Time to "Call it a Day" for the United Nations

[August1991]

Am I wrong in believing that the UN is a collective of Hell's Angels/dictators who want to steal from well-meaning people?

United Nations officials fear that Secretary General Kofi Annan may have lost the confidence of the organization's most powerful constituent, the United States. They also say members of the Bush administration may want Mr. Annan to resign because of his disagreements with Washington about Iraq and the growing scandal over the Iraq oil-for-food program.

New York Times

Annan has also presented a report about the UN which suggests a larger permanent Security Council.

Let's be serious. On what authority does the Chinese rep sit on the Security Council? How did the Kenyan or Burmese rep get their vote in the UN?

Are any of these guys any different from 'Mom' Boucher and the Hell's?

We've got the UN, the Sec-Gen, the G-8 and now PM PM has suggested the L-20. (Huh?)

Should Canadians accept that our collective opinion by one vote of someone such as Stephen Lewis have the same weight as the vote of a man sent to NY by a one-man-dictator?

Why not form an 'exclusive' club of democratic countries as encouragement to these excluded "Belarusian/Burmese" dictators? A new UN.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

I must agree that the UN needs an overhaul. However, just as it can't be 'legitimate' with Libya or China as acting head of 'Human Rights Watchdog", neither can it be legitimate if it were run by the 'hawks on The Hill' such as Bush, Rice or Rumsfeld.

[Guest eureka]

Yes! You are wrong.

[Argus]

Should Canadians accept that our collective opinion by one vote of someone such as Stephen Lewis have the same weight as the vote of a man sent to NY by a one-man-dictator?

Why not form an 'exclusive' club of democratic countries as encouragement to these excluded "Belarusian/Burmese" dictators?  A new UN.

The concept so many Canadians simplistically take for granted of one man, one vote cannot be applied to the international world. There are too many differences betwen the way we see the world and the way so many others, often primitive, see the world. Further, there is no comparison between the vote of a nation like Canada or Belgium or Japan, and the grasping, greedy, corrupt, illegitimate tyrannies around the world.

The mindless left, in their desperate efforts at grasping after the concepts of internationalism and multiculturalism seem incapable of understanding that equating our vote with that of Ivory Coast, Rwanda and Dijabouti is patently absurd. We cannot be bound by the desires of third world dictators or the mad mullahs of the Islamic world. And they are an unfortunate majority in the world today.

I would prefer we start a new organization which would allow only free democracies, withdraw recognition from teh rest of the world, and redirect all foreign aid to democratic nations. Let the rest of the floundering, corrupt nations of the third world go belly up and see if something better springs from the ashes. All our aid and recognition does is help prop them up and give them legitimacy.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

There are too many differences betwen the way we see the world and the way so many others, often primitive, see the world.

If you change the 'we' to 'I', I think you have hit on the 'mindless right' view of the world.

The system as it stands now, with the West supporting and funding dictators in the Ivory Coast, et al, for the right to exclusively exploit their resources isn't much better than giving them a vote in the UN. Both systems need radical change.

[caesar]

. We cannot be bound by the desires of third world dictators or the mad mullahs of the Islamic world. And they are an unfortunate majority in the world today.

The world cannot be bound by the dictates of an American mad man either.

[caesar]

Let's be serious. On what authority does the Chinese rep sit on the Security Council? How did the Kenyan or Burmese rep get their vote in the UN?

Let's be serious; China is a large world power and IS one of the permanent 5 with a veto on the UN.

A UN that only encompasses Western democracies is a social club; this is a world wide organziation to settle problems in countries that usually are NOT democracies. If these other countries are not represented; the UN would be nothing more than a military social club.

[Argus]

There are too many differences betwen the way we see the world and the way so many others, often primitive, see the world.

If you change the 'we' to 'I', I think you have hit on the 'mindless right' view of the world.

Oh I recognize that among the knee jerk reactionaries like yourself even daring to contemplate the possibility that we are in any way superior to an illiterate new guinea jungle-dwelling indian with bones through his nose, scooping up his daily rations of ants and worms is horrifying. However, to intelligent, knowledgeable people who like to live in the real world, acknowledgeing that we are of a superior, advanced culture is just basic honesty.

The system as it stands now, with the West supporting and funding dictators in the Ivory Coast, et al, for the right to exclusively exploit their resources isn't much better than giving them a vote in the UN. Both systems need radical change.

