Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

roachboy · 09-22-2006, 09:28 AM

it is beyond strange to me that there would be any kind of convergence between the american far right's john birch society-based dislike of the un and what chavez is saying above. that the united nations has been from the outset IN PART an instrument of neocolonial domination is self-evident--as is the simple fact that this is not ALL the united nations is or can be.

the un plays and has played fundamental roles in the gathering and co-ordination of information. it has and will continue to play an important role in improving health standards globally. it has done and still does important work with refugee populations. it has done and still does important work on environmental issues, on educational issues, etc.
it is clearly better that the un exists and functions--with all its faults--than it would be were there no such body.

it seems ridiculous that people attack the un for the problems it encounters with peacekeeping missions. for example, many of the conservative types who trot out versions of this line live in constant fear of "world government"--which is a central concern of the old bircher opposition to the united nations (which was usually looped through some fucked up backwater claims derived from "the protocols of the elders of zion")--so they would oppose expansion of any military capability originating with the un--but then these same people attack the un for being less than a fully operational governmental organization because of these problems.

but none of this moves in anything like the direction chavez outlines: within the existing un, the consequence of chavez's arguments would at the least be the abolition of permanent member status within the security council.
i am nto sure whether i would favor abolishing the security council outright--but in principle it is a problematic institution simply because it is the arm within the un that most obviously makes it an instrument of neocolonial domination.
abolishing all permanent membership would be an improvement.
there is no reason for the double-tiered set up, no reason why the permanent members of the security council should effectively have double representation, particularly one that supercedes the work of the general assembly.
the actions of the bush administration since 2001 have clearly demonstrated that the united states should be held to account by the international community for its actions--there is no basis for allowing the u.s. to function as if it were not part of the world community. abolishing at the least the permanent membership of the security council would be a step toward this end--abolishing the security coucil altogether as a cold war relic...i dunno.

but abolishing the un itself seems stupid. supporting such an abolition simply means that you do not know much about what the un does.

09-22-2006, 09:28 AM	#32 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	it is beyond strange to me that there would be any kind of convergence between the american far right's john birch society-based dislike of the un and what chavez is saying above. that the united nations has been from the outset IN PART an instrument of neocolonial domination is self-evident--as is the simple fact that this is not ALL the united nations is or can be. the un plays and has played fundamental roles in the gathering and co-ordination of information. it has and will continue to play an important role in improving health standards globally. it has done and still does important work with refugee populations. it has done and still does important work on environmental issues, on educational issues, etc. it is clearly better that the un exists and functions--with all its faults--than it would be were there no such body. it seems ridiculous that people attack the un for the problems it encounters with peacekeeping missions. for example, many of the conservative types who trot out versions of this line live in constant fear of "world government"--which is a central concern of the old bircher opposition to the united nations (which was usually looped through some fucked up backwater claims derived from "the protocols of the elders of zion")--so they would oppose expansion of any military capability originating with the un--but then these same people attack the un for being less than a fully operational governmental organization because of these problems. but none of this moves in anything like the direction chavez outlines: within the existing un, the consequence of chavez's arguments would at the least be the abolition of permanent member status within the security council. i am nto sure whether i would favor abolishing the security council outright--but in principle it is a problematic institution simply because it is the arm within the un that most obviously makes it an instrument of neocolonial domination. abolishing all permanent membership would be an improvement. there is no reason for the double-tiered set up, no reason why the permanent members of the security council should effectively have double representation, particularly one that supercedes the work of the general assembly. the actions of the bush administration since 2001 have clearly demonstrated that the united states should be held to account by the international community for its actions--there is no basis for allowing the u.s. to function as if it were not part of the world community. abolishing at the least the permanent membership of the security council would be a step toward this end--abolishing the security coucil altogether as a cold war relic...i dunno. but abolishing the un itself seems stupid. supporting such an abolition simply means that you do not know much about what the un does. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 09-22-2006 at 09:33 AM..