Smooth Running Democracies

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by DanaC

It's not about the UN dicating to the US. The US is a part of the UN. The UN is the primary arbiter of International Law, a concept to which America is (was?) committed. Invading Iraq was contrary to International Law.

The US belongs to the UN voluntarily. At no point in time should the US comply with policies of an international organization that are counter to our best interests - our INDIVIDUAL national best interests. Now we may debate what the best interests are (and I certainly won't argue the Iraq point), but the point is that allowing an outside organization to dictate our policies and actions is not a good course of action.

The sad truth is that this is not Star Trek, we do not have one government representing our planet in the federation. We are a bunch of nations each jockeying for our perceived national interests. They will not always be in alignment with each other. The UN is simply a marketplace for maneuvering. When it works in our favor great. When it isn't working in our favor - screw it. You may not like it but that is the truth for all the large nations.

Originally Posted by lookout123

At no point in time should the US comply with policies of an international organization that are counter to our best interests - our INDIVIDUAL national best interests. .

This is a contradiction in it's own terms. Considering that the fundamental dispute (on this particular point) is the U.S. invasion of Irak, then I wonder if you really know what planet you're on.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

It's not about the UN dicating to the US. The US is a part of the UN. The UN is the primary arbiter of International Law, a concept to which America is (was?) committed. Invading Iraq was contrary to International Law.

The UN is a joke and should be abolished.

Originally Posted by DanaC

It's not about the UN dicating to the US. The US is a part of the UN. The UN is the primary arbiter of International Law, a concept to which America is (was?) committed. Invading Iraq was contrary to International Law.

Precisely.

The UN was created out of international concern for the ill-effects of war. In any case, it is not called "dictating" when a majority vote of any organization has had its' vote. As we should all realize this is called democratic principle, and as you say, Dana, America is (was?) committed to the international concept of a such a democratic body. Those who do not adhere to democratic principles cannot really be considered democratic themselves.

[aimeecc]

Originally Posted by DanaC

It's not about the UN dicating to the US. The US is a part of the UN. The UN is the primary arbiter of International Law, a concept to which America is (was?) committed. Invading Iraq was contrary to International Law.

First, I was against the Iraq War, mostly because I believed it would turn into, well, what it is today. Thomas Friedman anticipated civil war as the outcome 2 months before we invaded. However, with that said, I have to side with lookout123

Originally Posted by lookout123
At no point in time should the US comply with policies of an international organization that are counter to our best interests - our INDIVIDUAL national best interests.

Every nation in the UN follows its national interests first. Look at France and nuclear testing in the Pacific... their non ratification of the Partial Test Ban Treaty... what about the nations (Germany, France, Russia) that went against the UN mandated sanctions against exporting arms to Iraq? How about China's support for the government of Sudan? China is the reason there will not be any UN mandate on Darfur. They have several oil contracts with Sudan, and do not want to jeopardize their ability to get oil. Its easy to point at the USA and say "bad America, you don't follow the UN", but geez... not many other nations do either. We're not the only nation to not ratify environmental treaties. Were not the only one that uses military power. Were just the easiest to pick on.

[lookout123]

The UN was created to keep smaller nations in line. The UN was created to give the appearance that we can all "just get along". The UN was created as a place to negotiate and maneuver the interests of nations with the goal of keeping the world order in the same basic order it was at the time the UN was founded. Lots of pretty flowery words were used to talk about the commitment to international peace and goodwill - but in the end the UN was and is just a tool.

[ZenGum]

The UN is not effectively stopping war and human misery caused by international non-cooperation. It may be limiting these ills a little but isn't doing a very good job.

But why do people therefore conclude it should be abolished or abandoned?

My tap isn't pouring enough water into my sink, therefore I should turn it off and give up.
No, my tap isn't pouring enough water into my sink, therefore I should try turning it on harder, and if that doesn't work, get a new and bigger pipe put in and use that.

Having an effective planetary government would, I believe, be a good thing if it were done right, for the same reasons local and national governments are in general good things. True, the UN isn't delivering what we want from a global government. So what we need to do is make it work better. It might take substantial reform. It might take starting over from scratch. There are many issues and problems and dangers. But I can think of few things more important for human civilization than this.

[lookout123]

OK, think this one through rationally. If you live in one of the more powerful prosperous nation why in the world would you want your nation to submit to an international organization with power to enforce what they vote on democratically? A large centralized government cannot not work in the best interests of everyone at everytime. There will be compromises and tradeoffs that cannot possibly work in my favor.

In order for something like that we would have to all be of one utopian mind where we all agree that the good of the many outweighs the needs of the few. No dice, we're human.

[ZenGum]

Lookout, yes, very true, that is one of the (many) problems to be dealt with.

The best solution is to persuade you that although you will take an occasional loss, in the long run you'll be on a nett gain from yielding some of your national sovereignty to a global government. Selfishness is not always rational, especially if you think long term.

