What are the ringing sucesses of the United Nations.
 

I'll admit to having a visceral animosity for the UN...and have recently lost my head and gone too far in condeming it as the most evil and corrupt organization on the planet. I'm willing to moderate on that position.

I still don't see where the UN is sucessful in making the world a better place to be.

Let me have it...your opinions(about the topic)....guided research..etc.

Great idea for a thread and very well put.



What good is the UN?

Firstly, consensus.

Without the UN providing all countries with a voice, actions taken by the US, NATO or the EU (for example) smack of unilateralism.


Secondly, legality.

Like it or not, the US is a signatory of international and UN treaties. It is the UN that decides what is legal or illegal with regards to international law (often by interpreting Geneva Conventions for example).


Thirdly, morality.

Believe it or not, UN actions are often the right thing to do. The UN funds and manages hundreds of international organisations, international tribunals and committees that try to improve social, economic, health and cultural issues throughout the world. The UNHCR, UNESCO, UNDP, ECA, ECE, ELAC, ESCAP, ESCWA, ICJ, E-MINE, UNOB, UNOCI, UNMIL, MONUC, UMEE, UNAMSIL, MINURSO, MINUSTAH, UNMISET, UNMOGIP, UNFICYP, UNOMIG, UNMIK, UNDOF, UNIFIL, UNTSO, UNIFEM, UNCTAD, ITC, UNDCP, UNEP, UNIFEM, UNV, UNCDF, UNFPA, UNICRI, UNITAR, UNRISD, UNIDIR, INSTRAW, UNOPS, UNU, UNSSC, UNAIDS, PfII, WTO, IAEA, CTBTO PREP.COM, OPCW, ILO, FAO, WHO, IBRD, IDA, IFC, MIGA, ICSID, IMF, ICAO, IMO, ITU, UPU, WMO, WIPO, IFAD, UNIDO, OSG, OIOS, OLA, DPA, DDA, KPKO, OCHA, DESA, DGACM, DIP, DM, OHRLLS, UNSECOORD, UNODC, UNOG, UNOV, UNON and so on.

If you want, I can give details on each and every of the above organizations or groups (all directly part of the UN, or in sponsored activities).

Let's just take a very few to actually expand upon.


UNDP - United Nations Development Programme - www.undp.org
The United Nations Development Programme assists and co-ordinates various activities such as Democratic Governance, poverty reduction, crisis prevention and recovery, energy and environmental issues, HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention and human development reporting.

"It advocates for change and connects countries to knowledge, experience and resources to help people build a better life. We are on the ground in 166 countries, working with them on their own solutions to global and national development challenges. As they develop local capacity, they draw on the people of UNDP and our wide range of partners.

UNDP helps developing countries attract and use aid effectively and integrates information and communications technology for development into its work in democratic governance and poverty reduction. In all our activities, we promote the protection of human rights and the empowerment of women."


UNICEF - United Nations Children's Fund - www.unicef.org
The United Nations Children's Fund is an advocate and contributor to children's issues around the world. They promote and provide child protection, education (and especially girl's education in developing countries), immunization for tens of thousands, childhood development, HIV/AIDS education and prevention, nutrition, gender equality and children's rights issues to name but a few.

Were UNICEF to cease existence, tens of thousands of children would die and/or live much worse lives.


WHO - World Health Organization - www.who.org
The World Health Organization is at the forefront of combating disase across the globe, especially in (but not limited to) developing countries. One of its most famous successes was the eradication of smallpox (some outbreaks have reoccured in Africa due to lack of education on the benefits of vacination). WHO is driving towards providing HIV/AIDS treatment to three million people by the end of next year. It promotes disase prevention, treatment and vacination across the globe. It co-ordinates inter-national response to epidemics and pandemics (including recent outbreaks of Ebola, SARS, TB, Bubonic Plague etc etc), and works not only for physical health but also mental and social well-being.


UNHCR - The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees - www.unhcr.org
This agency is mandated to lead and co-ordinate international action to protect refugees and help address refugee problems worldwide. Since 1950, when it was founded, the UNHCR has helped an estimated fifty million (50,000,000) people restart their lives. Currently it is actively assisting approximately seventeen million (17,000,000) people. It provides concrete assistance in the form of food, selter, resettlement, assylum and many other "real" activities as well as its co-ordination mandate. It is currently engaged in Southern Africa, Colombia, Europe, the Balkans, West Africa, North Caucasus, Central Africa, Iraq etc. The list goes on.


UNAIDS - Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS
UNAIDS is the "main advocate for global action on HIV/AIDS, UNAIDS leads, strengthens and supports an expanded response to the epidemic." It provides leadership and advocacy, information and reporting, tracking, monitoring and evaluation of the epidemic and mobilization of resources to support an effective response.


IFAD - International Fund for Agricultural Development - www.ifad.org
The International Fund for Agricultural Development target groups (those whose lives are directly impacted positively by its programmes) are the poorest of the world's people. This includes small farmers, rural landless, nomadic pastoralists, artisanal fisherpeople, the indigenous and rural poor woman. The fund contributes funds directly for assistance and development activities in an effort to help the rural poor overcome poverty, disase and malnutrition.



The above are just a FRACTION of the agencies, bodies, organizations and groups that make up the UN. As you can see from the list I gave at the beginning of this post, there are many many more than the few I provided extra detail upon.



Is the UN perfect? No.
Does it need reforming? Yes.
Would it benefit if the US actually paid their dues? Absolutely.

Should it be disbanded? Categorically not.

The United Nations is so very much more than the General Assembly and the Security Council. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why there is so much animosity against the UN in the United States. Don't you people understand that it's an organization that is there to assist people, prevent suffering, promote development? The world would suffer an incalculable disaster were the UN cease to exist. Yes, there have been problems. But EVERY ORGANIZATION on the world has problems.

And from an earlier post...

Please note the slightly provocative tone used above was appropriate to the original thread. :-)



I should be delighted to discuss this (very interesting and very important!!) topic further. It's a relief after all the US election hype!!






Mr Mephisto

Very nicely put, Mephisto. Thank you.

