Well done JB. Now isn’t this an example where having 5 countries with absolute vetoes in the security council is patently a bad idea?

This action has dragged on so long, because of the threat of a Chinese veto.

I’m almost convinced by that article, very, very thought provoking. However, it doesn’t address the underlying problem.

The UN is structured to guarantee maximum paralysis for minimum effort, and the big countries like it that way.

When they can’t blame each other for not taking action, they can always blame the UN!

That said, in principle I could imagine private peacekeeping actions, as long as there was political agreement globally. However, we’ll need new structures for that.

wait a sec! Brian! The Chinese are to blame? Can’t be, I thought everything was Bush’s fault...?

wait a sec! Brian! The Chinese are to blame? Can’t be, I thought everything was Bush’s fault...?

Well .. he encourages them?

That said, in principle I could imagine private peacekeeping actions, as long as there was political agreement globally. However, we’ll need new structures for that.

So there has to be political agreement globally to stop the slaughter of innocent life? The fact of the matter is that innocent people are being wiped out and entire villages are being destroyed and you mean to tell me that if someone trys to stop the slaughter of his fellow man they need total political agreement? Come on. Lets get real.

villages are being destroyed and you mean to tell me that if someone trys to stop the slaughter of his fellow man they need total political agreement? Come on. Lets get real.

I’m afraid so. Try this without clear cut rules and what do you get? He killed my brother, so I’m going to kill his.

Heck, even with clear cut rules thats still what you get.

What stops the Germans from killing the French, or the British from invading Ireland, or for that matter, Detroit from bombing New York?

Rule of law baby, rule of law.

You’re confusing democratic action with the rule of law. According to the former, right is whatever the majority believes at any given time. True rule of law serves as a check to democracy, by subjecting the will of the majority to a higher, impartial authority.

You’re confusing democratic action with the rule of law. According to the former, right is whatever the majority believes at any given time. True rule of law serves as a check to democracy, by subjecting the will of the majority to a higher, impartial authority.

Laws flow from the will of the people (in this case global society), the poster was making the case for global vigiliantisim. I am simply pointing out that that is a flawed system for managing relationships in any society.

Of course it’s clear to me that this is the current arrangement, however no one could argue that this is satisfactory. If it is satisfactory at the level of the nation state, then why not apply this excellent arrangement all the way back down to the individual?

We don’t because it’s a totally stupid (ala Somalia) system, we allow our behaviour to be circumscribed by law, because it protects us.

Once the law has been made that genocide is not to be tolerated, then it shouldn’t be necessary to go back and get the approval of the legislature to stop any particular genocide. It should simply be done.

Once the law has been made that genocide is not to be tolerated, then it shouldn’t be necessary to go back and get the approval of the legislature to stop any particular genocide. It should simply be done.

Well John we agree. However we are lumbered with UN that is completely incapable of action. Why? Because every decision has to pass the "national interest" filter of 5 countries.

The solution is not to go off and do your own thing, but to democratise the UN’s decision making, get rid of vetos, get more countries involved in the process.

Make decisions taken by a 2/3’s majority binding. Heck, you’d get that on the current security council, the only thing holding things up are the vetoes.

Then clear cut cases of genocide would be reacted to speedily.

Brian:

I do not have anything substantive to add, but I thought you would like to know why the UN has vetos. When the UN was formed the idea was that only critically important actions (such as Germany conquest of Europe or Japanese conquest of Asia) should be met with military means. The UN is VERY antiwar and antiforce (not surprising since it was drafted towards the end of the World’s most horific war). The drafters of the UN thought that any military action, meeting such an important problem, would require the cooperation of all of the States on the security council, so they should all agree before military force was committed. I suppose one could argue that the system "works" and that no important situations have come to pass yet (Korea does not count because the USSR sat it out). It will be interesting (though very scary) to see what happens with China and Russia once Iran develops a bomb or missle.

I suppose one could argue that the system "works" and that no important situations have come to pass yet (Korea does not count because the USSR sat it out). It will be interesting (though very scary) to see what happens with China and Russia once Iran develops a bomb or missle.

The antiwar stance was critical because the UN had the genetic flaw of prosecuting agreed punishment on entire nation states, rather than individuals.

That is a serious problem, I agree in principle with the anti war stance, and the UN has "worked" in the sense we have not had a conflict on the scale of WWII since it’s creation.

However, I think you underestimate the relevance of your comment. The UN was formed, only shortly after European generals stopped wearing "feathers in their hats".

The idea that these structures are applicable or satisfactory today is nonsensical, and lies at the root of our problems.

The notion that we should be ruled under one system of government, one-world government, is not the solution.

Never has been and nevere will be.

The notion that we should be ruled under one system of government, one-world government, is not the solution.

I am not suggesting that either Dale. I would imagine something more along the lines of a global confederacy. In fact something very similar to the original american republic.

Weak central authority with clearly articulated and restricted powers, should work fine. Much of the reasons for it’s failing in the US have been resolved by technology, and besides we have no external threats.

My meandering caveat complete, can I ask what you think is the solution?

Yep, I do have a solution ...

Stop tolerating tyrants, despots and totalitarians.

Harder done than said, but it is better than a one world-confederacy.

Anyway, if you truly want to model it along the lines of our confederacy, then I will glady play that game.

It means, that we, the United States, could tell the one-world, global confederacy to go to heck and nothing could be done about it. No funding, no support, nada.

Yep, sounds good to me.

Cool, abolish the UN and go to a much weaker system.

Why is it that this is not what I think you truly have in mind, though?

Stop tolerating tyrants, despots and totalitarians.

Thats a lovely slogan, and I agree with it.

The devil however, is, as they say, in the detail.

If by "not tolerating" you mean an all out military assault, well then I’m not on board.

If by "not tolerating" you mean an agreed standard of behaviour, with agreed binding punishments for the military and civil leadersnot adhereing to it, well then I am on board.

It means, that we, the United States, could tell the one-world, global confederacy to go to heck and nothing could be done about it. No funding, no support, nada.

That seems to suggest that you wouldn’t be up for my moderate suggestion above:-(

Basically like so many americans, you just want the US to do what it likes, because you are in some sense "the chosen people", the "good guys".

Dale, every despot, tyrant, democratic leader, monarch, ceaser and emperor since the birth of the Persian Empire claims that we go to war because we are "the good guys".

It’s always claimed and it’s always nonsense, there are no "good guys" only people, and to co-exist these people need a framework of laws slightly more nuanced than ... "but we are the good guys. Really we are!"