, via a might-makes-right formulation determined by a hierarchy of Most Poweful States.

Do you suppose that the biggest power brokers, such as the U.S, UK, et al, supported by allied states (such as Canada) are likely to "do the right thing" inherently?

If so, why?

Edited June 25, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

Top 10 member funding to the UN budget, 2011

Member state 	Contribution (% of UN budget)
============    =============================
United States 	22.000%
Japan 	        12.530%
Germany 	8.018%
United Kingdom 6.604%
France 	6.123%
Italy 	        4.999%
Canada 	3.207%
China 	        3.189%
Spain 	        3.177%
Mexico 	2.356%
Other members 	27.797%

[eCitizen]

Top 10 member funding to the UN budget, 2011

Member state 	Contribution (% of UN budget)
============    =============================
United States 	22.000%
Japan 	        12.530%
Germany 	8.018%
United Kingdom 6.604%
France 	6.123%
Italy 	        4.999%
Canada 	3.207%
China 	        3.189%
Spain 	        3.177%
Mexico 	2.356%
Other members 	27.797%

Maybe seats on the Security Council should go to the biggest contributors LOL.

So how much have countries in the Middle East contributed? I'd love to see a ranking for that since they suck up so much of the UN's resources.

[Bob]

No, order of sorts can also be established by brute force, via a might-makes-right formulation determined by a hierarchy of Most Poweful States.

Do you suppose that the biggest power brokers, such as the U.S, UK, et al, supported by allied states (such as Canada) are likely to "do the right thing" inherently?

If so, why?

Do you have a point? Are you trying to suggest that the Organization of the Islamic Conference and "non-aligned movement" is some sort of desirable counterweight to the interests of the "biggest power brokers" in the context of the UN? And I certainly do believe that in a general sense, the actions of our governments are "the right thing", whereas the actions of our detractors are exclusively the wrong thing.

I get the impression that you think, for simplicity's sake, that the UN serves the essential function of interfering with the interests of "the biggest power brokers". As if that interference is desirable just for the hell of it. I mean, otherwise things would be unfair, and countries like Sudan wouldn't have its voice heard over vital issues it has nothing to do with. After all, Sudan is a state, just like all others. Its vote deserves respect on global and regional issues, just like Canada. It has a seat at the table just like every other state.

You think the UN serves some sort of indispensable function? You think it's a good idea to keep funding it? You think it's a worthwhile endeavour?

Edited June 25, 2011 by Bob

[Bob]

Top 10 member funding to the UN budget, 2011

Member state 	Contribution (% of UN budget)
============    =============================
United States 	22.000%
Japan 	        12.530%
Germany 	8.018%
United Kingdom 6.604%
France 	6.123%
Italy 	        4.999%
Canada 	3.207%
China 	        3.189%
Spain 	        3.177%
Mexico 	2.356%
Other members 	27.797%

It'd be great to see American leadership cut off funding to this organization. Just withdraw and form useful and practical alliances with your true allies, and stop subsidizing dictatorships' and failed states' soapboxes.

[bloodyminded]

Do you have a point? Are you trying to suggest that the Organization of the Islamic Conference and "non-aligned movement" is some sort of desirable counterweight to the interests of the "biggest power brokers" in the context of the UN? And I certainly do believe that in a general sense, the actions of our governments are "the right thing", whereas the actions of our detractors are exclusively the wrong thing.

I get the impression that you think, for simplicity's sake, that the UN serves the essential function of interfering with the interests of "the biggest power brokers". As if that interference is desirable just for the hell of it. I mean, otherwise things would be unfair, and countries like Sudan wouldn't have its voice heard over vital issues it has nothing to do with. After all, Sudan is a state, just like all others. Its vote deserves respect on global and regional issues, just like Canada. It has a seat at the table just like every other state.

You think the UN serves some sort of indispensable function? You think it's a good idea to keep funding it? You think it's a worthwhile endeavour?

Like yourself, I think the UN is beset by some fundamental problems. You appear to think that they're intractable; I don't know if that's true, but it might be the case.

