| JuryFury.com
A New Issue Every Monday ! SUBSCRIBE NOW !! 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. |
Reforming the UN Case of Bangladesh by Trevor Batten I'm curious as to how you believe that dissolution of the UN will support Bangladeshi interests -what do you expect will (or want to) replace the UN? by Sophia Barkat Re: Trevor's Post How about an organization that does all the good things the UN does, without all the bad things it does? by Trevor Batten re: Sophia's post With the tooth fairy as Secretary General? How do you intend (or imagine) to create this with human beings? by Sophia Barkat re: Trevor's post Well, the Secretary General of the UN has no power. He simply reports to the UN Security Council, which controls decisions related to War etc. Any organization which replaces the UN should be structured such that there is no ambiguity of power. Titles should not be given more importance than they deserve. The UN Secretary General is erroneously considered as some kind of figurehead. The UN Charter does not bestow any powers on the person. (Articles 97-101, United Nations Charter) http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html Likewise rules should be made such that any member of the UN Security Council that starts a War or breaks rules should be punished by loss of certain number of vetoes but not barred from the Council as this would make no sense but to alienate the member. More so, the Security Council should be a large body not a membership of few poor nations whose votes can be bought and a few powerful members who can buy votes. We saw the danger of having few for-sale poorer members when the US was trying to woo votes in the last month. To make this more difficult without eliminating poor members I'd propose a large body of countries forming the Security Council. This makes it much costlier and more difficult to win votes for resolutions. The humanitarian programs such as FOOD FOR OIL are thieves. Iraq sold at 60cents per barrel under the FOOD FOR OIL PROGRAM. Such unfair and criminal price setting makes one very cautious of any humanitarian program the UN comes up with. UNCF, for e.g., was trying very hard to raise awareness about children dying in Iraq. This forced Iraq to keep selling at 60cents per barrel. While I do not like Saddam Hussein much, this was hardly a just punishment. It was more of a way to pocket easy money for members of the UN Security Council - the USA, France etc were main importers. by Trevor Batten Re: Sophia's post Ok! Let's say you are right. Then we must ask, why are (rational and fair) reforms (almost?) impossible in the UN? by Sophia Barkat Re: Trevor's post Member nations of the UN send their supposedly best negotiators - Foreign Service people. In reality, esp. true for small countries like Bangladesh, "who" gets sent is the current political party's favorite diplomat. These are people who like the comfort of living like a diplomat and do nothing to change the luxury lifestyle at the UN. If you were a Bangladeshi diplomat - Govt. Servant - at the UN....there is nothing you will do to get kicked out/sent back. I can imagine the same is true with other poor nations. Could the UN send you back? Diplomatic immunity may protect you from being prosecuted by the home country - USA or Switzerland - for almost any crime, but you will get sent back if you become a liability for your home country. The UN does give poorer nations some form of Aid. No country wants to lose it. As a result they don't send reform-minded hard-line negotiators. They send good beggars. Whoever plays along is good. If you raise your finger and complain... your country will lose out. However the General Assembly is democratic - everyone has one vote - and the vote is the right to voice your opinion on any issue. "Do you think Rwanda should get more AID?" things like that. UN resolutions you hear about that get imposed on Iraq or Serbia etc do not get voted and decided in the General Assembly. Even if they do, all votes in the General Assembly merely get relayed to the Security Council. The Secretary General is the "selected" or "appointed" chair of the General Assembly. He/she informs the Security Council - which is the head of the cobra, so to speak - and his/her job is to go back and rely the Security Council information and allow more useless debates perpetuate in the General Assembly. The General Assembly doesn't appoint the Secretary General. The Security Council chooses him/her such that every continent gets a turn every 7 years. That's the rule, but the African Continent got it's chance overlooked until Butros Butros Ghali. Because of this Kofi Annan got selected right after - to make up for the missed chance before.< The General Assembly allows member countries to express issues of concern. That the UN will do anything about it - and I mean the Security Council - is up to whether it is harmful or benefiicial to member nations of the Council. I think breaking down the Security Council and giving power to the General Assembly is what should be done. This will make the UN or any such organization truly democratic and also useful. Otherwise the power inequality between Security Council and Assembly will perpetuate exploitation of poorer nations. Also it will empower the Secretary General. Right now, he/she had no power but since the Security Council does not like to be blamed for the ineffectiveness of the UN, they have created this "pseudo-leadership" model out of the Secretary General to make him/her look like an ineffective. This takes the focus of the blame onto him/her and is a clever disguise. Empowering should stop this the Secretary General. by Trevor Batten re: Sophia's post "Member nations of the UN send their supposedly best negotiators - Foreign Service people. In reality, esp. true for small countries like Bangladesh, "who" gets sent is the current political party's favorite diplomat. These are people who like the comfort of living like a diplomat and do nothing to change the luxury lifestyle at the UN." This is hardly the fault of the UN -and would possibly be difficult to avoid in any professional or political organization -where this kind of approach is an