Human rights and hypocrisy

[myata]

What you do is what you get.

[Argus]

A side by side comparison with bodycounts from botched democratic experiments (Vietnam; death squadrons in Central America; Iran's shah; Chile; and recently, Iraq) may not be a favourite one;

A comparison with what? The epic slaughters of communism?

even that is not the point. The point is, it would do a lot of good to our (i.e, "West") credibility in the world to drop the moral superiority complex

We ARE morally superior to them.

and the desire to teach and guide all and everyone (on which we, sadly, cannot deliver anyways) and let the other people live the way they used, desire and able to.

Merilly slaughtering each other, you mean? Should we have left South Africa and Rhodesia alone too, and not insisted they abandon apartheid? Should we stop complaining about Sudan and Darfur?

[Higgly]

We ARE morally superior to them.

Reminds me of Einstein's description of relativity. When you sit next to a bore at a dinner party, time seems to slow down. When you sit next to a pretty girl, it just seems to fly.

The problem is that they don't see it that way. You can believe this as long as you like, but as long as they don't agree, you are going to have a problem.

[myata]

Merilly slaughtering each other, you mean? Should we have left South Africa and Rhodesia alone too, and not insisted they abandon apartheid? Should we stop complaining about Sudan and Darfur?

Your memory fails you, it seems. Africa and Rhodesia were white colonies and enjoyed much support and cooperation from the West at first. What decided their fate is that as all colonies, they were unsustainable and were eventually abandoned. At this point we could safely unleash our moral superiority. And yes, do complain about Sudan and Darfur for all you want, but can you deliver a working solution?

[myata]

Here's a worthy topic: UN security council in its current composition is grossly outdated. 3 out of 5 permanent members representing 400 mln people - roughly 7% of this planet's population; continents as South America or Africa have no permanent representative; India, with 15% of world's population has none while UK and France, with about a tenth of India's have two. One can continue statistics on and on.

In it's current composition it's very much doomed to a slow death by paralysis. What are the the options? Radical reform? Is West prepared to share the power in crucial decision making, fairly and for real?

[bradco]

Merilly slaughtering each other, you mean? Should we have left South Africa and Rhodesia alone too, and not insisted they abandon apartheid? Should we stop complaining about Sudan and Darfur?

Your memory fails you, it seems. Africa and Rhodesia were white colonies and enjoyed much support and cooperation from the West at first. What decided their fate is that as all colonies, they were unsustainable and were eventually abandoned. At this point we could safely unleash our moral superiority. And yes, do complain about Sudan and Darfur for all you want, but can you deliver a working solution?

As far as the UNSC goes in regards to Rhodesia it did in fact condemn apartheid. After the unilateral declaration of independance made by the white settler minority led by Smith (I think it composed about 6% of the population) the Security Council eventually authorized the use of force by Britain to enforce oil sanctions against Rhodesia. The declaration of independance was mostly viewed as illegitimate because of the aparthied the rhodesian regime was installing.

[jbg]

As far as the UNSC goes in regards to Rhodesia it did in fact condemn apartheid. After the unilateral declaration of independance made by the white settler minority led by Smith (I think it composed about 6% of the population) the Security Council eventually authorized the use of force by Britain to enforce oil sanctions against Rhodesia. The declaration of independance was mostly viewed as illegitimate because of the aparthied the rhodesian regime was installing.

I am no supporter of racism or apartheid. Let me make that clear.

Let me also make clear that the majority people, i.e. Africans, are doing far, far worse under Mugabe than they did under Smith. Only the ruling oligarchy is doing well under Mugabe. This should trouble anyone who cares about people rather than slogans. I don't know what the solution would be.

[Argus]

Perhaps other countries would be more willing to pay some of the costs if they were not forever subjected to the Five Tyrants.

Are you suggesting that it would be better if the Muslim block and their paid African support group controlled the UN without any brake from the Security Council?

[Argus]

Merilly slaughtering each other, you mean? Should we have left South Africa and Rhodesia alone too, and not insisted they abandon apartheid? Should we stop complaining about Sudan and Darfur?