However, the suggested alternative leaves out any voice for anyone who might end up on the wrong side of the gun, metaphorically or literally. And you ask if I have a point; but what's yours? That we can leave de facto global governance to the most powerful states (notably the U.S., of course, however we wish to dance around the salient point)? Certainly the UN must try to interfere, at times, with the biggest power brokers. That's just common sense. Usually it proves ineffective, of course (a matter which should give you some comfort, as the US and its allies commit to international aggression and material support and diplomatic defense of state terror). This is no leftwing, "blame America first" rhetoric, but demonstrable issues that beset specific parts of the world, over and over. The only way to deny it is to engage in doublethink, to embrace an indoctrinated worldview which has the twin bad effects of being objectively false, and of not being good for anyone.

Let's consider your might-makes-right scenario: first of all, as circumstances change, do you suppose a Chinese rival superpower would be a fine global leader? Or do you think the inherently noble US hegemon would take care of the problem, in some unstated way, like the cavalry or Marines to the rescue, in the manner of epic poems and children's tales?

Second, it's rather moot, since Western powers do not tend largely to work from principles of....well, from "principles" at all. Rather, principled notions are at best combined with, and usually secondary to, more mercenary or pseudo-imperial angles, so that "the good" can be and often is subsumed by uglier objectives and happenstance.

And yes, there are times when the mixed, even outrageous objectives can attend to an outcome superior to the status quo. Hell, Cuba did some important liberating work in Africa. However, I am suspicious of Cuban motives, and don't suppose that doing something right means this will be the general tendency. And the exact same principle applies to Western democracies; that relatively good domestic spheres of human rights, justice and democracy do not instantly translate to the nobility of foreign adventures surely goes without saying. (Or does it? I'm stating to wonder at the ease with which the worst behaviours can be excused, depending specifically and solely on the agent committing them.) Again, to think othewise flies in the face of history itself, which is one of the effects, if not the germane purpose, of the indoctrinated view.

There are numerous examples, the bad arguably outweighing the good, as we've briefly discussed elsewhere.

It's difficult to determine how much the UN has been able to interfere with terrible behaviour, that's true; of the rapaciously violent and aggressive West as much as the tinpots. But are you saying it's better to eliminate organized global criticism of the big powers altogether? How would that be a good thing?

And why don't you think Western murder and terrorism is a serious problem? How could we possibly arrive at such a promiscuously relativistic position, even as we make moral arguments elsewhere?

Edited June 26, 2011 by bloodyminded

[jbg]

Like yourself, I think the UN is beset by some fundamental problems. You appear to think that they're intractable; I don't know if that's true, but it might be the case.

******************

Second, it's rather moot, since Western powers do not tend largely to work from principles of....well, from "principles" at all. Rather, principled notions are at best combined with, and usually secondary to, more mercenary or pseudo-imperial angles, so that "the good" can be and often is subsumed by uglier objectives and happenstance.

I see no problem with principles not being the equivalent of a suicide pact.

[bloodyminded]

I see no problem with principles not being the equivalent of a suicide pact.

Yes, I'm aware of the conventional pieties.

You're assuming that every foreign action ever undertaken by the Western allies is for good reason, for reasonable motives, and should be supported. So this thread belongs in the "religion" section.

[Bob]

Like yourself, I think the UN is beset by some fundamental problems. You appear to think that they're intractable; I don't know if that's true, but it might be the case.

However, the suggested alternative leaves out any voice for anyone who might end up on the wrong side of the gun, metaphorically or literally. And you ask if I have a point; but what's yours? That we can leave de facto global governance to the most powerful states (notably the U.S., of course, however we wish to dance around the salient point)? Certainly the UN must try to interfere, at times, with the biggest power brokers. That's just common sense. Usually it proves ineffective, of course (a matter which should give you some comfort, as the US and its allies commit to international aggression and material support and diplomatic defense of state terror). This is no leftwing, "blame America first" rhetoric, but demonstrable issues that beset specific parts of the world, over and over. The only way to deny it is to engage in doublethink, to embrace an indoctrinated worldview which has the twin bad effects of being objectively false, and of not being good for anyone.

Let's consider your might-makes-right scenario: first of all, as circumstances change, do you suppose a Chinese rival superpower would be a fine global leader? Or do you think the inherently noble US hegemon would take care of the problem, in some unstated way, like the cavalry or Marines to the rescue, in the manner of epic poems and children's tales?