accepted part of the culture. Sophia wrote: "If you were a Bangladeshi diplomat - Govt. Servant - at the UN....there is nothhhing you will do to get kicked out/sent back. I can imagine the same is true with other poor nations." I suspect this is true of most rich nations too (and not only in the UN) - I haven't heard many people in power, in AAAmerica or England, stand up and say that the government is talking a load of garbage. Instead, they all prefer to get trained like monkeys -so they do not say the wrong thing in public. Unfortunately, this often means that they never, ever, say anything intelligent in public (one cannot know what is said in private). Sophia wrote: "Could the UN send you back? Diplomatic immunity may protect you from being prosecuted by the home country - USA or Switzerland - for almost any crimee, but you will get sent back if you become a liability for your home country. The UN does give poorer nations some form of Aid. No country wants to lose it. As a result they don't send reform-minded hard-line negotiators. They send good beggars. Whoever plays along is good. If you raise your finger and complain...your country will lose out." So -is it any different for those who stay at home and work for the government (in other countries)? Are you suggesting that all governments (as well as the UN) should be disbanded as soon as possible? If so, are you thinking of any kind of alternative structure? Sophia wrote: "However the General Assembly is democratic - everyone has one vote - and the vote is the right to voice your opinion on any issue. "Do you think Rwanda should get more AID?" things like that." But surely, this is the fun of the whole game! Think of a bunch of girlfriends planning a night out together -it's quite likely that they all have different habits and interests which are all pulling in different directions -so compromises have to be made..... or else they can fight like cats..... Sophia wrote: "UN resolutions you hear about that get imposed on Iraq or Serbia etc do not get voted and decided in the General Assembly. Even if they do, all votes in the General Assembly merely get relayed to the Security Council." Ok! So now you are arguing against the structure (the charter) of the UN -but who set up that charter and why? Sophia wrote: "The Secretary General is the "selected" or "appointed" chair of the General Assembly. He/she informs the Security Council - which is the head of the cobra, so to speak - and his/her job is to go back and rely the Security Council information and allow more useless debates perpetuate in the General Assembly." But are these debates so useless? Even if no decisions are made, then at least people get to hear what other people think about things and maybe this encourages them to work together with those with similar interests. You know, I worked ten years in an art college that was run by an increasingly incompetent and paranoid director -in many ways it was a bit like living in a country like Iraq or East Germany. If you said naughty things and the wrong people heard it then it reached the ears of the director -and he would find some way to pay you back. Luckily, I worked in a good department -with people that I could trust -but I hardly knew anybody from any other departments. For many years we didn't even have a staff room where we could meet each other and discuss things. In the beginning they had staff meetings, first twice a year, then once a year and then none at all. When they did have meetings, people were laughed at if they publicly said something interesting or intelligent. This was supposed to be an institution of higher education -training young artists! Under such conditions, One would have welcomed a general assembly -with official rules for starting debates annnd setting the agenda -even if it had no power. Once, and only once, teachers got together in small groups to discuss things informally -I was surprised how much in agreement I was with a painter -who I thought would be opposed to computers. Sophia wrote: "The General Assembly doesn't appoint the Secretary General. The Security Council chooses him/her such that every continent gets a turn every 7 years. That's the rule, but the African Continent got its chance overlooked until Butros Butros Ghali. Because of this Kofi Annan got selected right after - to make up for the missed chance before." So, why is this so bad? Sophia wrote: "The General Assembly allows member countries to express issues of concern. That the UN will do anything about it - and I mean the Security Council - is up to whether it is harmful or beneficial to member nations of the Council." OK -you mean the five permanent members, I assume. So the whole setup is to preserve the power of the big five -so the little fish have to be clever and play the diplomatic game within the margins offered. One assumes that they would have even less power if the diplomatic game was abolished (which is probably why America wishes to abolish it -even though it has a pretty powerful position already). I guess this is why small countries in Europe also want to join the EU -they probably have a greater say within tthe organization than they would if they were outside. Sophia wrote: "I think breaking down the Security Council and giving power to the General Assembly is what should be done. This will make the UN or any such organization truly democratic and also useful." Yes, but would America ever permit a democratic UN? It has problems with the current one - and I don't hear it shouting for more democracy as a solution to the "problems" that it has with the UN. Sophia wrote: "Otherwise the power inequality between Security Council and Assembly will perpetuate exploitation of poorer nations." Perhaps... but I suspect they will be even more easy to exploit if the UN was abolished. If nine or ten of the little countries had voted for the war against Iraq -then it might have seemed slightly more legitimate than it does when only America and Britain appear to want it (in the security council). When running naked in public before strangers -then perhaps even the smallest of fig-leaves is welcome -so the small countries do have a bargaining chip -which