I will agree that the UN's functions as a public forum for the nation-states of the world are incredibly valuable. While I disagree with our involving ourselves in it from a legal standpoint ( that whole 'entangling alliances' thing ) I agree that, as members of the club, we have to play by the club's rules.
However, the UN's various "Social programs" are nothing more than Armed Robbery on a world scale; a system by which wealthy nations are fleeced and poor nations made dependant upon the fleecers. Nations like the US and Germany lose because we lose huge quantities of money; nations like Somalia and Bangladesh lose because they are dependant upon those funds ( in the form of loans ) for their continued existance. When they are forced to default upon the loans ( as they usually are ) the UN takes the money out of their rainforests/mines/seas through the aegis of the various multinational corporate and banking interests which largely control the massive beurocracy of the UN itself.

It is not the 'job' of the US Government to 'promote development' or anything else using money taken from Americans ( or anyone else ) by force. If a private individual wishes to do so, they are to be commended; however, the "wealth redistribution" schema of the UN, like all coercive taxes, are nothing more than common thuggery carried out by an unholy consortium of 3rd-world dictators, bankers, corporate fascists, and power-grubbing politicians of all stripes.

Well, I shouldn't be surprised by that reaction, but I still am. Everytime someone comes out and describes the UN in terms like "an unholy consortium of 3rd-world dictators, bankers, corporate fascists, and power-grubbing politicians" I can't but help think they really don't know what they're talking about.

By that same standard Dunedan, you should be rebelling against your own government. They "coerce" you into paying taxes. Of course, there's always the possibility that you are some whacko loony who supports some off-the-wall Libertarian "pay no taxes; governments aren't needed" kind of socio-political mindset.

A comment like " UN's various "Social programs" are nothing more than Armed Robbery on a world scale" shows a breath-taking ignorance of the facts. I've also never heard of development aid being described as wealthy countries being fleeced!

However, as nofnway was kind enough to ask for some good examples, with references and research to support it, I can confidently hope that he will ignore your outburst for what it is; a pointless attack with no basis in fact.

Mr Mephisto

Actually, Mr. Mephisto, I -am- a Libertarian. I -am- rebelling against my own government ( not violently; the need for that has not been reached and hopefully never will be ), but I am doing my bit.

Secondly; as for these programs -NOT- being "Armed robbery" what else do you call it when a government or organization holds a gun to your head and demands your money? It doesn't matter how noble the purpose; that money was still STOLEN by threat of violence.

As for my description of the UN: what else do you call a body that elects Sudan ( Genocide, anyone? ) and Libya ( Pan-Am 103 ring any bells? ) to the Human Rights Council? What else do you call a body which proposes a thing like the Law Of The Sea Treaty, whereby the 2/3 of the world that's LANDLOCKED can vote on how the 1/3 of the world which uses ship gets to use the ocean? ( This is one of King George II's babies, btw. ) Poland gets to tax Japan to use the Open Seas under this monstrosity; how is this NOT despotism?

Finally, nofnway asked for opinions; I gave mine. I can provide a more thouroughly researched and sourced opinion if you'd like; I'll post it first thing in the morning. For now, I'm going to bed.

I personally feel that this thread should have been closed after Mr. M's initial post which seems to have encompassed the first and last word on the topic, but since this is a discussion site, here's my $.02. It would seem to me that in order to dismiss the UN as an organization you would have to be beyond Libertarian. It is more than a "Robin Hood" organization who redistributes wealth. To me it is also a symbol of people and countries coming together in order to better the whole. Now I realize that the idea of a "society" has been labeled "liberal" and hence "bad" by large portions of the US, but I see Homo Sapiens as a societal creature whose best chance for survival in the long term is to utilize our superior ability to be logical and rational in an organized environment--like the UN. Sorry this is philosphical rather than polital, but there you go...

Dunedan,

What do you think global capitalism is other than Armed Robbery on a world-wide scale? Committed by the wealthy nations fleecing the poor nations. Where do you think your glow in the dark tooth brush was made? Why do you think all the manufacturing jobs fled the country? It's cheaper to send them to a poor country where all the corporation has to do is grease some palms instead of worrying about environmental damage, employee safety, employee health.

The world is a disgusting place. You reap the benefits because you live in a nation who takes the wealth from other nations. And you're not even paying enough as is to balance it. Sure it's easy for a bunch of folks i the richest nation on earth to suddenly hold up their hands and say "hey now, I ain't down with this whole taxes thing". You already took all the money.

Fair enough! :)

Absolutely, categorically not the case. How on Earth is the UN (an unarmed organization) holding a gun to the United States (the most militarized and powerful nation on the planet)?

In fact, the US "owes" more money to the UN than any other country, if it were to pay its dues as per treaty agreements. Where is the armed robbery?

Well, each and every country gets a chance to sit on the Security Council. That's the way the system works. They'll be gone in 6 months.

You're absolutely right. I guess I could have worded that a bit better.


Mr Mephisto

I have wondered recently if the UN is not an idea that is just ahead of its time (at least in the US)... I think the most deeply rooted distrust of the UN here is because the largest political group that Americans feel allegiance to is the US. Until we start to feel ownership (in the sense of taking responsibility, not exercising control) in a larger community there will be the same uneasy relationship between US and UN that we see today. It may not be so far away - the difference between a bunch of states' rights advocates under the Articles of Confederation and a bunch of nationalists under the Constitution was less than 2 decades. However, it took a concerted effort by some of our founding fathers to sway enough of the popular thought to make the change. For myself, I think the United Nations could be a wonderful thing, but it currently exists in a crack between the desire for consensus and the desire for effective leadership. I don't see the average American being willing to submit our nation to a higher authority until we begin to see the least of the U.N. members as full partners instead of scavengers or parasites.

So they hand out food and pills.

I note no one mentioned security/terrorism/world peace.

The evolution of mankind, we are just early in the process. Change is slow, but it does happen.

Despite this being a blatant troll, I'll respond.


UNODC - United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime - http://www.unodc.org/unodc/index.html
The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime is mandated to assist member countries in their fight against the illicit drug trade, crime and especially transnational criminal and terrorist organizations and the struggle against terrorism itself. The UNODC works closely with the CTC (Counter Terrorism Committe) and provides active assistance and programmes to all members in drafting legislation, sharing information and intelligence and monitoring terrorist activities across the globe. "A detailed description of UNODC’s activities may be found in the Report of the Secretary-General “Strengthening international cooperation and technical assistance in preventing and combating terrorism” submitted to the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice at its thirteenth session (E/CN.15/2004/8)http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf.../2004/8&Lang=E.