Your memory fails you, it seems. Africa and Rhodesia were white colonies and enjoyed much support and cooperation from the West at first. What decided their fate is that as all colonies, they were unsustainable and were eventually abandoned.

There was nothing unsustainable about them. They functioned quite well for that part of the world, better than any other nations in Africa. What made them unsustainable was outside intervention and pressure.

At this point we could safely unleash our moral superiority. And yes, do complain about Sudan and Darfur for all you want, but can you deliver a working solution?

The only thing which works in situations like that is military intervention. And that is a case where military intervention would work quite well.

[Argus]

Here's a worthy topic: UN security council in its current composition is grossly outdated. 3 out of 5 permanent members representing 400 mln people - roughly 7% of this planet's population; continents as South America or Africa have no permanent representative; India, with 15% of world's population has none while UK and France, with about a tenth of India's have two. One can continue statistics on and on.

In it's current composition it's very much doomed to a slow death by paralysis. What are the the options? Radical reform? Is West prepared to share the power in crucial decision making, fairly and for real?

With third world governments? Hardly.

[Remiel]

Well, Argus, since the " Muslim Block " constitutes only a third or so of U.N. signatories, your fear(mongering) that they would somehow control the United Nations is unfounded. Even if by some amazing feat they did manage to take it over, they still don't have anywhere near the resources and power of the non-Muslim countries. So, they would be a paper tiger. Thus, there would not be nearly as much risk in trying to improve the U.N. in this fashion as you would suggest. And since you think we should disband the U.N. entirely, I don't see why you should object to making an attempt to changing it before discarding it. Well, unless of course you are entirely insincere in your arguments, and have an underhanded agenda.

[myata]

With third world governments? Hardly.

That's definitely a valid point of view. However it is equivalent to saying that power structure of the UN must (continue to) be dominated by West. It's unlikely that any nation would willingly accept open and obvious domination. Hence, UNSC is destined for more and more stalemates. The only way to escape this destiny is to share the power with the world as it is, not as some want it to be.

[Figleaf]

What has the UN done for you lately?

In reality there is a few success stories from the UN, but really, law without teeth isn't really anything but rhetoric. The UN refuses to act with force (well, it has no forces to act with) to enforce it's laws. So really it's a hodgepodge of rulings that are enforced selectively by independant organizations.

I don't think it's irrelevant, but if it's not more willing to use force to enforce the decisions it makes, it's rather useless in it's original objective. What of Sudan? Rwanda? The UN has failed.

There's that weird rhetoric again. The UN doesn't refuse. The UN is neither willing or unwilling. And it doesn't make decisions. Those are all choices the member states make collectively. Blaming the institution for being what the members make it simply doesn't make any sense.

[Rue]

What has the UN done for you lately?

In reality there is a few success stories from the UN, but really, law without teeth isn't really anything but rhetoric. The UN refuses to act with force (well, it has no forces to act with) to enforce it's laws. So really it's a hodgepodge of rulings that are enforced selectively by independant organizations.

I don't think it's irrelevant, but if it's not more willing to use force to enforce the decisions it makes, it's rather useless in it's original objective. What of Sudan? Rwanda? The UN has failed.

There's that weird rhetoric again. The UN doesn't refuse. The UN is neither willing or unwilling. And it doesn't make decisions. Those are all choices the member states make collectively. Blaming the institution for being what the members make it simply doesn't make any sense.

Thanks for that clarification. For a second I thought Hamas was responsible for the actions of its members.

For a second I thought Stephen Harper's government was responsible for the actions of his members of Parliament.

Thanks for making sense of that,

Next time some street gang murders someone in a drive by I will remember, the gang itself is not responsible for its members.

You know I have no idea what made me think the UN had an elected body like any other institution and institutions by their very definition and raison d'existence are created to promote the idea fo collective responsibility as symbolized through the office of the instiution or institutions in question.

No. Of course not. How could I possibly criticize the Supreme Court of Canada for the decisions its Judges might make. Silly. Silly.

The U.S. Military has no collective responsibility for the actions of its soldiers when they violate their military code of conduct.

The Catholic Church has no collective responsibility when its Priests molest children.

Yes I can see it all so clearly now.