they would not have at all if they weeere not in the security council (even if their existence in the security council is only to provide a fig leaf for the big five)! Sophia wrote: "Also it will empower the Secretary General. Right now, he/she had no power but since the Security Council does not like to be blamed for the ineffectiveness of the UN, they have created this "pseudo-leadership" model out of the Secretary General to make him/her look like an ineffective. This takes the focus of the blame onto him/her and is a clever disguise. This should be stopped by empowering the Secretary General." Sure, the whole thing is a set up -but if it can't be improved within the existing structure -then how the hell do you think a better system could be set up if the current system was abolished? Why are you living in the country that probably objects more than any other is country to democratic reforms in the UN that might benefit your country? If you only have an old creaking bicycle -and you can't afford to buy a new one -don't you think it is silly to throw away the old bike -just because it is not perfect? by Sophia Barkat Re: Trevor's post Trevor, But I just proposed how to reform the UN: 1) Get rid of the Security Council 2) Transfer the Security Council's power to the General Assembly 3) And empower the Secretary General. ....And I'm staying in the US so that I can run for US President in 20500 --- when the first South Asian will beee eligible ;-) by Trevor Batten Re: Sophia's post I'm afraid I do not believe that: a. Fly to Mars b. Buy a peace ray c. Return and bring peace to Earth is a very practical way to save the planet from destroying itself. It seems to me that through idealism you are unfortunately supporting the very people who create many of the problems you are trying to solve. US neo-liberals appear to be opposed to the UN -presumably because it interferes with their wish to have total freedom, irrespective of the cost to others -and not because the UN is so ineffective. SSSurely, if the UN was so ineffective, then there would be no need to oppose it -especially when one considers that the whole charter is designed to keep the organization under the control of the (originally) five and currently (supposedly) single global power(s). US imperialist propaganda claims that the UN has proved itself ineffective because it did not support the current war. However, it seems to me that this toothless organization (so easily open to pressure from Big Brother) has in fact done remarkably well by refusing to legitimize the US invasion of Iraq. The American (and British) governments like to claim that Resolution 1441 justifies the invasion -and that the UN is weak because it refuses to accept the consequences of its own resolution. However, this is completely untrue. The France (and others) only accepted resolution after specifically stating that acceptance must not imply an automatic justification for the war. The Security Council specifically retained the right to decide if Iraq has complied -and if not, then what the "serious consequueences" must be. The American government (with Powell as spokesman, I believe) publicly accepted this position (which it later reneged on -just as Blair reneged on his declared acceptance of the EU position). After unilaterally building up troops (without the specific instruction from the UN) the pressure (from the US upon itself) to move into Iraq was becoming greater. Having been unable to sabotage the inspection process, which seemed to be working well (as it had done previously) the US government claimed that 1441 justified war. To compound and obscure this lie, the US accused the UN of refusing to accept its commitments. This is completely untrue -it was the US that was breaking its own agreement with the UN. The position taken by the US government has consistently ignored the truth. Their "evidence" was not convincing (and appeared to be contradicted by inspections on the ground), the excuse for the invasion kept changing (national security, disarmament and civil liberties) while their propaganda against Iraq consistently ignored the fact that America itself (including Rumsfeld) had supported Iraq in arming itself, the US also supported Iraq's attacks on neighbouring Iran (which had humiliated the US earlier) -and deliberately misinterpreted the 1441 resolution. From the beginning -Bush had clearly stated that the UN route would only be followed as long as it supported US policies -and the US would take unilateral action if opposed by the UN. This is, in effect, exactly what happened (so at least Bush was honest on this point). As a result, the UN had two choices -to accept defeat and wait until the US decides that it still needs the UN to "build bridges" (in which case the UN will retain some bargaining power, dependent on how badly the US has screwed up) -or the UN (if it could circumvent the US veto) could have tried to pass resolutions condemning the US and imposing sanctions against it. In the latter case, (assuming it was procedurally possible) the UN would effectively have declared a global war against the US. Considering the problems this would bring, it is probably not so unreasonable that this path was not taken. In my view, it is not fair to blame the UN for being beaten up by the biggest bully on the block. To blame the victim for the damage they have sustained only encourages the bully and makes it even more likely that even more people will suffer in the future -as all resistance is slowly eroded. Presumably, this is the intention. The current battle is not concerned with the "liberation" of Iraq -it concerned with the domination of the whole planet. The UN is the only organization that might be capable of frustrating the apparent US ambition of global domination. True, it is not certain that the UN can succeed -but if it can't, then the future (even for America) does not look very attractive. Until now, America has not proved too clever in solving complex problem. Most of the current problems (from the structure of the UN to the nature of the regime in Baghdad) are at least partly the result of previous American policies. If the world is such a screw up now -what