Second, it's rather moot, since Western powers do not tend largely to work from principles of....well, from "principles" at all. Rather, principled notions are at best combined with, and usually secondary to, more mercenary or pseudo-imperial angles, so that "the good" can be and often is subsumed by uglier objectives and happenstance.

And yes, there are times when the mixed, even outrageous objectives can attend to an outcome superior to the status quo. Hell, Cuba did some important liberating work in Africa. However, I am suspicious of Cuban motives, and don't suppose that doing something right means this will be the general tendency. And the exact same principle applies to Western democracies; that relatively good domestic spheres of human rights, justice and democracy do not instantly translate to the nobility of foreign adventures surely goes without saying. (Or does it? I'm stating to wonder at the ease with which the worst behaviours can be excused, depending specifically and solely on the agent committing them.) Again, to think othewise flies in the face of history itself, which is one of the effects, if not the germane purpose, of the indoctrinated view.

There are numerous examples, the bad arguably outweighing the good, as we've briefly discussed elsewhere.

It's difficult to determine how much the UN has been able to interfere with terrible behaviour, that's true; of the rapaciously violent and aggressive West as much as the tinpots. But are you saying it's better to eliminate organized global criticism of the big powers altogether? How would that be a good thing?

And why don't you think Western murder and terrorism is a serious problem? How could we possibly arrive at such a promiscuously relativistic position, even as we make moral arguments elsewhere?

My point is simple, that the UN is not only irrelevant an unnecessary, but on balance causes more harm than benefit - particularly to Western interests (but also globally). It doesn't need reform, it need abolishment. All things the UN is intended to achieve are better achieved outside such a politicized bureaucracy, through direct relations between interested states. The flaws in the UN are absolutely intractable.

I wish we had some serious political leadership to say what I've just said. The sad truth is that criticism of the UN from our politicians is virtually non-existent. At best, we had Canada not participate in the anti-Semitic Durban ""anti-racism" conference. There is never a serious dialogue that takes place regarding these issues in our media or in our politics. Considering the USA is the biggest sponsor of this absurd organization, you'd think we could see some leadership aside from the too-little-too-late recent threat to withdraw funding from the UN should it move ahead and declare a "Palestinian" state. Funding to the UN should've been stopped decades ago, it does nothing to advance the interests of the primary funders - it's just an internationally-themed welfare make-work liberal wet dream of a project.

[bloodyminded]

My point is simple, that the UN is not only irrelevant an unnecessary, but on balance causes more harm than benefit - particularly to Western interests (but also globally). It doesn't need reform, it need abolishment. All things the UN is intended to achieve are better achieved outside such a politicized bureaucracy, through direct relations between interested states. The flaws in the UN are absolutely intractable.

I wish we had some serious political leadership to say what I've just said. The sad truth is that criticism of the UN from our politicians is virtually non-existent. At best, we had Canada not participate in the anti-Semitic Durban ""anti-racism" conference. There is never a serious dialogue that takes place regarding these issues in our media or in our politics. Considering the USA is the biggest sponsor of this absurd organization, you'd think we could see some leadership aside from the too-little-too-late recent threat to withdraw funding from the UN should it move ahead and declare a "Palestinian" state. Funding to the UN should've been stopped decades ago, it does nothing to advance the interests of the primary funders - it's just an internationally-themed welfare make-work liberal wet dream of a project.

Ok. But whereas I made at least a preliminary concession to part of your point, you ignore mine altogether, as if the concerns I stated aren't real.

[Bob]

You seem to be suggesting that the anti-Western interests and voting blocks in the UN provide some sort of desirable check on Western power. In a way the UN does provide such a check, in the sense that liberal indoctrination in our politics and media have produced a deferential attitude towards the UN. I see this as a bad thing, and one that can be demonstrably shown to be contrary to our own interests. The UN is a one-way street, the West compromises its interests politically and financially, while failed states, dictatorships, and inferior societies are propped up on their political soapboxes.

Unfortunately, the default opinion of those ignorant of the UN (which includes most of our media and politicians) is one of respect and deference. Overall the UN commands respect and is rarely questioned. This is a problem. I hope the UN can be effectively delegitimized so that public support for it (primarily in the USA) turns to a feeling of contempt, leading to its abolition.