Well, if I had my way we'd stop all aid or support of any kind to third world countries. This would inevitably lead to a significant but temporary increase in bloodshed, poverty, misery and disease, but the resulting turmoil hopefully topple many if not most of these corrupt dictatorships and lead to governments which are more responsive to their people's needs. I think all our aid does now is prolong the misery of the people living under these governments while making life just bearable enough they can be held in check by the oppressive regimes over them.

[Argus]

. We cannot be bound by the desires of third world dictators or the mad mullahs of the Islamic world. And they are an unfortunate majority in the world today.

The world cannot be bound by the dictates of an American mad man either.

I would rather be bound by the dictates of the American president than those of the Iranian president, or for that matter, the Chinese or Russian or Egyptian presidents.

[Guest eureka]

You would suggest the, that he world order be changed to control by rich, Western nations, presenting only the views of mindless Right wingers.

These should control the destiny of that 4/5ths or so of the world that is less fortunate.

I think that I have heard about this kind of governance on a national scale in the past. It was called oligarchy. It required property and educational qualifications before enfranchisement.

One country, one vote is quite the right thing for the United Nations. That produces all the diversity of opinion possible or need to be heard. Any other arrangement would bring the organization to a rapid end.

The Security Council and the veto power in that Council exist to prevent the excess of democracy that seems to be feared. If it were only possible to stop the Americans from abusing the veto..............

[Tawasakm]

Why not form an 'exclusive' club of democratic countries as encouragement to these excluded "Belarusian/Burmese" dictators? A new UN.

Or you could change the number of votes that democratic nations get to 2 or 3, leaving dictatorships with 1. That way they are still included in the process and your oncerns about them are addressed.

Almost anything thats set up will seem unacceptable to some part of the worlds population I believe.

Argus:

However, to intelligent, knowledgeable people who like to live in the real world, acknowledgeing that we are of a superior, advanced culture is just basic honesty.

Such an attitude blinds you, I believe, and makes you a prisoner of preconceptions. I honestly believe that there is something to be learned from everyone and every culture that is positive. There are also the bad things in different cultures that we can all learn from as mistakes. I view it much like a jig-saw puzzle. Everyone holds a piece and unless we learn from each other and accept each other we will never gain all the pieces. Sadly it seems this has always been out of reach for the world. It always seems to be the negative aspects that we dwell on - and act on. I wish we could all look at one anothers cultures and think just as strongly 'what is here that I can learn from to make myself and mine a little better.' Perhaps Islamic people could learn that women are equal. Perhaps us western cultures could look at Aboriginal Australians and learn from their perspective of the Earth as a vibrant, living, interconnected entity where even the rocks are a part of that life and all must be respected and protected.

It seems to me that the United Nations, which is still really in its infancy I think, could be the beginning of a forum that may allow that more positive exchange of ideas.

[Argus]

You would suggest the, that he world order be changed to control by rich, Western nations, presenting only the views of mindless Right wingers.

These should control the destiny of that 4/5ths or so of the world that is less fortunate.

This is pure drivel, of course. I am speaking of an organization of members who are democracies, dealing with and among themselves. It is bizarre in the extreme that you would consider it innappropriately discriminatory towards dictatorships!

One country, one vote is quite the right thing for the United Nations. That produces all  the diversity of opinion possible or need to be heard.

One man, one vote, is what you mean, since most of those nations represented at the UN are controlled by one man. So effectively the 270 million people of the United States have the same vote at the UN as Moamar Kaddafy. Absurd.

[August1991]

I recognize that among the knee jerk reactionaries like yourself even daring to contemplate the possibility that we are in any way superior to an illiterate new guinea jungle-dwelling indian with bones through his nose, scooping up his daily rations of ants and worms is horrifying. However, to intelligent, knowledgeable people who like to live in the real world, acknowledgeing that we are of a superior, advanced culture is just basic honesty.

Argus, on what objective basis have you arrived at this conclusion? And even if you had some objective way of measuring "culture", is that the ultimate measure of existence? [i believe cockroaches are a superior species to humans if adaptability is the criteria.]

My own preference is to admit that people are obviously different and then say, but "who cares anyway?" What people do with their own individual difference is their own business.

One country, one vote is quite the right thing for the United Nations. That produces all the diversity of opinion possible or need to be heard.