will it be like when America gets total control? Despite military superiority, the bottom line is: The world simply cannot sustain American life-styles on a global scale. If America wins -then we all loose! by Sophia Barkat Re: Trevor's post I don't see how we disagree. I never said the UN was useful the way it stands. I never said I supported American foreign policy. My dissatisfaction with the UN is that it is the UN - an organization that was created to serve the permanent members of the Security Council - and I hold my own government to blame for ever being a lackey, not the US or the UK or any other super-power. People who have a lackey mentality will behave like one. Governments of poorer nations like to play dumb when it suits them. It brings money in and keeps the political parties in power. But if we were to have an organization for the people of the world it would have to look like the UN without the Security Council and with a Secretary General who has more power to execute things. We might be able to start such an ideal organization but it would have no funding and so be equally powerless. So, it's safe to say people should be content with their own national governments to do the right thing for them and stop hoping there will be some benevolent superpower. After all, if everyone is unhappy with their nation states - the little plot of land for which they are ready to die for - then why even be one? I am a globalist and don't believe in political borders. The little nation-state doesn't work for me. It's too selfish an idea to be good for the human race as a whole. As a result, I plan on being a landless immigrant and enjoy this planet for what it is. by Trevor Batten re: Sophia's post "I don't see how we disagree. I never said the UN was useful the way it stands. I never said I supported American foreign policy. My dissatisfaction with the UN is that it is the UN - an organization that was created to serve the permanent members of the Security Council - and I hold my own government to blame for ever being a lackey, not the US or the UK or any other super-power. People who have a lackey mentality will behave like one. Governments of poorer nations like to play dumb when it suits them. It brings money in and keeps the political parties in power." I think the problem is that your idealistic enthusiasm is tempting you to throw away the baby with the bath water. It has been said that American's treat their foreign policy as a game of poker, while others treat it as a game of chess. As far as I can see. diplomacy is a chess like game of "paper, scissors, stone" -in other words, the available choices may be fairly limited -but they are not absolute (i.e. stone looses against paper but paper looses against scissors which looses against stone). This means, that one has to play ones cards right (this seems to brings us back to the poker game -so it seems we do need to add an element of poker into the mix). The point being, I guess, that a weak hand can be a strong hand, if it is played right (which may include bluffing). So one would be silly to give up the game just because one has a weak hand. We agree that the smaller countries of the world do have a weak hand (they were intended to have a weak hand -otherwise they might win and that would not be acceptable to those that already have power -because it would mean loosing that power). However, you seem to say "Because the hand is weak we must change the game" while I'm trying to say "You cannot change the game -because you are not meant to win -so you muuust find a way to win with the hand you have". If you refuse to play your hand then you are out of the game. Perhaps, if you are very clever, you can use your hand to change the game -but this cannot be done by simply snapping your fingers and saying "Let's change the rules!". You insult your country and accuse them of having a lackey mentality (which may well be true). You also imply that this attitude is somehow related to poverty -however, the situation is more complex: Tony Blair seems to be a lackey of the US -and Britain is not supposed to be a third world country. In diplomacy, politics, marketing and chess, one player often sells something cheap in order to trick the other player into falling into a trap (checkmate!). Most of Britain's defense system (and possibly its trade too) has been based on the premise of co-operation with the US -and, as other countries have discovered, upsetting the US comes at a heavy price. Unfortunately, by pleasing the US, Britain has upset the only partners who could probably have helped Britain to resist pressure from the US (if it has any chance at all). Sophia wrote: "But if we were to have an organization for the people of the world it would have to look like the UN without the Security Council and with a Secretary General who has more power to execute things. We might be able to start such an ideal organization but it would have no funding and so be equally powerless." So how could such an ideal organization exist -if the conditions it needs to exist do not exist? Is it not better to have a less than ideal system which works sometimes than not to have any system at all? Presumably, a non-existent ideal system will not be able to achieve anything at all. Sophia wrote: "So, it's safe to say people should be content with their own national governments to do the right thing for them and stop hoping there will be some benevolent superpower." Presumably, this is intended to be ironic. How can we expect governments to look after their people -when they are so open to various temptations? Within a body as the UN there is perhaps a chance to develop minimum standards of good government -just as any professional body tends to do (i.e. the way doctors and teachers get together to define minimum standards, in order to protect themselves against charges of malpractice). The superpower is not benevolent -therefore the small fish must unite to protect themselves from being eaten. Sophia wrote: "After all, if everyone is unhappy with their nation states - the little plot of land for which they are ready to die for - then why even be one?" You would probably still need (shifting) alliances