Your "concern" that the UN provides the only platform through which irrelevant countries can have a "voice" is wrong on its face. It's called telecommunications, anyone can have their voice heard. Let our enemies form their own bureaucracies, without the financial and political support of the West. If you're worried that the Organization of the Islamic Conference would suddenly and unfairly be dispossessed in the event of the abolition of the UN, and robbed of their "voice", then you're just being ridiculous. They have cameras. They have newspapers. They have internet. They have Anderson Cooper's contact information. At the end of the day, we're paying for the soapboxes our enemies use to attack us while hiding real human rights abuses going on in their own societies.

[bloodyminded]

You seem to be suggesting that the anti-Western interests and voting blocks in the UN provide some sort of desirable check on Western power. In a way the UN does provide such a check, in the sense that liberal indoctrination in our politics and media have produced a deferential attitude towards the UN. I see this as a bad thing, and one that can be demonstrably shown to be contrary to our own interests. The UN is a one-way street, the West compromises its interests politically and financially, while failed states, dictatorships, and inferior societies are propped up on their political soapboxes.

Unfortunately, the default opinion of those ignorant of the UN (which includes most of our media and politicians) is one of respect and deference. Overall the UN commands respect and is rarely questioned. This is a problem. I hope the UN can be effectively delegitimized so that public support for it (primarily in the USA) turns to a feeling of contempt, leading to its abolition.

Your "concern" that the UN provides the only platform through which irrelevant countries can have a "voice" is wrong on its face. It's called telecommunications, anyone can have their voice heard. Let our enemies form their own bureaucracies, without the financial and political support of the West. If you're worried that the Organization of the Islamic Conference would suddenly and unfairly be dispossessed in the event of the abolition of the UN, and robbed of their "voice", then you're just being ridiculous. They have cameras. They have newspapers. They have internet. They have Anderson Cooper's contact information. At the end of the day, we're paying for the soapboxes our enemies use to attack us while hiding real human rights abuses going on in their own societies.

I'm not talking about our "enemies."

If you were correct, then you would have known about the material and intentional aid for Indonesia's murderous policies; for Western complicity in state terror and mass murder, on a scale that would humiliate wannabees like Hamas, who are far less dangerous and destructive than Western-backed tyrannies by every single objective measurement. You didn't know, and even tried to defend it without knowing the facts.

Now, one might plausibly argue that the UN remained ineffective during the the goings-on in the Western-backed horror chambers, making my point moot (though from a distinctly different perspective than the one you're offerring), and I have some sympathy with that view; but that's because the US ambassador to the UN made every effort to ensure that the UN remained ineffective, as he boasted in his memoirs. That's not so much an argument for dismantling the organization, as to ensuring that aggressors should not have undue influence. It's not an argument against the UN's bad influence, but against the United States' bad influence, which was part of my original point (though the USA is only a large part of a common paradigm, and of course aren't the sole perpetrators).

At any rate, I'm not talking about the Islamic dictators, who enjoy more support from the West than they do from their own people; a fact that also problematizes your thesis a little, I think.

Edited June 26, 2011 by bloodyminded

[eyeball]

And what have those conventions actually delivered to us? Are the terrorists adhering to them and treating our POWs properly? Are they wearing uniforms when in combat? Are they making reasonable efforts to reduce harm to civilians? The obvious answer is no, and the Geneva Conventions have delivered nothing to us except flaunting our moral superiority over our enemies.

What about our sides special op forces and other agents who sneak into other countries when supplying weapons to or waging covert combat against freedom-fighter/terrorists - depending on whose side we're on? Do we wear uniforms?

How can our enemies discern our moral superiority if they can't even tell us apart from a common war criminal?

[Bob]

double post.

Edited June 26, 2011 by Bob

[Bob]

Allow me to give an example of how much of the media covers for the UN's flaws in its reporting. There was a resolution passed by the UNHRC, by a vote of 23-19, to investigate discrimination based on sexual orientation around the world. Now, anyone with a shred of understanding should automatically know most, if not all, of the nineteen opposing states must have strong Islamic ties. Let's look at the nineteen opposing countries, shall we?