There is also something like conscience or altruism. In most countries where women have the vote, they got it only after a referendum in which only men voted. Why would this group throw away such a position of privilege? Why did many white people in the US stand up for black rights? Why did 90% of (white) Australians vote to abolish the racist sections of our constitution? I don't think that these were from immediate self interest, but because it was somehow right. I have SOME hope for human goodness.

The uniting of Europe is a very interesting example of the process we will most likely have to follow if we are to create a working world government. Slow, torturously difficult negotiations, bureaucrats, local losses, some old traditions fading out ... but new growth, a new way of resolving disputes without the human and economic cost of major war, and new opportunities both at the personal level and at the super-national level.

I do not think that the time is ripe for a world government. While much of Europe lost its taste for war in the last century, the US didn't suffer so badly, and has not yet had the "never again" moment. I don't think there will be the real motivation for a genuine world government without another world war. The obvious candidate is USA Vs China, but not for several decades yet.

So in the meantime, we'll have to get by with the hamstrung, ineffective UN. It's shortcomings are no reason to abolish it, but rather to try to improve it.

Originally Posted by lookout123

If you live in one of the more powerful prosperous nation why in the world would you want your nation to submit to an international organization with power to enforce what they vote on democratically?

Because balance and self-discipline are both part of what democracy stands for.

First of all you must agree that democracy is there for ALL THE PEOPLE (one man-one vote) to have their say and then "the majority" will have a voice in the power to "do the right thing" for the benefit of its' people. If you don't agree with that then you can just as well ignore the rest of this post.

Secondly, it is very well understood that what we do (as any one nation) actually affects the world, i.e. every nation - in one way or another. Some of our national actions affect the world more than other actions - such as war and the invironment (air, water, ozone, etc) with respects to the economy, global warming, ethnic preservation, etc. etc. etc. In the same way that a proper democratic nation solves its' national problems in a constructive, meaningful manner - so too do international bodies of government. The word "government" means just that. To oversee the real-life situation for the benefit of the human race. Therefore, international organizations must eventually become the most important governing body on this earth - or we will perish. This ought to be clear to everyone and I'm surprised that it is not so.

The U.N. (as we will all agree) is lacking the right grit. This problem is partly due to one of the strongest members sabotaging the U.N.'s international efforts by doing exactly what "LOOKOUT" considers to be correct behaviour.

If I ignore your advice to "put the gun back in the holster", and shoot my brother dead anyway, should I claim that you are to blame for my brother's death? That is (more or less) what the U.S. is doing. The U.N. forbade the Americans to invade Irak - on false pretenses. The Amercians invaded Irak anyway and then critisized the U.N. for being an inadequate organization.

The Americans talk of leaving the U.N. and I'm not completely convinced that it wouldn't be a good thing for the rest of the world. Any thoughts on that, anyone? What would be the advantages versus the disadvantages for the rest of the world?

Originally Posted by ZenGum

The UN is not effectively stopping war and human misery caused by international non-cooperation. It may be limiting these ills a little but isn't doing a very good job.

But why do people therefore conclude it should be abolished or abandoned?

My tap isn't pouring enough water into my sink, therefore I should turn it off and give up.
No, my tap isn't pouring enough water into my sink, therefore I should try turning it on harder, and if that doesn't work, get a new and bigger pipe put in and use that.

Having an effective planetary government would, I believe, be a good thing if it were done right, for the same reasons local and national governments are in general good things. True, the UN isn't delivering what we want from a global government. So what we need to do is make it work better. It might take substantial reform. It might take starting over from scratch. There are many issues and problems and dangers. But I can think of few things more important for human civilization than this.

Bravo!

[classicman]

Originally Posted by aimeecc

Its easy to point at the USA and say "bad America, you don't follow the UN", but geez... not many other nations do either. We're not the only nation to not ratify environmental treaties. Were not the only one that uses military power. We're just the easiest to pick on.

Amen!

[Undertoad]

The UN was created out of international concern for the ill-effects of war.

Well then it has failed its charter and should be abolished.

Those who do not adhere to democratic principles cannot really be considered democratic themselves.

Democracy is two lions and a lamb deciding what to eat for dinner.

Where do you live?

The majority of us want to know.

(Edit: confirm it's France, via your attitude towards your immigrants.)

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Well then it has failed its charter and should be abolished.

Actually, in a democracy one normally puts it to the vote - and normally the majority vote opts for improvement rather than abolishment. If it weren't so then the U.S. would have been abolished when it was decided that "all men are not created equal" by way of racist, American laws. But I'm sure this is all way above your head.

[classicman]

It's probably a lot off track, but there has been so much "abuse" reported. Rather there has been so much "abuse" reported ad nauseum, that the perception seemingly has become the reality. At least at the top.