between states -otherwise the smaller states would be quickly swallowed up by aggressive large states. Until recently, the principle of national sovereignty has been upheld by all the UN member states. The US has unilaterally abandoned this principle. If you accept that change -then you will be condoning the invasion of any country by any other country -and you are creating a dangerous world in which international law (weak as it is) no longer has a place. The size of ones army then becomes the only thing that counts in international relationships, and smaller countries will be in a worse position than they have been under the UN system (unless of course they prefer being part of an empire). Sophia wrote: "I am a globalist and don't believe in political borders." I'd advise you to think more about alternatives before you jump into an unknown space, with possibly only a nasty drop waiting for you. Personally, I suspect that the whole mythology of the "virtual" computer (which has turned a formal machine into a consumer plaything) has encouraged people to fall into the right-wing trap: They have been encouraged to believe that it's all in the mind, so it doesn't matter what one does. Encouraged to get rid of all formal systems and just do as one wishes! However, in my view, this is exactly the position that the American extreme right wants you to support -because then the US (as most powerful country) is also justified in doing whatever it wishes without restraint. The road to hell really is paved with good intentions -and clever politicians know how to exploit this. "Saddam is evil", they say "We must kill him and save the Iraqi people!". "Yes, yes!" shout the innocent fools -but the next day it is someone else who is evil and must be removed -and before one knows you have also been declared to be an evil person and so you too must be removed! By allowing the rules to be broken to support things that you wish to be done -you are encouraging others to break the rulles to do things that you do not wish to be done. This is exactly the way "lackeys" are created -because they have sold their souls and whhen the devil comes for them they have no argument to use against him. Sophia wrote: "The little nation state doesn't work for me. It's too selfish an idea to be good for the human race as a whole. As a result, I plan on being a landless immigrant and enjoy this planet for what it is." Call it a house, call it a village, call it a town, call it a nation state, call it an empire or a federation or a united nations -but on some level, in some way, people need (in general) to cooperate in ways that transcend their individual selfish egocentrism! It has been said that when Iraq was an integral part of the Ottoman empire, it was indeed part of a truly multi-cultural state. It was only when the western powers split it off and made it into a nation state that the problems started. One could probably claim that the creation of nation states (by the imperial powers) in Africa (and other places) has created many serious problems for the regions involved. Bangladesh has also been a pawn in many different power games throughout history -both before and after the British colonization of the area. Once recognized as an independent state, the UN has, until now, supported its continued sovereignty and (presumably) its transition towards democracy. The end of the UN would probably return Bangladesh (and the rest of the world) to the previous state of international anarchy, which did not seem to be too much to its advantage previously. However my knowledge of its history is insufficient for me to judge, it is for you to contemplate the alternatives and seriously research the possible outcomes of the different choices. However, the consequences could be serious -so I'd advise you to think carefully -and not jump to (potentially dangerous) romantic conclusions. I would not dream of claiming that the UN is a perfect organization, nor would I claim that international law is perfect -or that the nation state is the ideal political structure. However, I suspect it is rather stupid to go swimming alone and unprotected when sharks are swimming in the water. At present, the sharks are running the White House and they are hungry -one should not throw away one's only protection -however flimsy it may be. If the sharks are allowed to become unrestrained then there will surely be a feeding frenzy -and the rest of the world will be the prey! by Sophia Barkat Re: Trevor's post I am unhappy with Bangladesh's involvement in the UN and find no need to congratulate them. That's why I said what I did. I do love my country as I love Earth in general. But I find no blind faith need to endorse what our government does. I do propose reforms in the UN. And I think members should push for it at all cost or pull out in protest. I just think it's a waste of time to be part of an organization that wishes to cripple you and use you. Look at Iraq. Apart from having the bad luck of being run by an annoying dictatorial regime they get punished by the UN - a completely criminal organization, if yoouu consider the Food for Oil program. Why is Bangladesh or any country part of this nasty enterprise? It's a completely lackey mentality. I think all countries should pull out of the UN and oust the World Bank, IMF and all such organizations which have a "carrot and stick" business plan. Abusive relationships are bad for health. I do believe in a world without borders. Not the type where the border is felled down by tanks and bombs, as the US is doing in Iraq. But one in which people treat each other with respect and understand that we are human beings first and American or Chinese or Bangladeshi or British way later... by Trevor Batten Re: Sophia's post I certainly do not dispute your good intentions -I'm just saying that good intentions are not enough (and in some situations can be extremely dangerous, even fatal). Many people who support the war against Iraq have good intentions. They want to see the end of Saddam and they believe the war is the best way to do this. Unfortunately, they do not ask themselves if there are better ways of dealing with Saddam -or if the cure is not