(It took me about twenty minutes to find this thing, the UNHRC website is a veritable e-maze)

http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=11167&LangID=E

Action on Resolution on Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

In a resolution (A/HRC/17/L.9/Rev.1) regarding human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity, adopted by a vote of 23 in favour, 19 against, and 3 abstentions, the Council requests the High Commissioner to commission a study to be finalised by December 2011 to document discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity, in all regions of the world, and how international human rights law can be used to end violence and related human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity; decides to convene a panel discussion during the nineteenth session of the Human Rights Council, informed by the facts contained in the study commissioned by the High Commissioner and to have constructive, informed and transparent dialogue on the issue of discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity; and decides also that the panel will also discuss the appropriate follow-up to the recommendations of the study commissioned by the High Commissioner.

AGAINST the resolution:

Angola;

Bahrain; Islam is the state religion and virtually all of its people are Muslims.

Bangladesh; Islam is the state religion, 90% of the population is Muslim.

Cameroon; 25% Muslim.

Djibouti; 95% Muslim, Islamic law is a part of their legal system.

Gabon; 12% Muslim.

Ghana; 16% Muslim.

Jordan; Over 90% Muslim, Islam is inextricable from its legal/political system.

Malaysia; 60% Mulim, with a huge overlap between Islam and the state and its institutions.

Maldives; Islam is the official state religion, only Muslims can be citizens.

Mauritania; Sharia law in effect, population is nearly 100% Muslim.

Nigeria; More than half of the population is Muslim, very religious society.

Pakistan; Islam is the official religion, and virtually all Pakistanis are Muslims.

Qatar; Islam is the official state religion, and virtually all Qataris are Muslims.

Republic of Moldova;

Russian Federation; 6% Muslim.

Saudi Arabia; well, it's Saudi Arabia...

Senegal; 94% Muslim.

Uganda; 12% Muslim.

Now, I randomly check some news articles reporting on this story to see which, if any, of them stated the correlation between Islamic populations/states and opposition to protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation/gender identity. In other words, was the obvious opposition of the Muslim world to equal rights for LGBT as evidenced by this UNHRC resolution worthy of mention in the mainstream media?

Yahoo! news stated the correlation, by mentioned the OitC's opposition to the resolution.

As I expected, left-wing CNN ignored the correlation, without mentioned the OitC, Islam, Muslims, or Arabs in the entire article.

I was surprised that the CBC actually stated the opposition to the resolution from "Islamic countries".

Fox News mentioned the Islamic foundation that drove opposition to this resolution.

I couldn't find the BBC story, perhaps it wasn't worth reporting on - they might offend some of their biggest fans.

Most articles I found on this story sourced the AP writing,which gave indication of the Islamic component. I did however, notice some interesting editing, at left-wing MSNBC they qualified it as "some Muslim countries", as if some Muslim countries voted for the resolution. This was a clear attempt to obfuscate the truth - all Muslim countries, and all countries at the UNHRC with significant Muslim populations opposed the resolution.

I need to make a blog post out of this...

[bloodyminded]

Allow me to give an example of how much of the media covers for the UN's flaws in its reporting. There was a resolution passed by the UNHRC, by a vote of 23-19, to investigate discrimination based on sexual orientation around the world. Now, anyone with a shred of understanding should automatically know most, if not all, of the nineteen opposing states must have strong Islamic ties. Let's look at the nineteen opposing countries, shall we?

(It took me about twenty minutes to find this thing, the UNHRC website is a veritable e-maze)

http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=11167&LangID=E

Action on Resolution on Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

In a resolution (A/HRC/17/L.9/Rev.1) regarding human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity, adopted by a vote of 23 in favour, 19 against, and 3 abstentions, the Council requests the High Commissioner to commission a study to be finalised by December 2011 to document discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity, in all regions of the world, and how international human rights law can be used to end violence and related human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity; decides to convene a panel discussion during the nineteenth session of the Human Rights Council, informed by the facts contained in the study commissioned by the High Commissioner and to have constructive, informed and transparent dialogue on the issue of discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity; and decides also that the panel will also discuss the appropriate follow-up to the recommendations of the study commissioned by the High Commissioner.

AGAINST the resolution:

Angola;

Bahrain; Islam is the state religion and virtually all of its people are Muslims.

Bangladesh; Islam is the state religion, 90% of the population is Muslim.

