| JuryFury.com
A New Issue Every Monday ! Online School of Politics |
||
| Areas of Interest THE USA American Foreign Policy US House and Senate US Presidents State & Local Politics Regional Politics Politics of China The British Commonwealth Indian Subcontinent Middle East The European Union Africa Latin America ASEAN NATO United Nations The Non-aligned Movement Eastern Europe New Nations of the 20th Century General Topics Constitutional Law Human Rights Nuclear Disarmament & Treaties International Warfare Environmental Law Peace Treaties Economic & Social Alliances International Organizations Journalism & Media Racism and Democracy Women in the Workplace Family Law Courts and Practices The Judicial System Higher Education Education and Government Health Care & Insurance Rights of the Disabled Copyright & Working Online Legal Representation Legal Insurance Pornography Domestic Violence Religion & Law Workers Rights Employers Rights Prison & Life after Social Organizations Welfare & Poverty Taxation and Democracy Third World Aid Programs Space Exploration Alternative Energy Petroleum Industry & Cars Nuclear Power Programs for the Arts Sports Education Policing the Internet Privacy and freedom Immigration Food and Regulation War on Drugs War on Pharmaceuticals Public Housing Pollution and Control Sexual Harrassment Discrimination Electoral Process Consumers Rights Investors Rights Abortion Death Penalty Social Security Gender & Sexuality Grassroots Organization ACLU World Watch Oxfam UNICEF United Negro Fund Ford Foundation (suggestions welcome at our chatsite) Law of the Economy Join I-Traderschool, our sister magazine, for debates and news. |
Poking Fun at the United Nations Charter "Welcome Message from the United Nations - weapon of Imperialist Nations" by Sophia Barkat Many people have tried to understand the United Nations Charter and found that it is never obeyed by it's members, especially not the present and past members of the UN Security Council. In light of such frustrations, I have taken the time to literally translate the UN Charter: Dear Member Nation, If you are an economic/nuclear super-power then the UN is good for your country. Below however is what the UN feels about "other members". 1) We believe in giving Countries the false assurance that International Law and the International Court of Justice are useful. The International Court is infamous for dragging on lawsuits for years. Yes -- members of the Security Council have started or abetted every war in history. So what? - Forget it Cotton Exporter in Egypt about your problem with that Importer in China. Your case in ICJ is going to last 3yrs. - Watch out Korea: Thanks to the UN Security Council, you will be successfully disarmed and stripped of any ability to protect yourself before a nuclear super power attacks your country. - Palestine: You have no natural resources and you give the super powers who have bought the UN Security Council much excuse to have military presence in the Middle East, and to supply Israel with weapons so as there to be permanent instability in Israel, and a constants dependence on Imperialistic defense industries. The UN cannot help you resolve anything in ICJ. Continue your attacks on innocent civilians as you normally do. And thanks for doing business with us. - Serbia and Bosnia: ethnic cleansing is a perfectly good way of decimating the world population. Keep up the good work. The UN will stop you with the help of other super-powers after 200,000 Bosnians are slaughtered. - Afghans: please die. The UN is divided on every issue right now. We don't like the fundamentalist groups in charge of your country. So who's left? Wait 20yrs till the real bad-asses come to power. Maybe we can do something about you if you blow up a building in the US. - Germans: Britain is no longer an imperial power. They were this close to taking your side as was Roosevelt-led USA. You supported a bad guy. Now you should pay for it. Oh wait. I didn't mean turn around and I'll shoot you. No. We will just make your children and grandchildren pay for your crimes until every country in WWII is re-built. God knows we cannot steal from India, Latin America and Africa anymore. 2) UNDP, IMF, World Bank - We exploit you. - Indonesia: since 1960 we have been paying you peanuts for trees. Don't worry. We like your despot Suharto and your oil. And don't complain that we are trying to rip you off. It's us - the IMF/World Bank/UNDP programs or the Asian Development Bank. Have your pick! - third world countries: Bangladesh to start with - you have elected nincompoops and despots. We have conditional aid packages requiring you to buy medicine that were rejected by super-powers. It's a match made in heaven. We support the democratic process. Long live our World Health Organization. Let's do more business. - politically unstable countries: Pakistan. Democracy comes at a price. More aid for you soon. Send us a list of Who's Who in the Military. We will pass it on to our bosses. Education for women and children? Is that what people want? Well, we'll take note of that and help you after the next elections....just sign the defense contracts here... - China - please. Beat more political dissidents. We won't say a thing. Who can? 1 billion people. Economic growth at 7% per yr. (1996). Europe and US could bed you every night. The UN serves the People's Republic. - Africa - AIDS: hmmm...big problem - too big for uss - go beg the economic super powers directly. BTW ....the US has black people. If you cannot sell it to them forget it. If it's not apartheid, it's the famine. If it's not the famine, it's AIDS. Do you think we have an infinite budget? Try raising money for 1 million children in Iraq and you'll find out which country's Committee for UNCF gives a damn. - Iraq : hahahaha. hahahha......aha aha ha......Sucker!! The UN Food for Oil Program was not enough to milk you of your GDP. It's what? 60cents per gallon of oil? Don't worry....We will wave the Geneva Convention in your face and the Nuremberg Charter too. Oh you fool! You damn fool!! Lastly, the UN would like to thank every economic/nuclear super-power for doing business with us. We save your face. Keep us in mind for future acquisitions. by captmingus@ev1.net Re: Sophia's Poking