A significant amount of further information is also available at the UN Action Against Terrorism site. http://www.un.org/terrorism/


UNIDIR - United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research - www.unidir.org
Article 26 of the United Nations Charter calls for 'the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world's human and economic resources'. To that aim, the UNIDIR was founded to help the world promote peace and disarmament. "Working with researchers, diplomats, government officials, NGOs and other institutions, UNIDIR acts as a bridge between the research community and United Nations Member States."


IAEA - International Atomic Energey Agency - www.iaea.org
The International Atomic Engergy Agency should be known to almost everyone here. It's been in the news quite a bit recently. Not only does it act to prevent nuclear proliferation and nuclear weapons falling into terrorist hands, but it also helps ensure the safe use [sic] of nuclear power across the globe. The IAEA organizes its activies around "three pillars": Safety and Security; Science and Technology; and Safeguards and Verification. A WhitePaper on the aspects of nuclear weapons and terrorists, and the IAEA's efforts to combat same, can be found at http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus...proliferation&

The IAEA also provides "inspectors" who monitor nuclear facilities to ensure they do not produce nuclear weapons, fuel that can be used in weapons or equipment that can be used to produce weapons. The IAEA is also the body that validates whether countries are abiding by the NNPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty)


CTBTO - Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization - http://www.ctbto.org/
"The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) is a cornerstone of the international regime on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and an essential foundation for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament. Its total ban of any nuclear weapon test explosion will constrain the development and qualitative improvement of nuclear weapons and end the development of advanced new types of these weapons." The CTBTO is working towards ensuring full ratification of this important treaty, which will aid in limiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Please don't go on about how the US doesn't intend to sign this treaty. It's not something to be proud of.


OPCW - Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons - www.opcw.org
The Organization for the Prohibtion of Chemical Weapons is mandated to assist member countries in implementing the Chemical Weapons Convention.

"The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is an international treaty that bans the use of chemical weapons and aims to eliminate chemical weapons, everywhere in the world, forever.

The Convention provides the basis for the OPCW to monitor the destruction of existing stocks of chemical weapons and the facilities used to produce chemical weapons, as well as by checking many industrial sites to ensure that new chemical weapons are not produced. The OPCW also promotes international cooperation and the exchange of scientific and technical information, so that people and governments can benefit from the peaceful uses of chemistry.

Each country that is a member of the OPCW commits itself never to:
use chemical weapons;
develop, produce, acquire, or keep chemical weapons, or transfer chemical weapons to anyone, anywhere in the world; or
assist or encourage, in any way, anything that is prohibited by the Convention.

The destruction of all existing chemical weapons, and the destruction or conversion for peaceful purposes of the facilities used to produce them, is a major goal of the Chemical Weapons Convention and an important aspect of the work of the OPCW. By destroying these weapons and the means of making them, the OPCW strives to ensure that never again can chemical weapons be produced to injure or kill people anywhere in the world."

The US is a supporter of the CWC. At least, it was when I last checked.


DPKO - United Nations Department of Peackeeping Organizations - http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/index.asp
Internationally sponsored and essential peace keeping activities are being undertaken, under the auspices of the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Organizations, in the following countries:

Burundi
Cote D'Ivoire
Liberia
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Ethiopia
Eritrea
Sierra Leone
Western Sahara
Haiti
East Timor
India
Pakistan
Cyprus
Georgia
Kosovo
The Golan Heights
Lebannon
The Middle East

Details on UN peace keeping force's casualties and the particulars of each of the above missions can be provided if you want. The United States military are proud members of several of these missions. You do them a disservice with you disrespectful comment.


I could go on, but I think I've made my point.

Now someone HAS mentioned "security/terrorism/world peace".



Mr Mephisto

Oh and one other thing.

The World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the International Finance Corporation, the World Bank itself, the International Telecommunications Union, the World Intellectual Property Organization, the International Labour Association and much more are all parts of the United Nations.

In other words, the "free" US economy would collapse in a quivering heap without the UN and its consitituent bodies.

Food and pills. Yeah, right...


Mr Mephisto

Yeah, 'cause starving, desparate, uneducated, jobless people NEVER stir up any trouble, or begin to listen to Militant Jihadist Islam as a way out of their otherwise hopeless lives.

As long as they recruit faster than we kill, we're in danger. Stopping sources and root causes of terrorism is the way to make America, and the world, safe.

The UN has created organizations that are beneficial, such as the World Health Organization, UN AIDS (HIV/AIDS), and UNICEF. But the administrative levels of the UN, the general assembly and the security council, are as corrupt as can be.

If the UN is there to assist people and prevent suffering, then why has nothing been done in the Sudan?

The answer is quite simple. Russia, China and our "friends" the French all have oil interests in the Sudan. All three also have veto votes in the Security Council and are unwilling to do anything that goes against the Sudanese government for fear of losing those oil interests. The end result is that the UN won't even declare the events in the Sudan as genocide.

If you were a member in a club that constantly found ways to blame you for every problem is sees would you be willing to pay the club dues?

The UN continually finds ways to place blame for all the world's problems on the US and then turns around and asks the US to pay them money. Seems like a pretty odd way of asking for money.

Perhaps because according to the Constitution of the United States, the US is the largest political body for Americans. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land and supercedes all treaties with foreign bodies. The UN is a foreign body and therefore if any UN policy is in conflict with the US constitution, the constitution overrides the UN.

At worst, the UN is nothing more than a corrupt orginization. At best, it is nothing more than a bygone tool of the world's only hegemon which has lost its usefulness. In either case, the US could do itself a great favor by pulling out of the UN and kicking them out of New York.