Cameroon; 25% Muslim.

Djibouti; 95% Muslim, Islamic law is a part of their legal system.

Gabon; 12% Muslim.

Ghana; 16% Muslim.

Jordan; Over 90% Muslim, Islam is inextricable from its legal/political system.

Malaysia; 60% Mulim, with a huge overlap between Islam and the state and its institutions.

Maldives; Islam is the official state religion, only Muslims can be citizens.

Mauritania; Sharia law in effect, population is nearly 100% Muslim.

Nigeria; More than half of the population is Muslim, very religious society.

Pakistan; Islam is the official religion, and virtually all Pakistanis are Muslims.

Qatar; Islam is the official state religion, and virtually all Qataris are Muslims.

Republic of Moldova;

Russian Federation; 6% Muslim.

Saudi Arabia; well, it's Saudi Arabia...

Senegal; 94% Muslim.

Uganda; 12% Muslim.

Now, I randomly check some news articles reporting on this story to see which, if any, of them stated the correlation between Islamic populations/states and opposition to protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation/gender identity. In other words, was the obvious opposition of the Muslim world to equal rights for LGBT as evidenced by this UNHRC resolution worthy of mention in the mainstream media?

Yahoo! news stated the correlation, by mentioned the OitC's opposition to the resolution.

As I expected, left-wing CNN ignored the correlation, without mentioned the OitC, Islam, Muslims, or Arabs in the entire article.

I was surprised that the CBC actually stated the opposition to the resolution from "Islamic countries".

Fox News mentioned the Islamic foundation that drove opposition to this resolution.

I couldn't find the BBC story, perhaps it wasn't worth reporting on - they might offend some of their biggest fans.

Most articles I found on this story sourced the AP writing,which gave indication of the Islamic component. I did however, notice some interesting editing,

But you're trying to convince me of issues whose existence I fully concede. In fact, it's not even a concession, because I've never stated otherwise.

[Bob]

I'm not talking about our "enemies."

If you were correct, then you would have known about the material and intentional aid for Indonesia's murderous policies; for Western complicity in state terror and mass murder, on a scale that would humiliate wannabees like Hamas, who are far less dangerous and destructive than Western-backed tyrannies by every single objective measurement. You didn't know, and even tried to defend it without knowing the facts.

Now, one might plausibly argue that the UN remained ineffective during the the goings-on in the Western-backed horror chambers, making my point moot (though from a distinctly different perspective than the one you're offerring), and I have some sympathy with that view; but that's because the US ambassador to the UN made every effort to ensure that the UN remained ineffective, as he boasted in his memoirs. That's not so much an argument for dismantling the organization, as to ensuring that aggressors should not have undue influence. It's not an argument against the UN's bad influence, but against the United States' bad influence, which was part of my original point (though the USA is only a large part of a common paradigm, and of course aren't the sole perpetrators).

At any rate, I'm not talking about the Islamic dictators, who enjoy more support from the West than they do from their own people; a fact that also problematizes your thesis a little, I think.

I'm not going to get dragged down into this stupidity, again. It is particularly ridiculous how you wash over the reason these Arab and Islamic dictators are "supported", in the first place. The West doesn't have the option to extricate itself from the Middle East, given its centrality in the global oil industry. We cannot wash our hands of this region, as much as we'd like to. You act as if the West has a choice, to "support" or not to "support" these dictators. We don't have that choice, so we are involved. And when someone like Bush goes in to try and make a positive change, in effect to engage in nation-building, people like you are the first to deride such visions.

Either way, we're deflecting from the original point I made which I find quite uncontroversial - the UN provides nothing of value, is on balance more harmful than beneficial to our own interests as well as broader issues such as human rights and justice, and does nothing that could be better done through direct relations between states. We don't need a check on what you view as evil Western influence coming from our enemies (primarily Islamic countries and their allies), while on the Western dime.

[Bob]

But you're trying to convince me of issues whose existence I fully concede. In fact, it's not even a concession, because I've never stated otherwise.

It's not a retort to anything you said specifically, just a general observation I thought I'd share in this thread about a recent story from the UN's most well-known subsidiary.

Remember that Libya had a seat at the UNHRC until recent events made it politically unpalatable.