By what logic can you go from "one person, one vote" to "one country, one vote"? And does it not matter in the least how that one country's vote is determined? Do you believe that North Korea should have the same vote as Canada? Does the North Korean vote reflect the wishes of the North Korean population?

Any other arrangement would bring the organization to a rapid end.

Maybe that's your signal that something is seriously wrong with the UN.

[Argus]

I recognize that among the knee jerk reactionaries like yourself even daring to contemplate the possibility that we are in any way superior to an illiterate new guinea jungle-dwelling indian with bones through his nose, scooping up his daily rations of ants and worms is horrifying. However, to intelligent, knowledgeable people who like to live in the real world, acknowledgeing that we are of a superior, advanced culture is just basic honesty.

Argus, on what objective basis have you arrived at this conclusion? And even if you had some objective way of measuring "culture", is that the ultimate measure of existence?

Of course there IS no entirely objective way to assess such things. Therefore, the judgement will have to be mine. And I'm reasonably content with that.

My own preference is to admit that people are obviously different and then say, but "who cares anyway?"  What people do with their own individual difference is their own business.

Oh I entirely agree. Except when it comes to making decisions in some kind of international government or agency which might affect my welfare. Then I'd as soon not have people who still believe in witchcraft voting.

[Guest eureka]

One country, one vote is both practical and logical. There is no other way.

The statements that one man, in certain countries soes not represent the wishes of the population is not well thought through. That one vote represents the wishes of a sovereign government and are as valid as Canada's one vote which also may not always represent the wishes of the majority.

The suggestion that numbers of votes should be allottes based on democracies and dictatorships agin does not seem to have been given much thought. Who decides what nations are democracies? Do we - to revert to an old argument that some have you have not yet absorbed - give the number of votes according to the form of democracy?

Should Italy be given four votes based on its multiple parties; Britain and Canada three; the USA two. All in consideration of the variety of opinions that are supposedly at play in their "democracies"?

The we could give the dictatorships (?) one. Which are the dictatorshops and which are the one party democracies?

Does anyone seriously think that the UN would survive longer than it took to allot the votes? Would China - assuming that it is not considered to be a democracy remain a member with less votes than India or less votes than any other nation?

[maplesyrup]

Oh I recognize that among the knee jerk reactionaries like yourself

Come on guys - let's take it easy, with the personal putdowns eh!

[Argus]

Let's be serious. On what authority does the Chinese rep sit on the Security Council? How did the Kenyan or Burmese rep get their vote in the UN?

Let's be serious; China is a large world power and IS one of the permanent 5 with a veto on the UN.

A UN that only encompasses Western democracies is a social club; this is a world wide organziation to settle problems in countries that usually are NOT democracies. If these other countries are not represented; the UN would be nothing more than a military social club.

What you say is true, to some extent. The problem I have is with people who insist that votes and decisions of the UN have some kind of moral or legal imperative. The people casting votes are, by and large, murdering dictators whose only claim to governing legitimacy is that they can kill anyone who disagrees with them. How do we ascribe moral legitimacy to the decisions made by such people, and why would we wish ourselves to be legally bound by such decisions?

[Argus]

One country, one vote is both practical and logical. There is no other way.

As long as there is no legal weight and no one tries to ascribe any kind of moral legitimacy to the voting.

The statements that one man, in certain countries soes not represent the wishes of the population is not well thought through. That one vote represents the wishes of a sovereign government and are as valid as Canada's one vote which also may not always represent the wishes of the majority.

What exactly do you mean by "sovereign government"? I mean, if we are talking about governments whose only legitimacy is they can kill anyone who they don't like then you're conceding that violence and murder begats legitimate government. If, for example, I hire some locals and murder the government of, whatever, Botswana or Liberia, and take over, then I become the "sovereign government", right?

The we could give the dictatorships (?) one. Which are the dictatorshops and which are the one party democracies?

There is no such thing as a one party democracy, and I feel safe in suggesting almost anyone can tell the difference between a dictatorship and a democracy.

[Guest eureka]

Do you think that you could tell the difference? You say that there is no such thing as a one party democracy so, until you learn that you are wrong and what the elements of one are, you will not be able to tell the difference.

If you hire a few locals to murder the government of Canada you may also establish yourself as its government. So what is your point. Whoever is in power anywhere represents the sovereign view of that nation. That you don't like the leader is no matter.