going to prove worse than the disease -and they do not appreciate that by supporttiing the war they are encouraging the substitution of international law by unilateral vigilantism. There is no dispute over the question of the UN (and other institutions) being imperfect. The dispute concerns the way one improves the situation. Perhaps it is possible to reform these institutions to make them more effective tools for a just society -perhaps not. Maybe the other international organizations are less important -but, in my view, the UN (with all its faults) is probably better than nothing. If you believe that the US is more likely to use tanks and bombs instead of respect to break down borders, then doesn't it worry you that you are both opposed to the UN? Does this not suggest to you that it would be in the advantage of the US to see the UN disappear -and if this is so, then presumably its disappearance will not help your country one little bit (unless you believe the US only has the interest of your country at heart)! Incidentally, I'm not so sure that this "we are human beings first and British, etc, a long way behind" is a totally good idea either. Maybe I'm earlier a Brit. than I am a human being. That doesn't mean that I wish to kill all non-Brits, but it does mean that I have a certain background (and maybe a certain set of values - perhaps it even binds you and me in subtle, mysterious, ways). If I lived in Britain then I might feel just as isolated from my environment as I do living in Holland (probably because I've been living in Holland) -however, I do object to the idea that we arre all the same -and should be treated the same. Perhaps New Yorkers and Californians are all "American" -but it doesn't mean that you can simply mixx them all up and they'll all live happily together. They don't need to kill each other -but they might have lifestyles that make lliving together slightly difficult. In fact, one of the things I have problems with living here is the fact that the Dutch believe, like you, that "we are all human". In practice this means that they cannot understand that I do think and act like them. On the one hand, they demand that foreigners integrate into their society -and on the other hand they deny that such a (coherent) society exists. In practice, Dutch society is very homogenous -although they believe themselves to be individuals. In fact, I suspect that the situation is the same in the states. Individuals need to be similar to other individuals if they are to compete fairly within a society of individuals. Sheep are individuals! Wolves work in packs. Because they function as a group, wolves can specialize and there is space for different characters with different skills! Personally, I believe one of the worst examples of bad "good intentions" is the way many people say "Treat others as you would have them treat you". In my opinion, this is completely wrong -one should treat others as they wish to be treated -and not as you wish to be treated! Without boundaries, there can be no distinctions. Without distinctions there can be no rules and no structures. Without these there can be no criteria, no discussion, no rights and no wrongs. If humans are to transcend their primitive nature and to learn to co-operate in order to survive -then they will need to understand that rules are an essential part of life (and culture). By accepting the idea that rules represent undesirable restrictions that should be abolished, we move not towards civilization (which is based on rules) but towards barbarism. We are now at war because the US refuses to accept the rules of the game. The war is supported by people who believe that the ends always justify the means. The commercial system has promoted the idea that every citizen has the right to instant gratification with no restriction. We are now paying the price! by Sophia Barkat Re: Trevor's post I see how you can be alarmed that the US Govt. wants to dismantle the UN. Frankly I don't see why they do. It serves them well from what I see. I can see how regular Americans might be opposed to it if they agree with me that the UN is just a criminal organization. Why does the US Govt. want the UN gone? Is it tired of paying bills? Is it the landmine issue? But what about all the good things that come out of the membership? Did not the UN nicely disarm Iraq before the recent US invasion? Does not the UN do anything about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? It seems the UN will go belly under at the rate no one pays their bills. Perhaps, a countdown is not far off. I understand what you mean by Holland's double standards about everyone being the same and then asking people to be homogenous. It's pretty common sentiment in Western Europe. Recently I feel the pressure in the US these days, what with the war. "resistance is futile - we will assimilate you"...LOL But accepting people's differences is showing people the kind of respect I am talking about. Expecting people to hide their true selves and becoming a homogenous culture is precisely what I mean by the narrow-mindedness of nationalism. What is love for one's country anyway? Love for one's national ideals? What are those anyway? Or it a greater love for humanity and a sense of possessiveness about a plot of land? I mean, what is so bad about the landscape of China that I cannot love it as much as Bangladesh? What is so different about the Chinese people that I cannot love them like my own? I don't get it...Do we not have an inherent curiosity about other cultures? Do we not love to travel to far off lands? Why then do we become territorial about small differences in how we say the same things? There are supposedly good things about being a nationalist. For one if you think about your country you try to do good things for your people. Frankly, I applaud any such act of altruism. But perhaps, I find it difficult to better my own at the expense of someone else's happiness. That's why I don't think Bangladeshi should go to war with India over the Farrakah Dam. But perhaps it is best for us that we do.. I seriously think nationalism is an arcane concept and should be traded in. The world is a small place...So