The largest, most corrupt, most bureaucratic, most dysfuntional whorehouse ever devised by mankind, run by the 5-6 most powerful countries in the world, purely out of guilt. Just my .02¢

quite simply... i don't think there are any ringing successes for the UN. that's not to say they haven't tried to better the world with great sincerity at times... just that there isn't anything you can point to that validates the UN as a completely necessary part of international relations.

just watched a BBC 2 hour special on the UN's third world assistance efforts. by the BBC's account, the programs have failed spectacularly in trying to stimulate local economies. the UN has done some good in humanitarian assistance, but there is corruption and little proof the job couldn't have been done more effectively by other avenues.

i think the UNs primary relevance left with the cold war. it was useful to have a table where both NATO and the Warsaw Pact nations could sit at with so much diplomatic posturing. the Soviets are gone and so is the UNs most vital role.

it appears the arenas where the UN could be of the most help (somalia, sudan, rwanda etc.) have been disappointments as far as their involvement goes. the idea that the UN has an inherent benelovence that is missing from national governments is silly. i firmly believe that all the third world assistance and humanitarian aid could be accomplished better by means of individual national contributions.

I don't know i guess it keeps us (the world) from having a world war. I think that is the thoery but i don't see how. They do supple peace keeping troops which is always a good thing.

They also do huge research on social issues throughout the world. For instance Aids in Africa and orphans to make the larger wealthier countries aware of the issues of the world

I find this thread disappointingly depressing.

To me the benefits, the vast benefits of the United Nations are manifest. Yet many seem to recoil from it in horror, spouting nonesense about evil organizations, endemic corruption, fleecing rich countries etc etc.

I have done my best to show that the UN is hugely important to not only the United States, but also the global struggle against crime, hunger, terrorism, famine, disase, lack of education, gender equality, non-proliferation, finance, telecommunications etc.

I've heard nothing from the nay-sayers about how they would improve things, or what organizations they would put in its place. I have repeatedly accepted that the UN could be improved, as could all organizations.

The United States itself is not above corruption. Should it be disbanded?
The United States itself has blatant self interest at heart. Should it be disbanded?

People seem to be ignoring the facts and basing their anti-UN rhetoric on the usual neo-con nonesense or unilateralist cum isolationist propaganda that one hears in the far-right media. Has anyone done any real research here?!

As the "Mighty Dollar" seems to speak more to many of these short-sighted people, as opposed to what is morally right or humanistic in nature, let me repeat some previous assertions.

The UN includes organizations and bodies such as the World Bank and the World Trade Organization. Without these, the US economy would collapse. Ergo, without the UN the US would collapse economically. In other words, without the UN you would probably lose your job.

The UN includes organizations such as the International Telecommunication Union. Without this, there would be absolute chaos in global communication and, if you work in the IT industry you would probably lose your job.

The UN includes organizations such as the World Intellectual Property Organization. Without this, international copyright law would not exist or be totally ineffective. If you worked as an author, in the film industry or maybe even in the music industry, you would probably lose your job.

The United Nations is what handles the COMMERCE, COMMUNICATION, INTERACTION and ENGAGEMENT between nation states. To call for its disbandment is meaningless. You might as well call for the disbandment of nations themselves.

There HAS to be a mechanism for nation-states to interact. The United Nations is that body. As I've said before, it's so much more than the General Assembly. The US ignores the GA anyway, and regularly vetoes Security Council resolutions.

The world needs the United States. The United Nations need the United States. And like it or not, the United States needs the United Nations. To say otherwise is to ignore the plain truth and you might as well stick your head in the sand.


Mr Mephisto

yes, but it is simple. Like Bush said "who is not with us is against us" and since the UN sometimes dares to criticize the US....

The reputations of these organizations aren't all that great. The IMF has earned status as the most hated organization in the world because they have a reputation of going into devoloping countries and completly destroying their economies by supplying loans with stringent conditions. The end result is the citizens of the affected countries are worse off than they were before the IMF came in.

The WTO hasn't been doing great things either. Russia, a country that is trying to strengthen their infrastructure and pull themselves out of the economic and social disaster that was the Soviet Union, is not a member of the WTO despite the fact that they really do need international trade to boost their economy. But the WTO has given in to pressure from OPEC and has set as a requirement for membership that Russia place export tariffs on their oil. OPEC can't control Russian oil production and export so they got the WTO to do it for them. Unfortunatly for OPEC and fortunatly for the rest of us, Russia wisely declined to have export tariffs on their oil.

The UN had a purpose at one time. It was a great tool for keeping the cold war cold. But the cold war is over, the Soviet Union is gone and the UN has become nothing more than a relic of a bygone era.

I actually agree with you on the less than stellar reputation of the IMF and WTO mirevolver.

But the reason I mentioned them is that they are promoters of the US globilization "free trade" ultra-capitalist world order than BushCo and his supporters on this board tout all the time.

Personally, I think globalization and "laissez faire" (for those of you who know your economic history) suck. But that's an economic argument, not one that has to do with the pros and cons of trans-national organizations.

Mr Mephisto

Mr. Mephisto - Just because you list their programs doesn't mean they are successful.

Ustwo, just because you make one line criticisms with no real content doesn't make them valid.


And this is typical of your approach to debate on this thread.

1) Make a single provocative comment that provides no real contribution to the discussion
2) Wait until it is refuted.
3) Make another, unrelated provocative statement.
4) Wait until it is refuted.
5) Repeat.

At least I did some research, some analysis, provided content and references.

If we take the UNHCR alone, the fact that it has helped over 50,000,000 people rebuild their lives should be enough for even the most callous neo-con...
Or maybe the fact that the WHO (which is part of the UN) effectively erradicated small-pox. Or the thousands of cultural, historic or environmental areas and locations that UNESCO protects. Or the thousands of lives saved by the UN Peace-keepers.

Actually, scratch that. Neo-cons have no hearts at all. :)

We all know you will knock any and all pro-UN arguments, so there's no point in trying to appeal to your humanitarian side. It's the others people who are perhaps sitting on the fence that I have hopes for.

Oh, and once again, I've yet to hear anything but one line, throw-way, troll-baiting comments. If you actually have some contribution to make, please do so. I know you can, as you evidently showed in the "socialized medicene" thread you started yourself way back... I miss the old Ustwo that actually had something useful to contribute. :)

Mr Mephisto

...

Nope. No I don't.

I don't support the Libertarian political system, but that's not the issue. :)

And both Ustwo and I regularly have good-natured sparring on this board. Hence my inclusion of smileys. I'm sure he doesn't need you to step in and make comments about me. I presume you are being sarcastic in your praise.

Mr Mephisto

Mr. Mephisto... Bravo! I am a fan of you on this thread.

I really have nothing to add to the discussion (you have said most of what I would have said... and then some).

Your level headed defence of the UN is admirable.