[Remiel]

It would be difficult to argue most of those retorts, Rue, except for the U.N. To say the U.N. is a democratic institution like any other is twisting the truth. Democracies don't have the Five Tyrants.

[myata]

You're absolutely right, Rue. The five permanent members of UNSC wield greatly disproportionate powers. So, logically, they, and not the "UN" should bear the greater part of esponsibility for the actions (or inaction). Remember, no taxation without representation?

There're only two possible alternatives (other than pretend that there's no problem and coast along): the five will take on responsibility adequate to their position in the UNSC (meaning first of all, material and financial responsibility). Which does not seem very plausible at this point. Or, to share the power (and responsibility) with the rest of the world.

[jbg]

There're only two possible alternatives (other than pretend that there's no problem and coast along): the five will take on responsibility adequate to their position in the UNSC (meaning first of all, material and financial responsibility). Which does not seem very plausible at this point. Or, to share the power (and responsibility) with the rest of the world.

And from what money would the rest of the world make up for the contributions from the Gang of Five?

[colliver19]

The United Nations isn't perfect - not even for one of the Big Five like the UK or US, it is imperative if the relative security this last half-century has witnessed is to continue. If the US was to leave the UN like some have said it should, it would collapse and every country in the world would automatically begin to safeguard its interests alone - conflict would be inevitable.

As for expanding the United Nations Security Council, I am neither in favour or against, because I agree that the UNSC should represent everyone's interests but it must not be forgotten that Britain, France, the United States, Russia and China command vast economic and military resources, eclipsing any other potential nation. The only two countries who have economic resources to match the Big Five are Japan and Germany (India, although not in the same league as Japan and Germany, is a possible third), but it would take a huge psychological shift in perspective of the Big Five nations, who defeated Germany and Japan in 1945, with all its associated carnage, to allow the 'defeated enemies' on the UNSC. I have to say, even after all these years, as a British citizen I would feel uneasy about a powerful Germany with a seat on the UNSC, even though I know Germany poses no threat to the UK. Maybe many Americans feel the same about Japan?

[myata]

And from what money would the rest of the world make up for the contributions from the Gang of Five?

The only way to find out is to try. Status quo looks very much like a dead end. Permanent members can gloat in their superiority reflecting the state of affairs 50+ years back, but to make a functioning body they need willing cooperation of other members. Such would hardly be forthcoming given UNSC grossly misbalanced setup.

[jbg]

Maybe many Americans feel the same about Japan?

The real problem is that Japan has little in the way of a military, so it couldn't contribute more than words to "security".

[colliver19]

Maybe many Americans feel the same about Japan?

The real problem is that Japan has little in the way of a military, so it couldn't contribute more than words to "security".

Japan may be militarily weak at present, but with such a vast economy and nationalistic population, how long would it take for Japan to form a strong military if required?

Japan certainly has the scientific know-how as well.

[Argus]

Well, Argus, since the " Muslim Block " constitutes only a third or so of U.N. signatories, your fear(mongering) that they would somehow control the United Nations is unfounded.

Quebec is less than a third of Canada but they've controlled the place for thirty years. In the case of the 57 member Muslim bloc it's even easier. Since most third world nations couldn't give a shit about what's going on in the middle east, all the Arabs have to do is bribe them with a little oil money. That's why every year scores of countries like Zambia and Vietnam vote together with the Muslim bloc on the same few dozen anti-Israel resolutions. Meanwhile a lot of Western states also don't give a crap, or just weasel out of voting, as Canada often did before Harper was elected. That's why these resolutions always pass overwhelmingly.

[Argus]

Instead of blaming the UN, maybe people should start blaming the Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States. They're the ones holding the leash on the " paper tiger " .

I blame them for letting in all these little shithole countries and giving them votes.

[Higgly]

Instead of blaming the UN, maybe people should start blaming the Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States. They're the ones holding the leash on the " paper tiger " .

I blame them for letting in all these little shithole countries and giving them votes.

So do you stand at the polling stations in Canada during every election and decide who is a 'little shithole voter'?

Democracy is based on the vote, Argus. To hell with what you might think.

[myata]

If someone turns to shit whatever they touch, does it mean they"re full of it too?