COMMENTS:
Voted : They will do nothing, expect perhaps more meaningless treaties
I doubt anything meaningful will be done.
But I have to admit that I agree with this guy on one issue: my complete and utter lack of respect for any UN decree.
those zaney hezzbollahians.
So is it safe to say you prefer an isolationist standpoint?
Voted : They will pull out and hope for the best
I believe despite all this, they will pull out, they will not make any new treaties, and then when conflict explodes again, they will go back in after it had settled down.
"So is it safe to say you prefer an isolationist standpoint?"
Why do you say that?
Do you think the League of Nations did a great job? Obviously not, can you then argue against them, but still support some form of international diplomacy?
The United Nations is nothing if not explicitly aware of the nature of most of the problems with its structure:
un.org/ reform/ index.shtml
Probably the most fundamental problem is that the U.N. (General Assembly) is comprised of 192 states, including: Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo (Republic of the), Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Republic of Korea, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia (Former Yugoslav Republic of), Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova (Republic of), Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia (Republic of), Seychelles, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Tanzania (United Republic of), Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
Convolution is intrinsic to its nature, as this chart demonstrates:
un.org/ Depts/ dpko/ dpko/ home.shtml
It's not some monolithic organization; which is, in a way, a good thing because most sovereign nations -- particularly the most powerful ones, are not going to be willing to relinquish any of their power to a world government. This is ironic because the very system in place is so outdated in certain main areas that it essentially prohibits change. The permanent members of the Security Council and their one-veto power are good examples.
- You could draw an analogy in reforming the Electoral College, which as you know makes your vote for President count for less than half as much as someone from New Hampshire simply by virtue of living in Texas. Of course, to remedy this blatant injustice we'd need three-quarters of the states to embrace the utterly shocking notion of making everyone's vote count the same, which isn't going to happen. Your vote in Texas and my vote in California are nearly as symbolic as they are practical, and not all that dissimilar from the resolutions passed in the United Nations.
If you check out the wording of passed resolutions, you'll likely find that most paragraphs begin with non-binding words like "deploring", "condemning", "deploring further", "requesting", "reaffirming", "suggesting", etc...
The word "decides" is in the minority, which calls attention to the need for an overhaul of the judicial component of the United Nations -- which is elucidated in a section of the first link I posted about reforms. Actually, such an overhaul is on the table and set to take first at the beginning of next year, if it passes.
As difficult as it is to achieve a significant consensus among the 192 Nations in the United Nations, one core value is generally agreed upon: the desire for peace, and with it the condemnation of starting wars; as well as disdain for the use of violent force in most contexts, including terrorism and military preemption.
|