Hmmmm...

In the town I live in it is illegal for members of the UN to enter the city limits.

thanks for your interventions in this thread, mr mephisto
they are an impressive effort.

side notes against the american right:

the ideology about the u.n. owes its shape to the history of american right politics--that this politics requires a fetishism of the Nation is obvious, that this fetishism would be looped through fear of the un--which is itself set up and dedicated to the defense of the nation-state---is a function of the role that john birch society ideology plays in that ideology.
which operates best in a space of fewest facts.

the bircher view runs dangerously close to those fine propositions outlined in the "protocols of the elders of zion"
in this argument, the un is the rootless internationalist conspiracy that is positioned against the interest of those who fancy themselves rooted in blood and soil.
if you listen to really far right radio, you find this paranoia being mapped onto an "international socialist conspiracy that wants to reduce 'real americans' to slavery by taking away 'our' guns."

the step from there to the world jewish conspiracy idiocy is but small.


1. the american right has shifted in ways that allow its core ideology to assimilate whackjob stuff on the order of the birchers is alarming in itself.

2. if there is a force that operates to undermine the notion of the nation-state, it is capitalism, not the un. but because capitalism is an unqualified good in the dreamland of conservative ideology, the anxieties generated by globalization need be channelled somewhere else.
whence the hostility to the un.
it is basic sublimation---a crude reasing of freud built into the shaping of ideology.
the sad thing is that it seems persuasive to some folk.

3. much of the material posted by conservatives above amounts to straight repetition of various elements that have been floated in conservativeland during the period when the bush administration felt it had to justify its illegal and immoral war in iraq by discrediting the un because and only because the unsc did not find the administrations shabby and false case for going outside the sanctions regime compelling.

straight repetition.

for all the emphasis on the freedom of the indivdual you read and hear from conservatives, the degree of groupthink on matters like the un can only really make you laugh.

Good Show Mr. Mephisto, your posts on his thread have been great in describing just how good the UN is to the world. Much like Charlatan I have nothing else to add as you have said all that needed to be said, I just wanted you to know that you aren't the only person out there who supports and believes in the UN.
That had to be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard Bush say, I mean why not just say go to Iraq or you're next?

The UN dares to criticize the US, why not criticize the US, they do it to everyone else openly, or is the US too thin skinned to be insulted and criticized? Hell if they can give it, they can expect to gt it right back.

indeed, in fact I don't know how:
a) you type so damn fast
b) manage to stay so levelheaded
Bravo!

mr. mephisto,

it's obvious to me that the UN has a bureau, committee, task force, bank and fund for every noble cause in the world. what isn't apparent is whether the eloquently worded mission statements and a helluva lot of money have translated into real growth among the poorest of nations. all this talk of the poor nations getting poorer... yet that has been one of the missions of the UN and it's surrogate organizations for 50 years. much of the world has not seen improvement economically since the UN's inception. even for the part that has, it would be difficult to draw correlations to UN policies that enabled such growth.

one of your posts listed a lot of regulatory roles of the UN. it's quite a stretch to say that w/o the UN those regulations (that have proven helpful) wouldn't have been made otherwise. that's like saying no terrorists would have been arrested without john ashcroft as attorney general because without an attorney general... how could we prosecute terrorists? well, hell... that's circular thinking. it's ashcroft's job to arrest terrorists like it's the UN's role to make regulatory decisions. simply stating that they have done their respective jobs make no critical observation about how well they're doing them or whether those decisions would have been made more effectively and cheaply by other means.

bottomline: i'm know the UN has done some good things. however, it has been given an enourmous amount of resources and i judge that the world has received very little return for the investment. in some areas (emergency humanitarian aid, third world assistance, economy of resources, fiscal transparency) failures are clearly observable. in their successes there is reason to believe similar achievements could be made other means. it's difficult to prove that the UN is worthwhile on it's own record while there is no other metric by which we can gauge its success.

I don't think it is the idea of the UN that bothers people. As irate said, it has a committee and some ideas to solve all of the world's problems. But is it an effective agent towards its various goals? Maybe, maybe not.

It is reasonable to see much of it as corrupt--the oil for food program in Iraq is a big deal to those that don't like the UN. It is also easy to see it as un-American (or is it just the member nations that are un-American?).

To the extent you don't focus on its resolutions regarding war and peace, which it (or is it the spineless member nations?) does not stand up for )"Stop, or I'll say stop again."), I'm sure there are lots of programs with good intentions. Are they run well, with efficiency? Or are they like the charity that spends 85% of the money on fundraising and office spaces for its exec.s? I appreciate the laundry list of things it does, but what does it really do well?

I know it is ensconced in several areas of commerce and wouldn't call for it's demise, but there is nothing wrong with criticising the UN and telling the truth about its screw ups. There is no shortage of venom on these boards for W or Ashcroft or anyone who lives in a red state or anyone who voted for any democrat or repub in the election. The UN is well-deserving of most of the criticism it gets in this country.

it's funny reading these vague allegation of corruption--how did this get to be something that sticks?

Don't mean to be vague, just don't want to argue every sub-point on an issue so vast. The corruption of the oil-for-food program fits nicely into the viewpoint that many American anti-UN-ites have about lots of issues--the U.N., its Sec'y General, France, Russia, Iraq, etc. A short article is found at: http://washingtontimes.com/national/...2528-7849r.htm

The Cato Institute wrote on the subject of UN corruption a few years back:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-253.html

It is much too long to post, but if you are seriously exploring the issue of the UN and whether or not it is worth staying in, you should read it.

After exploring the issue myself, I believe that there is no hope of reforming the UN, mostly because there is no incentive for those who are profiting from it. I say it is time to leave the UN and kick them out of NY...they can use the office space and parking.

And you believe that without a trans-national body to co-ordinate nation-state interaction, things would just happen?

It's easy to criticise the UN, or claim it should be abandoned, without suggesting a replacement.

The League of Nations, pet project of the US President Wilson for those of you who seem to believe the US is above all this kind of thing, was abandoned and look what happened...

Some of them were regulatory bodies; the ITU for example. Most of them are co-ordinating bodies, financial bodies (funds, banks, development agencies etc), and several of them are simply administrative or developmental.

No it's not.

First of all, I repeatedly said the UN need reforming. For those of you who have not actually read or understood my posts let me repeat myself.