small, that it's sad many people will have never traveled before they die and live in little towns and villages and wonder what the world is like, albeit holding on to some kind of expression they think they have a national patent on. by Trevor Batten Re: Sophia's post Sophia wrote: "I see how you can be alarmed that the US Govt. wants to dismantle the UN. Frankly I don't see why they do. It serves them well from what I see. I can see how regular Americans might be opposed to it if they agree with me that the UN is just a criminal organization." Well, I think Duncan's article shows that the world is changing. If one looks carefully, then American hegemony is under threat (probably in the UN too). A cornered rat fights the hardest -so this could explain why America is taking such an aggressive position. Clearly, spreading the idea that the UN is a criminal organization helps one to get rid of it -just as Iraq got painted as a criminal country, so that it can now be quietly helped back into the US fold. The UN got in the way -and so the UN must pay! Sophia's wrote: "Why does the US Govt. want the UN gone? Is it tired of paying bills? Is it the landmine issue? But what about all the good things that come out of the membership?" Not if members don't follow the party line. But tonight I heard on the news that Russia and Germany were supporting a quick victory in Baghdad (so Powell's little trip seems to be paying off)....... Sophia's wrote: "Did not the UN nicely disarm Iraq before the recent US invasion?" Yes, but it did not support the invasion. Sophia's wrote: "Does not the UN do nothing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?" Well, it may be forced too soon. Until now the US has been able to maintain puppet governments in the region -but the war is upsetting their populations so much that they may well be forced to choose for popular opinion against the US -or else go in for some pretty heavy repression which might make the situation even more inflammable. Sophia wrote: "It seems the UN will go belly under at the rate no one pays their bills. Perhaps a countdown is not far off." Yes, I guess they are a bit worried -ultimately, it is a war of nerves. The US needs to maintain the impression that it is invincible -which is why disobedient states must be severely punished, because once one country stands up and gets away with it then the rest will follow. Remember the British empire? Remember the Soviet Union? Sophia wrote: "I understand what you mean by Holland's double standards about everyone being the same and then asking people to be homogenous. It's pretty common sentiment in Western Europe. Recently I feel the pressure in the US these days, what with the war. "resistance is futile - we will assimilate you"...LOL" Yes. To be honest -when I meet other foreigners I quite often say "I'm a British racist -we cannot be like each other -but we can like each other (or maybe not)". It seems this is quite often a good basis for friendship. I'm prepared to be corrected by others (especially our commonwealth friend) -but I believe there is something quite non---discriminatory about British racism (we hate everybody -and love a good fight). Sophia wrote: "But accepting people's differences is showing people the kind of respect I am talking about." Yes, I know. But I love paradoxes -and they are in such short supply in western culture (we don't believe they exist -so we have to kill them when we see them, or we would have to deny our cultural values!).... Sophia wrote: "Expecting people to hide their true selves and becoming a homogenous culture is precisely what I mean by the narrow-mindedness of nationalism." Perhaps this is where the discipline of computer programming is useful (or some other "formal" system) . I would call the "homogenous culture" the "fascism of internationalism". One-sided Israeli (or American) fanaticism reflects the "narrow-mindedness of nationalism". Sophia wrote: "What is love for one's country anyway? Love for one's national ideals? What are those anyway? Or it a greater love for humanity and a sense of possessiveness about a plot of land?" Yes, this is a nice one to contemplate...... Perhaps one cannot love others unless one loves oneself (and vice versa). Maybe when I love my land then I can understand your love of your land. Once, I took a Russian night-train from Berlin to Amsterdam. There was a small pot in the sleeping compartment. I asked a Russian traveler what it was for -he replied it was to put flowers in! Sophia wrote: "I mean, what is so bad about the landscape of China that I cannot love it as much as Bangladesh? What is so different about the Chinese people that I cannot love them like my own?" I'm afraid the answer is in the blood. Coming back from Wales to Amsterdam, I started talking to two Dutch fellow passengers going home (they were a married couple from the North of Holland). They asked where I'd been and I told them Wales. Simultaneously, the one cried "Bah! Mountains, I hate them" and the other one cried "Oh! Mountains, how lovely!". I didn't inquire into their marriage ;) ...... Personally, I find the Dutch landscape incredibly boring........... I hate wide open spaces and cold winds roaring over the plains (don't think I'd be happy in Kansas -or the Russian steppes)! I love the Chinese mountains (from what I've seen in pictures) -but I get terrified if I stand on a chair! Sophia wrote: "I don't get it...Do we not have an inherent curiosity about other cultures?" I do! Sophia wrote: "Do we not love to travel to far off lands?" I do! (in fact I may be more of a nomad than I realize) Sophia wrote: "Why then do we become territorial about small differences in how we say the same things?" Perhaps this too is dependant on "cultural differences". Some people have a need to have roots and other people feel the urge to keep moving. In my experience, once one leaves one does not really belong anywhere. One cannot go back (because one has changed) and one may find it difficult to stay (because one does not belong). Again, these things operate in subtle ways. My parent and a neighbor had the same type of dog (maybe from the same nest). I thought the neighbor's dog was very timid -until we took our dog to visit them. Several years ago, I was walking through my home town in England, and suddenly found myself in an Asian community. Everywhere I looked there were (unidentified) Asians sitting outside in the sun -even the shop fronts were unreadable for me. To be honest -I found it a bit frightening. I did not know these people, I did not know their social codes. Maybe I might accidentally do something to upset them. How could I know? At that point I realized how easy fears could lead to violence. If I go abroad, then I know that I am on strange territory and that I should perhaps be careful how I behave -but to feel a stranger in one's own town could easily lead to problems. On the other hand, I was in Oxford (England -of university fame) and found a back street that was full of foreign shops (with signs in English and whatever). The whole area was exotic and exciting (and cheap too) -lots of students eating cheap meals in one big happy ethnic mix. Ultimately, its just like toothpaste tubes. Some people squeeze them at the ends and some people squeeze them in the middle. Some people can't care how it's squeezed while others find a wrongly squeezed tube unbearable! Sophia wrote: "There are supposedly good things about being a nationalist. For one if you think about your country you try to do good things for your people. Frankly, I applaud any such act of altruism. But perhaps, I find it difficult to better my own at the expense of someone else's happiness." Sure -but it doesn't always need to be a zero sum game where somebody loses. Sophia wrote: "That's why I don't think Bangladeshi should go to war with India over the Farrakah Dam." Sure -its why I'm not happy about Brits killing Iraqis -although I'm afraid that it does seem that Brits like a good punch up now and again (and again)...... Sophia wrote: "But perhaps it is best for us that we do.." I suspect that in the long term it may be better not too -although I suppose this could be disputed. As far as I can see, a short pause in the traditional British war with France (in the middle ages) meant that not enough sons were being killed -so they left the land and moved into citiies, which I suppose eventually lead to the industrial revolution...... Sophia wrote: "I seriously think nationalism is an arcane concept and should be traded in. But for what? Actually, in this context, "insurance" is an interesting concept. Traditionally (it is said) there is a pact between the leader and the lead. In exchange for obedience, the leader must look after his (her) people. However, insurance changes this relationship -you pay a premium and if things go wrong then you get money but nothing else -and you owe nothing (except money) to the company. In the middle ages -each local ruler could set up the area under his control as he wished. Apparently, People were often punished, not by local rules, but under the rules of their local lord. Priests fell under the laws of the church and not under the laws of the place where they were. So, I suppose one could combine the two systems -and one becomes a voluntary (paid up) member of some (commercial?) social group and they looked after according to the contract. Different (companies/societies) could have different contracts. One would also need to make contracts between the groups as to how other groups must treat members from different groups. We could live in tribes, or in family groups -or as wandering individuals -but it gets tricky when one group wants to settle down somewhere and another group wants to walk over the land of those that have settled there. How do we sort out this kind of thing? Or we could just get rid of all rules -and let everybody survive how they can. To be honest it is amazing how a small blackbird (for example) can bring up a nest of young birds in an area full of cats and no police. However, I don't think birds have time to write book or watch films and TV -although I'm not sure if this is because they have no rules or they have no rules because they can't read books...... Sophia wrote: "The world is a small place...So small, that it's sad many people will have never traveled before they die and live in their little towns and villages and wonder what the world is like, albeit holding on to some kind of expression they think they have a national patent on." Well, I like having societies with different rules. Otherwise there would be little point in travelling I suppose. Sometimes the differences in rules can have a great effect. Even differences in the rules of inheritance can have a big impact on a society. If the oldest inherits, then the farms stay big -but if all the kids get a share then the land gets broken up until it eventually becomes too small to be of any use. It seems that revolt was more difficult in England than on the continent -because the English King demanded double allllegiance -both to him and the local lord. So the local lord could not use his serfs to attack the king -without then breaking their allegiance. Some people even talk about some religions as being "backward" if they do not conform to their social values. I find that a pity. Why can't some people be "backward" if they wish. I don't like being forced to rush off and buy the latest equipment. If I've spent hours and hours learning to do something on my computer -then why should I be forced to buy a new model? Why can't I live cheaply in an old house if I wish to? Why can I not ride on a camel (or an elephant) and believe strange things if I wish? In a radio programme on a competition for "Islamic" architecture, it transpired that traditional Islamic building practices could lead to great improvements in western buildings if they were introduced. If everybody is forced to do things the same way -then not only will the world become a very boring place but we shall also loose lots of different ways of looking at the world. If our society keeps on screwing up at the rate it has been doing -then, soon, we may well be extremely pleased that there are a few people left who think differently and who might be able to point to new ways of moving forward. |
Encourage 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 |