I dislike Bush intensely. Bush does not represent a majority of his nation in all manner of areas. He does represent the nation - however incompetently.

[Argus]

Do you think that you could tell the difference? You say that there is no such thing as a one party democracy so, until you learn that you are wrong and what the elements of one are, you will not be able to tell the difference.

Drivel

If you hire a few locals to murder the government of Canada you may also establish yourself as its government. So what is your point. Whoever is in power anywhere represents the sovereign view of that nation. That you don't like the leader is no matter.

So whoever takes power by whatever means, however illegally, however corrupt, however brutal, is someone you believe must be respected and given the same voting rights and moral support as any democracy?

I dislike Bush intensely. Bush does not represent a majority of his nation in all manner of areas. He does represent the nation - however incompetently.

Whether you like Bush is utterly irrelevent. He followed the legal process to power which his countrymen support. That he didn't get the majority of the votes is also irrelevent. He got a higher percentage than Martin did.

[August1991]

I dislike Bush intensely. Bush does not represent a majority of his nation in all manner of areas. He does represent the nation - however incompetently.

Would you say the same about Castro?

Do you think that you could tell the difference? You say that there is no such thing as a one party democracy so, until you learn that you are wrong and what the elements of one are, you will not be able to tell the difference.

Canada will send about 500 observors to Ukraine to determine whether the vote is fair. Have we ever done such to Cuba?

Could we not have an international organization for which membership requires that outsiders observe, assist or organize elections?

Would not membership in such a "social club" become a highly prized calling card? Ostracism and membership are the traditional human ways to deal with unacceptable behaviour.

[Black Dog]

Lynch mob's target not Annan, but UN

Of course, as Argus' posts indicate, this is no secret.

I would prefer we start a new organization which would allow only free democracies, withdraw recognition from teh rest of the world, and redirect all foreign aid to democratic nations. Let the rest of the floundering, corrupt nations of the third world go belly up and see if something better springs from the ashes. All our aid and recognition does is help prop them up and give them legitimacy.

Yeah because, after all, those corrupt third nations sprang up n a vacumn and are completely in poverty because of their own lack of gumption and initiative. No outside meddling from the west, no sirree.

Oh I recognize that among the knee jerk reactionaries like yourself even daring to contemplate the possibility that we are in any way superior to an illiterate new guinea jungle-dwelling indian with bones through his nose, scooping up his daily rations of ants and worms is horrifying. However, to intelligent, knowledgeable people who like to live in the real world, acknowledgeing that we are of a superior, advanced culture is just basic honesty

Or supreme arrogance. Certainly any culture that produces the kind of garbage the west does, that routinely spits on the very ideals it claims to uphold is no position to preach.

I think all our aid does now is prolong the misery of the people living under these governments while making life just bearable enough they can be held in check by the oppressive regimes over them.

Well, let's see: foreign aid is largely an uphill battle when so many third-world countries are crippled by foreign debt and ridiculous structural adjustments imposed by outside entities. Indeed, through the workings of the World Bank and IMF, unequal trade practices, conditional aid and economic and material support for these regimes, the west has played a major role in denying the third world the opportunity to become self-sufficient. Really, to conclude that the developing world is soley responsible for its own fate is to completely deny the historical realities of hundreds of years of colonialism, occupation and interference by the "civilized" world.

What you say is true, to some extent. The problem I have is with people who insist that votes and decisions of the UN have some kind of moral or legal imperative. The people casting votes are, by and large, murdering dictators whose only claim to governing legitimacy is that they can kill anyone who disagrees with them. How do we ascribe moral legitimacy to the decisions made by such people, and why would we wish ourselves to be legally bound by such decisions?

Well for starters there's the rue of law, set down in the UN charter and agreed to by member nations. The fact that the individual enforcing the law is unpleasant does not render the law itself illegitimate. So, when the UN votes to declare certain things (such as Israel's occupation of Palestine) to be in violation of international law, that means they are upholding the universally agreed-upon principles set down at the founding of the UN, prionciples which by and large reflect western values.

[Argus]

I would prefer we start a new organization which would allow only free democracies, withdraw recognition from teh rest of the world, and redirect all foreign aid to democratic nations. Let the rest of the floundering, corrupt nations of the third world go belly up and see if something better springs from the ashes. All our aid and recognition does is help prop them up and give them legitimacy.