The UN is not perfect.
The UN needs reforming.
The UN, like all bureaucracies, could be streamlined.

That's your bottom line. Thankfully the world disagrees. You may not support the UN, but even the Bush Administration agrees that the UN is required.

As is the case with the United States. Why don't you call for its disbandment?

Such as what? I keep hearing "something else could do what the UN does", or "it needs to be replaced", or "it's an evil organization" (lol).

So, let me ask, AGAIN, with what would you replace it?


Mr Mephisto

Comparing apples to oranges here. The United States is an independant state, a sovereign nation. The US exists in a physical place outlined by borders and governs the land it occupies.

The UN is just an international forum for diplomats to meet and talk. It has no sovereignty, there is no physical area outlined by borders defining it as a state. It is simply the end result of a few treaties put together.

thanks mirevolver, you beat me to it.

of course it's my bottomline: could it be anyone elses?

it seems you're trying to ride both sides of the fence... on one hand you attempt to refute any criticisms of the UN, yet also maintain that it is much in need of reforming. in what ways would you reform it?

if those reforms you propose are much needed and fundamental... i'm not sure we disagree at all except that you seem married to the idea that the UN is the institution of choice for international coordination while i'm not convinced their record merits that confidence.

things i would do to reform the UN:
1) establish criteria where the united nations MUST act in a humanitarian situation. if there is blatant genocide (rwanda) or an extreme humanitarian crisis (somalia) then the UN must intervene. i make no judgement as to how stringent those guidelines should be but, as it stands, the UN demagogues humanitarian issues while avoiding the circumstances that are not politically expedient.

2) abolish all notion of international courts.

3) provide complete fiscal and bookkeeping transparency in ALL matters. the United Nations operates under pledged money and kept afloat by taxpayers around the world. it needs to be completely accountable for every dime it spends. we should know how much the secretary general takes home in pay, we should know their budget for pencil lead.

4) recognize that if the United States is going to be the one to front the money and military backing to UN actions... the US should be given special consideration in diplomatic negotiations. if they want the US to come to the table on equal footing (and i think that it should) then be prepared to pony up the funds and manpower. you will not use our troops who swore an oath to the Constitution of the United States to bear an unequal burden in peacekeeping or military action.

I want to respond to these constructive comments, but I've got a plane to catch!

I'll follow up tomorrow. :)

And, accepting something isn't perfect is not sitting on the fence! Nothing is perfect in this world.


Mr Mephisto

The United States is nothing more than the joint composition of 50 independant states, an umbrella acting as a sovereign nation. The US exists as 50 individual states, each occupying a physical place outlined by borders. The U.S. partially governs the land those states occupy by virtue of mutual benefit.

The US is just a national forum for representatives of the states to meet and talk. It has no sovereignty over the group of 50 states outside of the sovereignty assigned to it by those 50 states. There is no physical area outlined by borders, outside the 50 states that comprise it, that define it as a national state. It is simply the end result of a few documents put together.

Apples to apples.

The citizens of the United States are simply that. Citizens of the United States, not citizens of Arizona, California, New York or any other state. The States are not soverign entities. They may have the power to make their own laws and set their own internal policy, but they cannot create laws or policies that override the laws set forth by the Federal Government of the United States. The states also have no athourity to handle foreign affairs. Arizona cannot sign a treaty with Mexico, New York cannot sign a treaty with Canada. States also do not have the power to enter into agreements with other states.

The members of the UN are sovereign entities. People who are citizens of countries that are members of the UN are not citizens of the UN, they are citizens of the United States, Germany, France. The members of the UN have the power to make their own laws, but the UN does not have the power to make laws for the member nations. Member nations also have the power to engage in foreign affairs and sign treaties on their own with both member and nonmember nations.


Perhaps you should read the US constitution.

The US Congress has the power to set the rules and regulations regarding terrority within the jurisdiction of the United States. This means that the land of any state is Unites States land and that gives the United States a physical area outlined by borders.

If you want to compare apples to apples, compare the UN to NATO or compare the US to the German Bundesrepublic. But don't compare the US to the UN.

lebell: i'll look at the report you linked when i ahve more time--i am suspcious up front, however, as a function of it coming from cato, yet another in the network fo rightwing thinktanks to which we owe all manner of pseudo-research. but i will check it out.

the point about the migration of this politics from the birchers to the right mainstream remains. and the right thinks it is the left that has moved. which is the funny thing.

mire...i claim rights as a minnesotan that i couldn't get many other places. the constitution of my state is different than every other states, and will offer different rights and responsibilities.

Everyone is a citizen of the state in which they reside.

The rules defined by the Federal Gov't would not exist without the representatives of the States enacting them. There is only a Federal Gov't out of mutual agreement of the member states. There is only a U.N. out of mutual agreement of the member states.
That's all well and good. But since the claim is that the U.N. is ineffective because it is not perfect, the comparison of the U.S. to the U.N. is apt.

Both are democratic environments. That is the comparison - not the minutia of their differing methods of organization. The U.S. is nothing without its members, and the U.N. is nothing with its members.

And I claim rights as an Arizonan. Arizona has it's own constitution. But that does not make me a citizen of Arizona. I am a citizen of the United States, my passport has the seal of the United States, and not the State seal of Arizona. Both Minnesota and Arizona, as well as the other 48 states do not have the power to override the laws set fourth by the US congress.

The land defined by borders as Minnesota belongs to Minnesota, but it also belongs to the United States. Minnesota cannot secede from the United States because the United States has claim over Minnesota. There are also 48 other states that cannot secede (Texas is the exception as they were once their own country).

When was the last time you drove on an Interstate highway? That was a road that belongs to the US and not the state you were in while driving on that road.

The UN cannot lay claim over its members. The US can lay claim over the states, therefore the states make up the physical region of the United States. The UN member nations do not make up a physical region of the UN. Claiming that the breakup of the UN would be the same as a breakup of the US is just as absurd as saying that the breakup of NATO would be the same as the breakup of the German Bundesländer.

As I said, you are a citizen of Arizona. Look at your drivers license. And look up the definition of the term citizen.