[Bob]

What about our sides special op forces and other agents who sneak into other countries when supplying weapons to or waging covert combat against freedom-fighter/terrorists - depending on whose side we're on? Do we wear uniforms?

How can our enemies discern our moral superiority if they can't even tell us apart from a common war criminal?

Let me first say that I know responding to you is a waste of my time and demeans me by virtue of acknowledging you, but perhaps I simply cannot resist pointing out how pathetic it is that you try to draw a moral equivalence between the way our military conducts itself and the conduct of the terrorists.

This post of your almost feels like a shedding of crocodile tears over Osama bin Laden. I guess in your view, he wasn't given the fair trial he deserved.

[bloodyminded]

I'm not going to get dragged down into this stupidity, again. It is particularly ridiculous how you wash over the reason these Arab and Islamic dictators are "supported", in the first place. The West doesn't have the option to extricate itself from the Middle East, given its centrality in the global oil industry. We cannot wash our hands of this region, as much as we'd like to. You act as if the West has a choice, to "support" or not to "support" these dictators. We don't have that choice, so we are involved.

Clearly there's a misunderstanding, which I had mistakenly thought resolved. So I'll clarify:

I am not opposed to our dealing with dictators. The world is what it is, and we can't fight dozens of simultaneous wars, in some attempt to get rid of all tyrants...which wouldn't work anyway. Plus, the loads of civilians who would die.

And so tyrants will behave in various ways, many bad, and there's often not much we can do about it.

I'm not talking about these scenarios.

I"m talking about scenarios in which we consciously choose to make matters worse for many poeple (in the case of Indonesia/East Timor, hundreds of thousands). This was not a sad but necessary action; it was an attempt to curry favour among an anti-communist tyrant amenable to Western influence and demands. Ford and Kissinger gave an explicit go-ahead. (Long suspected by activists, now 100% proven thanks to declassified documents.) Then supplied arms for the invasion. Then kept supplying arms for the program of mass murder, and supplying more of them as the murders increased.

There was diplomatic wrangling to keep matters silent...given the slight embarassment of arming one of the worst mass murders of the postwar era, not to mention sanctioning international aggression, the supreme crime under the Nuremberg Principles. The East Timorese were not Soviet or Chinese agents, and in fact their biggest influences were Western Europe and Australia. Doesn't matter, as (surprisingly) the pretext was never raised anyway; stifling silence was the preferred method when backing genocidal invasions.

We know how easily it could have stopped; because it did stop, instantly and non-violently, when Clinton became concerned with a hint of growing public concern (thanks to leftwing and Catholic activists, and the E. Timorese courageous enough to risk being killed by death squads with American weapons). In virtually an instant, arming the killers ceased, the UN was finally allowed to intervene, and the murders abruptly stopped. It was that easy. All Clinton had to do was painlessly cease his previous six years' policy, as well as the policy of four of his predecessors. The UK et al went happily along the whole way, I should add, as did Canadian business interests.

But even if it weren't so easy, Bob (which it was)...it's one thing to say "we can do little about it," and another thing entirely to fundamentally support it.

So that's what I'm talking about here. So when I write words like "material support for state terrorism," I am using the words literally, in a considered fashion, not engaging in overheated rhetoric. I mean what I am saying.

And when someone like Bush goes in to try and make a positive change, in effect to engage in nation-building, people like you are the first to deride such visions.

If we assume that bland pronouncements by the most powerful people in the world are to be taken at face value, then you might be correct. If we assume that these pronouncements carry no real information without accompanying evidence, and we notice the contradictions even within official pronouncements, not to mention the easy admittal of supporters like Hitchens that the stated reasons are mostly bogus, but it's ok, because lying us dumb rubes into war is what Men of Principle do...then it's not so clear, is it?

We don't need a check on what you view as evil Western influence coming from our enemies (primarily Islamic countries and their allies), while on the Western dime.

It's not our enemies, nor is it primarily Islamic countries and their allies. It's widespread global opinion, including from victims of Western rapaciousness in places like Latin America.

"Direct relations between states" is a problem when the lovers of freedom overthrow your elected leaders and install dictators..after which you and I can jaw soberly about a complex world, and the need to work with dictators.