Fun at the UN Don't you think the UN shares as much blame as the US in this? The UN has always leaned to whichever side their bread is buttered. I love the what-ifs posted here. It is quite interesting to me in just 60 years the American isolationist movement has swung from Republican to Democrats. If I were the UN I would be terrified if the standing super power reverted back to it's isolationist sympathies, It's easy to beat on the U.S. for it's sins and transgressions left over from the cold war, however America is not the only sinner here. Dare I say not even the greater evil of the cold war. Casting blame on the winners and losers of that long struggle isn't going to solve any problems today or tomorrow. George W isn't going to be around 5 years from now, and honestly neither party want's to lay a consistent and realistic Foreign Policy platform in front of John Q Public, anymore than either wants to stick their necks out with little problems such as Social Security or Health Care. by Trevor (tebatt@chello.nl) Re: captmingus reply captmingus@ev1.net wrote: "Don't you think the UN shares as much blame as the US in this?" I believe this is a difficult question to answer unless you clarify slightly more. The blame for what exactly? Should Russia, China and France have launched an atomic war against the US in defense of international law -or should they have supported unilateral vigilantism by submitting to American moral (and economic) blackmail? captmingus@ev1.net wrote: "The UN has always leaned to whichever side their bread is buttered." The UN is severely hampered by a structure that was set up by the victors of W.W.II to preserve the peace and the status quo. So I guess, in that sense it has done its work rather well. The question is how much this ancient structure reflects current needs and how can the UN best be modified (if it needs to be). Obviously, one of the difficulties of "reforming" the UN is the impact this would have on the current global power structure. Presumably, other countries would like American hegemony to be weakened -while America would do everything possible (as it has already done) in order to prevent this. Presumably, most intelligent beings (organic, social, commercial or political) behave (in principle) according to how they believe they like to have their bread buttered. However, some prefer short term interests while others might prefer longer term interests. Different people have different interests and some people may be better than others in perceiving where their true interests lie. In many ways "democracy" (communal or corporate exploration of available options) is a useful tool for optimizing the options. Interestingly, the philosophical background which lead to the American constitution (which is perhaps not incorrectly seen by many as a major socio-legal achievement) is based on the British concept of "enlightened self-interest". captmingus@ev1.net wrote: "I love the what-ifs posted here. It is quite interesting to me in just 60 years the American isolationist movement has swung from Republican to Democrats." Yes, I think our (western) culture is not really very good at dealing with dynamic (evolutionary) systems unless one is involved with computer programming, with modern mathematics/physics or the science of ecology). We are conditioned to think in far too simple basic concepts (like left-wing/ right-wing, Republican/Democrat, isolationist/internationalist, protectionist/free-market, etc) without really understand the meaning of these terms fully -and so we are not able to understand how they mutate when interpreted in practice. Our rather static thinking, which is focused more on isolated conceptual objects than on dynamic processes, also makes it difficult to understand how apparently different subjects interact with each other. Those who were recently pushing the free global movement of goods, money and people seem to be the same people who are now demanding all sorts of restrictions -on security grounds or to limit socially disruptive immigration by so called "economic refugees" (who one would expect would be welcome within an open system of "globalization"). One wonders how much the economic implications of these restrictions have been considered by those who intend to introduce them (in both Europe and America -possibly for different reasons). Although we prefer to considered ourselves as 'rational" beings (and have even based our economic theories on the assumption that we are rational) -in practice, it seems we have no real idea of what we are doing or where we are heading and just stumble from the one mistake to the next. Clearly, the more people believe that earning money is more important than anything else -the possibility of anybody sitting down and thinking things through seems rather remote. Personally, I believe it is important to explore the "what ifs" (if we are to be prepared) -generally we do not do it enough. Certainly, the pre-war propaganda did not explore enough "what ifs": What if there is powerful resistance? What if civil war breaks out in Iraq after the military action is over? What if revolution spreads throughout the Middle East as Muslim anger spreads? What if continued political instability continues to undermine the global economy? What if anti-American sentiments only grow more powerful? captmingus@ev1.net wrote: "If I were the UN I would be terrified if the standing super power reverted back to it's isolationist sympathies, It's easy to beat on the U.S. for it's sins and transgressions left over from the cold war, however America is not the only sinner here. Dare I say not even the greater evil of the cold war. Casting blame on the winners and losers of that long struggle isn't going to solve any problems today or tomorrow." I agree. Although there may be some lessons to be learned by understanding what really happened -and not just believing all the propaganda. However, it's quite likely that thinking in terms of winners and losers probably won't help anybody any more. The problems are getting too complex and inter-connected for that. We desperately need to start exploring the possibilities of developing our mutual "enlightened self- interests" before it is too late. Unfortunately, it seems that the