There is no Federal Gov't other than that defined by the States which comprise it. This should be obvious. Any state can secede from the United States, as long as the 14th Amendment is ceither repealed or in some fashion, changed - which would only take a Constitutional Amendment, which is implemented by agreement of 2/3rds of the representatives of the States (or 3/4ths of the legislatures of the States).

I.E. there is no Federal Gov't without the States. Just as there is no U.N. without the states.

The U.S. does not lay claim over anything. The U.S. only "lays claim" to exactly as much as the States allow it to "lay claim". If the States decide that the U.S. should not be allowed to establish a national law, the States can prevent it. Same thing with the U.N.

You're not going to succeed in establishing a credible and significant difference between the democratic functions of the U.S. and the U.N. They simply operate on different scales.

You are in disagreement with Article I, Section 8, clause 18 of the Constitution.
and the tenth amendment...
The federal government operates at a level above the states and first say regarding laws, then whatever the federal government does not make laws on is delegated to the states.

I will however cede the point of citizenship as amendment 14 clearly says that citizens are citizens of both the state they reside in as well as citizens of the United States. However there is still a fundimental difference between that and the UN. In the case of the US, I am a citizen of Arizona and of the US. But with the UN, I am a citizen of the US, but not a citizen of the UN.

This sets the US as a sovereign entity made up of people who are citizens of the US. The UN however is not a sovereign entity and has no governance of those involved in the UN. Those involved in the UN are there on a strictly volunteer basis.

For my two-cents I would first like to compliment Mr Mephisto on a job well done so far in defense of the U.N. Bravo.

To all you UN haters our there I would like to ask you, what has the UN done for you today? Can’t think of anything? Maybe that the problem and why much of the neo-con right are UN haters (Something to do with the idea that if we pay money in we should be getting something back ... hmm isn’t this their same argument against many of the social welfare programs? but I digress).

I always have to laugh to myself when I see UN haters talk out of both sides of their mouth. First, they want the UN to be a strong body capable of rushing into any country (Rwanda, Cosivo, Samolia, etc) the end hostilities and provide effective humanitarian aid. Then, often in the very next breath, they whine and complain how UN policies infringe upon state sovereignty (am I the only one who sees the contradiction here?) Listen people, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either states have sovereignty or they don’t. If they do, then any international relief agency (whether run by the UN or not) will have to work within the bounds placed upon them by states. And if they don’t, then open the boarders and strengthen the power of the UN to fulfill the role of a world governing body (something UN haters are adamantly against and yet arguing for in the same breath).

Secondly, I would like to ask all you UN haters out there how much you have really researched this issue and do you really know how the UN operates or are you just blindly repeating rhetoric that you have been feed? Many of you might be surprised to learn that nearly all UN resolution are passed by the unanimous consent of the participating countries (whether the body be the Security Council or the General Assembly), that no country is “forced” to participate in any UN backed program (possibly due to state sovereignty?), that no UN body enters into a country unless expressly invited to do so (again due to state sovereignty) with the only exception being in situations such as Iraq (1) where a country has violated the sovereign right of another or broken international law in such an egregious manner as to bring down the wrath of the global community.

I would challenge everyone (both supporters and haters) to learn more about the UN and its many programs. I personally have had the great fortune to work (albeit briefly) with 2 UN aid programs, UNESCO and UNHCR. It is an amazing experience to be in a room with people from countries all over the world, work together with these people to draft resolutions dealing with global problems, and see these resolutions come to pass by the unanimous consent of the entire body (it is also very humbling to see your hard work come to not and fail miserably because you or your partner countries attempted to push your agenda without gaining the consent of others). I have had the privilege of sitting in the Great Hall in New York during a final session of the General Assembly. This is one of the most awe inspiring moments of my life watching 198 countries and hundreds of NGO’s work together in an attempt to better all of humanity.

Lastly, for all you isolationists out there its time to wake up and smell the hummus. Deny it all you will, we are living in a global community (have been for some time). Actions that we take overseas do have effects here (and visa-versa). I had hoped that people would learn this truth after 9/11 but sadly many have not. And before you go thinking that I am some California globalist hippie, your might be surprised to learn that I was raised in a very rural community in the mid-west (Kansas if you must know). I fully understand how easy it is to buy into the isolationist rhetoric because most of us here in the US are so far removed from world events that it is difficult to see the connection between us and them. It is time for people in the US to wake up and embrace the fact that we are the worlds greatest leader. It is long past time for the US to start leading by example instead of pushing our considerable weight around like a spoiled schoolyard bully. A body is no greater then its parts, and when its greatest part (the US) is ineffectively in fulfilling its role then the entire body will suffer as a result.

No I'm not.

You are a citizen of the World. You are also a citizen of a nation that is part of the U.N. The laws of the U.N. apply to you.

And the U.N. is a sovereign entity made up of the people who are citizens of the nations which comprise the U.N. That's why we have things like U.N. sanctions, International Law, etc.
The U.N. does have governance over those involved in the U.N.
Those involved in the United States are on a strictly volunteer basis - all they have to do is amend the constitution.

Again, and for the last time - there is no significant difference between the U.S. and the U.N. other than scope. Why? Because both organizations are based on democratic principles. Therefore, to state that the U.N. should be disbanded because "in some areas (emergency humanitarian aid, third world assistance, economy of resources, fiscal transparency) failures are clearly observable" where the same thing is equally true for the U.S. is to hold those organizations to different standards without cause.

I'm not going to repeat myself yet again, so I'm done with this conversation.

The UN has zero, zilch, nada, rip sovereignity or authority. The only power the UN has is where it's conceded.

This issue was effectively settled in 1865.

The states cannot succeed at whim.

And to claim the UN is equivalent to the US in scope is like saying that the sky is red...just because you say so doesn't change the fact that it's not.

That's probably why I said exactly the opposite.

This is true of anyone/group who holds power. Including the Federal Gov't.


In general, my impression of the extreme dislike of the U.N. effectively comes down to two things:

1- It's a simple meme.
2- The people that feel this way (who are not simply repeating the meme) have a desire to see the U.S. rule the world. The U.N. is a fundamental block to that goal because the U.N. is based on democratic principles, which obviously conflict with a dictatorial U.S. rule of the world.