Yeah because, after all, those corrupt third nations sprang up in a vacumn and are completely in poverty because of their own lack of gumption and initiative. No outside meddling from the west, no sirree.

Are we going to blame colonialism for the next few centuries? When do these little tinpot dictators start taking the blame? And if ejsy you're suggesting is that poor, well-meaning little third world countries are poor because of some kind of grasping, greedy misuse by the West, well then, doesn't that indicate they are incapable of running their own affairs and should be placed under some kind of international trustteeship? Things are not getting better, you know, especially in Africa and the middle east. They are getting worse.

The truth is most Africans would be better off if their "nation" was taken over by western countries and run by colonial administrations.

What you say is true, to some extent. The problem I have is with people who insist that votes and decisions of the UN have some kind of moral or legal imperative. The people casting votes are, by and large, murdering dictators whose only claim to governing legitimacy is that they can kill anyone who disagrees with them. How do we ascribe moral legitimacy to the decisions made by such people, and why would we wish ourselves to be legally bound by such decisions?

Well for starters there's the rue of law, set down in the UN charter and agreed to by member nations. The fact that the individual enforcing the law is unpleasant does not render the law itself illegitimate. So, when the UN votes to declare certain things (such as Israel's occupation of Palestine) to be in violation of international law, that means they are upholding the universally agreed-upon principles set down at the founding of the UN, prionciples which by and large reflect western values.

An excellent reason why we should have nothing to do with the UN.

No. I attach zero moral or legal legitimacy to the UN today. Whatever the principals were when the institution was created they have been too badly abused and twisted over the years to have any meaning. What good is a law, after all, when a slavering murderer is the judge who interprets it. As an example, the UN Human Rights Agency now headed up by Libya.

[Black Dog]

Are we going to blame colonialism for the next few centuries?

If you think colonialism is some distant historical relic, you're deluded.

When do these little tinpot dictators start taking the blame? And if ejsy you're suggesting is that poor, well-meaning little third world countries are poor because of some kind of grasping, greedy misuse by the West, well then, doesn't that indicate they are incapable of running their own affairs and should be placed under some kind of international trustteeship? Things are not getting better, you know, especially in Africa and the middle east. They are getting worse. 

You rstement doesn't even make sense. If the third-world is kept awash in poverty and corruption by th emachinations of western nations, how is that evidence that they are incapable of running themselves?

The truth is most Africans would be better off if their "nation" was taken over by western countries and run by colonial administrations.

Yeah, that worked so well in the past and caused no lasting problems whatsoever....

No. I attach zero moral or legal legitimacy to the UN today. Whatever the principals were when the institution was created they have been too badly abused and twisted over the years to have any meaning. What good is a law, after all, when a slavering murderer is the judge who interprets it. As an example, the UN Human Rights Agency now headed up by Libya.

Yet there's precious little to indicate the west would manage the affairs any better, given how many of the current third-world messes are the result of foreign meddling.

This seems likeas good a place as any to post this. It's a comprehensive analysis from the right-libertarian Cato institute detailing American intervention in the Middle East since World War 2 and how it has shaped the political landscape there. It's a shining example of how western policies towards the developing world have been heavy-handed and focussed, not on building and maintaing democracy and prosperity, but on benefitting the west.

[Vickmn]

I would prefer we start a new organization which would allow only free democracies,

What we all have to realize with this statement is that not all countries want the sort of democracy that the US may have. Many countries have different ideals, ways of living ect... a big problem with the US at times I feel, is that we (yes I am from the US) think our values are the only values and that is arogant.

redirect all foreign aid to democratic nations. Let the rest of the floundering, corrupt nations of the third world go belly up and see if something better springs from the ashes. All our aid and recognition does is help prop them up and give them legitimacy.

I recently read a book about a guy who traveled all over Africa. He went from Egypt to South Africa, useing the same roads and services that typical Africans would use. He made a few statments like those above. One statment I remember was that "much of the AID currently given, isn't given to development but just for sustainment" Meaning, that instead of givng people seeds to plant they just give them food to eat. I think redirecting all AID isn't a good idea, because many countries are useing that money in a correct way. What I do think tho, is that there should be more oversight. More thought into what money is sent where.

Vicks