US is not prepared to do this in any reasonable way. It claims that such times are past -and that 09-11 proves that such an approach is naive. Others might claim that America never really gave it a fair shot. The really tragic problem, confronting us all, is the madness of G. W. Bush - who seems to believe that anybody not aggrreeing with him is an enemy (spot the difference with Saddam!). Unfortunately, this places others in the difficult position of either assisting Bush and his cronies to screw up the world -or to oppose him, which upsets him and causes him to screw up even more (I can imagine loyal Iraqis might have a similar problem). The really interesting aspect of the current situation is the widening gulf between citizens and governments around the world. However, in the long term, this is presumably extremely dangerous and as equally unsustainable as the corrupt governmental systems that are now operating globally. Unless of course we are prepared to accept higher levels of social chaos -or are able to develop new forms of social organization that allows for more flexible social systems (with higher levels of internal variation). Considering the current power of the US -if things are to change then one must suspect that either there must be an internal revolution in the US -or the power of the States must decline (or maybe both). On the other hand, it is possible that the US is unintentionally removing (for political, security and supposed commercial reasons) all the creative potential from its own social system -in which case it is likely to suffer the same fate as the USSR. captmingus@ev1.net wrote: "George W isn't going to be around 5 years from now, and honestly neither party want's to lay a consistent and realistic Foreign Policy platform in front of John Q Public, anymore than either wants to stick their necks out with little problems such as Social Security or Health Care." So it would seem that the future does not look too rosy for the US (and the rest of the world) if the possibility of change is so remote. by cherrie lynn lipsett" <cherrie9@intercorp.com> Re: the UN Charter I read with great interest (even printed it actually) the post on the UN. I do hope the UN calls an emergency meeting. It seems the only thing the UN can do to prove it is not completely immaterial. Really, from where I sit now and look into the future, I personally see the UN as becoming completely irrelevant not unless it wants to be known as the organization that has all nations donate to helping the nations the U.S. attacks and basically be known as the humanitarian organization that mops up the problems the U.S. leaves for them. I personally belief in the rule of law but the problem with the UN is it has no teeth. It might as well have a monkey type up its resolutions for all they do when coming up against a powerfully bully who does not believe in the rule of law or cares anything about the disapproval of other nations. You can read its resolutions but there is no power to back them up. Without power to back up a resolution what good does it do to be able to read it and understand what it says. It is as useless as the nonsense plucking of the keys of a computer by an ape. Or maybe the UN will call an emergency meeting since the US is totally against that maybe it would have some effect. We will just have to wait and see. I was hoping there would be a petition that would be sent to all members of the UN to sign but there was none. Since I am a US citizen, which at this point in time I am ashamed to admit, it would do me no good to contact my UN ambassador. by gausscg@yahoo.com Re: Cherrie's reply If we are to have hope for the future, then we must support the UN charter. B/c the charter is good, be it without power. It is useless to be anything but hopeful and work to support your ideals. Of course there is dark comfort in cynicism. It is a way of distancing yourself from the loosing side I think. by Sophia Barkat Re: gausscg@yahoo.com's reply The UN Charter should be read before people start endorsing it. However, once you do, I would welcome serious debate over this. My opinion is it's a parasitic institution meant to exploit third-world nations. See for yourself the limits of power of the Secretary General, the General Assembly and the overwhelming dominance of the Security Council. Here's the link: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html by Trevor Re: Sophia's response To be honest, considering the date and place of the founding agreement, it would be surprising if the UN was not designed to preserve the status quo. However, when in a somewhat repressed position, successful progress often depends on the ability to exploit the limited advantages that one has. In this sense, the UN has perhaps not done so badly -although clearly it is not perfect (as if anything can ever be perfect). It is up to individuals and groups to do the best they can. Perhaps the most important contribution is simply to provide a global forum in which issues can be introduced -even if many discussions can take many years to resolve (if ever). Apparently, there is talk of a reform (especially of the security council) -but considering the current crisis, it is difficult (at present) to predict if any changes will increase or decrease the power of the less powerful countries. Perhaps the most interesting problem confronting the UN is the relationship between the governed and the governments. In principle, the UN is an inter-governmental body -while much of its most important work seems to be involved with giving direct help to improving the position of (groups of) individuals. |
Encourage Political Discussion Join Juryfury Chat Promote Juryfury.com Join online discussion Groups Archives Writers Needed Be a Columnist Be an Editor Become an Owner Writing Training Program Internship Program for Students Advertise with Us Our Staff & Contributors Our Magazines Quietpoly.com I-Traderschool Juryfury.com The Company Our Address: QuietPoly Inc. 240 W. Saunders. Dr. (#146) Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Tel (928) 214-7365 quietpoly@yahoo.com Our Affiliations (pending member) MediaChannel.org IndyMedia.org We Support: Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign & The EFF.org |