Edited June 26, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Bob]

Bloodyminded, what does any of that have to do with my position that the UN needs abolition? You seem to be clinging to this myth of UN indispensability, hoping it may obstruct immoral Western actions in the future. As if your East Timor example is somehow some sort of argument in favour of maintenance of the UN, rather than another example of the UN's irrelevance - supporting my original position.

My position remains the same - anything the UN can try to claim to its credit can be done more easily and more effectively directly between nations outside of the absurdities of the UN horror show. The UN is just a platform through which we treat dictators, failed states, and inferior cultures/societies with undeserved respect.

[eyeball]

Let me first say that I know responding to you is a waste of my time and demeans me by virtue of acknowledging you...

You can go screw yourself too.

...

but perhaps I simply cannot resist pointing out how pathetic it is that you try to draw a moral equivalence between the way our military conducts itself and the conduct of the terrorists.

If a foo shits, wear it.

This post of your almost feels like a shedding of crocodile tears over Osama bin Laden. I guess in your view, he wasn't given the fair trial he deserved.

Not as much as the tears over the hundreds of thousands of deaths incurred while trying to bring him to justice.

Are they making reasonable efforts to reduce harm to civilians?

What was that you said about moral equivalence again?

Hmmm look at that, you already screwed yourself. Go figure.

Edited June 26, 2011 by eyeball

[bloodyminded]

Bloodyminded, what does any of that have to do with my position that the UN needs abolition? You seem to be clinging to this myth of UN indispensability, hoping it may obstruct immoral Western actions in the future. As if your East Timor example is somehow some sort of argument in favour of maintenance of the UN, rather than another example of the UN's irrelevance - supporting my original position.

My position remains the same - anything the UN can try to claim to its credit can be done more easily and more effectively directly between nations outside of the absurdities of the UN horror show. The UN is just a platform through which we treat dictators, failed states, and inferior cultures/societies with undeserved respect.

I can undertand your frustration with the way this argument keeps circling away from your main point (and I'll get to that in a second); but look at it from my perspective.

Interspersed liberally among your lament that your thesis is being ignored are all sorts of factual inaccuracies....notably, about my own stated views and remarks. If you don't wish to deviate from the discussion, don't paint me with a brush you use agaisnt others who aren't even making the same arguments that I am.

Hell, I've already got ol' Rue informing me I'm a "Hamas supporter," presumably based on my assertion that (and I quote) "Hamas has been ruinous to the Palestinians, oppressive to the Palestinians, and murderous towards the Israelis. They're a serious band of fuckheads." (That's some strong advocacy, alright!)

Your mischaracterization is similar, though certainly less insulting and egregious.

OK, the UN; I too think its failures are manifest. However, I don't believe the fault lays entirely, or even primarily, with countries like Sudan, or Libya, etc. (To be sure, Libya's human rights position is an awesome argument for its problems. I completely agree.)

But often, it's irrelevant because the most powerfuls states decide that it should be irrelevant...including during the commission of Western crimes. Are you saying that, since criminals are going to continually undermine the UN, we should demolish it, and then let the criminals dictate world events in a more pronounced way?

In case you wonder where I stand on the UN...it isn't quite as you assume, but that's not your fault, as my ambivalence makes the issue complicated for me, and I waver. My issue is in some ways present with or without it, as you have intuited: so let's say we flush the UN down the toilet. Gone. But now what? It's one thing for a Canadian like myself; and for an Israeli like yourself; but we can't rationally expect most of the world to trust the US and its alliances. That's an unreasonable request. Not everyone thinks Canada are the Good Guys either, despite that strange nationalist myth. So what could conceivably be a counterweight to awful Western behaviour, which is real enough?

[Bob]

I reject what seems to be your characterization of the West as "just as bad, if not worse" than everyone else. Even when coming from the left, as you do, my argument still holds water. The only way the UN interferes with our interests is its undeserved reputation in the minds of the ignorant (again, this includes many folks in the media and in politics). Many folks in the West still reflexively trust the UN and hold it in relative esteem. This needs to end. Once the mainstream view of the UN becomes one of contempt and revulsion, and not one of respect and deference, real progress will move towards its dismantling. I hope to see that in the future.

[Oleg Bach]

The UN represents a grôup of egg heads who assume they are entitled to ownership of every thing and every body - they assume authority and authorship of earths future - they assume to much!