|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
||||
|
I was trying to come up with a good analogy that w... The Logical Fallacies: Index Tuned into some righ... Wired News: Why Did Google Want Blogger? Strange,... The Observer | Comment | Mr Bush goes for the kill... House restaurants change name for 'french fries' a... "The War Prayer" The War Prayer by Mark Twain Fear, the Foundation of Religion Bertrand Russell... Great! ----- Inhofe Upsets Democratic Aides C... Some ideas on what I see as I surf around the blog... Ahhh.. this is the kernal of truth that I feel, ma... Justin Oldham - Politics and Patriotism
Wilco The Flaming Lips The New Radicals John Mayer Zero 7 Dream Theater Radiohead Death Cab for Cutie The Notwist O.S.I. Ani Difranco The Shins Elliott Smith Badly Drawn Boy Chroma Key Coheed and Cambria The Streets Andrew Bird Sufjan Stevens Atom Site Feed 
|
3.14.2003
United Nations too Democractic for the U.S., Not Democractic Enough for the Rest of the World The United Nations has been embraced by the anti-war movement because of its usefulness as a roadblock to the "Invasion of Iraq" by the United States. Others, such as George Will have started to talk about the U.N. in terms of "a bad idea". The sticking point is the United Nations ligatimacy in regards to representing the will of the International Community. The Bush Administration follows the logic that the U.N. should be regarded in the same respect as any other democractic institution; good when it rubber stamps the will of the powerbrokers and "irrelavent" when it chooses to defy those wishes. This was not a terribly important issue as long as the United Nations, and in particular the Security Council was willing to go along with the will of the United States. Fringe voices have been calling for the United States to pull out of the United Nations for years because it threatens the soveriegnty of the U.S. It is telling to note the extent to which this right wing sentiment has become part of mainstream policy. The United Nations approaches the period of time in which it either starts to act as a true instrument of democracy or it will remain a tool of the United States and other designated power players. In this way it mirrors the historical progress of the U.S. government throughout its history. Here, many of the wealthy and powerful were quite content with the early forms of government that excluded the undesirable elements. Elements, of course that would question the role of elites as de facto leaders. Wealthy landowners used numerous methods to block the entrance of the majority of American people into the democractic process, and they continue to do so today. Whether through the requirements of being male, being literate, being white, being rich or being free of a criminal past, the bar of entering the democratic process has been lowered only by the efforts of various movements, rarly the willingness of the powerful. The ultimate goal of all people is to have the right to determine the nature of the governing body that represents them. Approaching that goal in the United States has taken two hundred years, a civil war and many mass movements. Do we have any reason to hope that the development of a democratic form of international government will take any less effort? We should, if you consider the lessons we have learned on our own road towards equal representation. Unfortunately, I already hear the same rhetoric in regards to the United Nations that was applied to the U.S. government decades ago. To the extent that one commentator has denounced the rights of one U.N. security member to express its opinion based on the fact that "over half the country is illiterate". A better question would be to ask whether the government has the right to represent the people, not whether the people are educated enough to determine there own leaders. One addresses a primary issue about the legitamacy of the United Nations, the other just engages in classist denouncements, of which I am sure we will hear more. The United Nations is far from perfect as an institution of international democracy. It was set up as an instrument of then-dominant powers and its composition reflects that. The security council is composed of five permanent members that have the power to veto military action by the U.N. This includes America, Russia, France, China and Great Britian. The other ten positions are occupied by rotating members. To which one must wonder, why should these five nations have the authority to veto any military action? Is it that they are all democracies, not so. China's government represents the will of the Chinese government more so than the people, and teh former Soviet Union did not as well. And its debatable whether any of these countries has a clear authority to represent the wishes of their peoples, though some clearly do better than others. Is it based on population? If so argues George Will, why not India, Japan, Brazil or Indonesia? As the populations of the world changes should the composition of the security council change? Would then Will accept the replacement of the U.S. with Brazil? I think not. In fact, I am sure he would not. But right now we are excluding vast numbers of people of a voice in important matters. Many new global powers will be eager to flex their muscle while other declining powers will fight to keep theres. The United Nations will have to, much in the same way the U.S. has had to, find a way of allowing fair representation for all. The debate about the "relavance" of the U.N. comes amid a squabble in the Security Council wherein the nation of France has said it will veto a vote by the U.S. and Great Britian to authorize an invasion of Iraq. To which the first question would be, has the United States ever opposed a resolution supported by other members of the Security Council? The answer is yes, and it has done so on numerous occasions. So what is the difference you might be asking. Why is the fate of the U.N. tied so closely to the will of U.S. but not to other states? The answer lies with power. Military power to be more precise. Or as it is stated by Mr. Will that America is ".... the only nation that has the power to enforce U.N. resolutions." He also alludes to the fact that we pay for one quarter of the U.N. funding. In essence the arguement is; we have the guns, we make the laws, we'll enforce the laws and if you don't like it we'll turn out the lights and lock up behind us. A powerful arguement, but sadly not one that will help the cause of international peace and democracy. This is a terrible arguement in this instance when we are dealing with a regional debate in which only ONE of the regional countries are allowed to express their opinions and vote. Even then, Syria cannot stop the Security Council from allowing the war on Iraq by the U.S. and Great Britian. I compare this to the hypothetical and improbable invasion of Brazil by Russia without the US, Mexico, Canada, Chile, Argentine or any other North or South American country except one, let's say, Ecuador, getting a non-veto vote on the matter. This scenario would not only be totaly unacceptable but would be regarded as sheer absurdity by the entire world. But we are to accept that the entire Middle East should stand by while non-regional powers decide the fate of their neighbors? We accept this in the same way the plantation owners accepted the ownership of their slaves. We have a over-inflated sense of our own abilities to determine what is right for other people and we will take advantage of what power is avaliable to protect our own interests. History has shown that when the minority insists on maintaining the right to determine the fate of the majority, movements will arise to take that so-called right away. This is not simply my opinion. We cannot assume that people of differing regions of the world will defer to the United States "right" to determine their regional affairs for them. It would be more than prudent, I would dare say neccesary that the United States not stand in the path of this freight train. Despite the flaws of the United Nations, even an imperfect institution that opens the way for people to have their voices heard needs to be nurtured. Right now the United States has the opportunity to help shape the United Nations in useful ways. As the sole superpower we have the chance to act as an arbitor for the rest of the world. But it is essential if we are to be seen as a benelovent force that we not insist that the UN do our bidding or risk "irrelavance". This, I fear is what we are doing in the name of attacking a petty dictator. We are threatening the voices of others for the sake of our own short term security and for domestic political gain. Once the United Nations ceases as a means for the world's marginalized to make their voice heard, and the United States takes up the mantle as the world's master a movement will form and it may well be aimed in our direction. Is Saddam Hussein really worth that possibility? I would appreciate your feedback on this article: satumma@hotmail.com | |
About Me
Any Box 
|
||
|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
||||