If I were truely a citizen of the world, I should be able to carry a passport that lets me travel to any country I choose to go to. Yet I don't, instead I have a US passport that can get me to many places, and many more when used with a visa, but there are still places I cannot go, like Cuba. And honsetly, if I ever did find out I was legally a citizen of the UN, I would renounce that citizenship immeaditly. As for the laws of the UN do not apply to me because I am a citizen of the United States, and the US Constitution clearly states that it is the supreme law of the land and supercedes all treaties with foreign bodies. The UN is a foreign body. Now in cases where there is no conflict between US and UN law, this goes unnoticed but it is still the US law that applies to me. In cases where US and UN law are in disagreement, the US law overrides the UN law.

Tell that to the people of Bingham, NM who have passed a law declaring their town a UN-free zone. Besides if they truely do have governance, then I will make this point. Kofi Annan has declared the US to be a rouge state and that our involvement in Iraq is illegal, but what has the UN done in response if that is the case? The answer: Nothing. The UN knows it has no power over the US, otherwise they would have sanctions on us by now. Instead all they can do is say, "Please listen to us. And if you don't, we'll ask again."

Thank you.

Now remind me how ability to enforce rules means it is acceptable to fail in emergency humanitarian aid, third world assistance, economy of resources and fiscal transparency - but a lack of ability to enforce rules means those failures should rightly result in disbandment.

If anything, the exact opposite would be true.

Welcome to the UN, where no good deed goes unpunished, but the bad deeds are ok.

Meh, I think the UN is an wholly undemocratic organization that's self-aggrandizing. Maybe it's ok as a forum, but when it tries to force its will, then it's out of its place.

So what do you think of this?

"Kofi Annan ordered United Nations flags at half-staff yesterday in tribute
to lately departed Palestinian supremo Yasser Arafat. . . . Say what you
will about Mr. Annan's decision, it is certainly true that for 30 years the
U.N. did what it could to elevate Arafat from terrorist to statesman. That's
something Americans might bear in mind when next told the war on
terror must be conducted under U.N. auspices."

- Wall Street Journal, 11/12/04

Just thought I should add probably one of the most important UN organizations to the list.
ICAO: The international civil aviation organization. If it weren't for them, any international travel would be seriously messed up. This is one of the only ways we can gauruntee that an airline out of Europe you fly is as safe as the one you fly out of the US. ICAO runs the NAT system that all airliners from the US to Europe use as well as the PAC tracks and polar routes that the airlines use. The rules also gauruntee that a new airliner built today conforms with the same safety standards that Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier, and Embraer abide by. It also helps countries negotiate airspace use agreements including the Open Skies treaty we have with Canada as well as ones between the US and pretty much all other countries in the world.
I would say the the UN's major successes are really not often paid attention to because they do what they're supposed to. Just my $0.02.

There you have it. The US is dictatorial (to the rest of the peace-loving world), but apparently not to its citizens.

Let's have some history:

After World War I, Woodrow Wilson had proposed 14 Points that would [theoretically] assure world peace. He naively assumed that all the countries of the world would simply be nice to each other. He doggedly supported a League of Nations, a cooperative effort among the nations of the world to live in peace with each other. (sure-Hitler,Tojo) He had redrawn the map of the world: essentially all of Europe, ½ of Africa, and ¼ of Asia.

Related information: The Council on Foreign Relations, a think-tank, had been formally chartered in 1922. It was designed by British and American idealists as the way to create an ideal world-and it still dominates U. S. foreign policy. The last eight Secretaries of State have been members, and the Clinton administration included over 50 members in upper levels of government, military, and industry. The entire CFR philosophy rests on the same false view that men are all peaceful.

After World War II, we had been brought full circle from the failure of the Versailles Treaty and the League of Nations back to the same starting point.

The United Nations was the result of planning that began in 1942. George Marshall, Franklin Roosevelt, and others planned for a post-war New World Order. This new cooperative world network would be led by the super-powers, the U.K., the U.S., and the USSR. Together they would redesign the world so that there would be no national sovereignty-all nations could hold each other accountable and exercise their authority within individual nations. In other words, nations wouldn't rule themselves; there would be world oversight. (What kind of "oversight" do you think Stalin had in mind?)

The basic model, then, for avoiding all future wars was-of all things-the League of Nations. Upon the same utopian premise, Roosevelt added his four essential freedoms:

" Freedom of speech
" Freedom of worship
" Freedom from want
" Freedom from fear

On June 26, 1945, representatives from 50 nations met in San Francisco and signed the charter bringing the United Nations Organization into official existence. The United Nations was intended to be the government that would create the New World Order. Significantly, the Soviet Union demanded and got three votes. Though it was well-known that Ukraine and Belarus were under Soviet control, the USSR claimed that they were "separate nations." The USSR had actually demanded six votes, but it was decided that Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia were not separate nations.

To understand the true nature of the UN, we have only to look at one man, the first Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Alger Hiss was an important official of the State Department during and immediately after World War II. He had been advisor to Roosevelt at the Yalta Conference with Stalin and Churchill, and played a leading role in the development of the UN. He had friends in high places, was good looking, and had risen high in government ranks. In 1946, as a result of a persistent investigation by young California congressman Richard Nixon, he was exposed as a Communist spy. A good man to start a world peace organization.

The second Secretary-General, Trygve Lie, was nominated by the Soviets. He was the founder of the Communist Party in Norway, and remained a committed socialist throughout his life. Under his leadership, Stalin continued to take over Eastern Europe unchallenged, while Lie condemned right-wing dictatorships in Latin America.

The third Secretary-General was Dag Hammerskjold, a Swedish Communist, elected in 1953. Instead of protesting the continuing Soviet aggression, he focused his efforts on apartheid in South Africa and Rhodesia. He said nothing when the white minority in Rhodesia was slaughtered under a Communist dictatorship.

Hammerskjold died in a plane crash in 1961, but his successor, Secretary-General U Thant, founder of the Burmese Communist Party, said nothing when Czechoslovakian riots were crushed by Soviet tanks in 1968. Instead, he condemned French and American methods of dealing with student protests and Vietnam protestors.

Under U Thant, 18 separate agencies of the UN were built-a huge bureaucracy of international agencies that had created a series of treaties and resolves giving the UN authority over United States spheres. Our national parks are now "international biosphere zones," controlled by the UN. In addition, there are the World Health Organization, which tells people how many children they can have, International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and numerous environmental agencies that regulate primarily the United States. All this is imposed on us by an unelected government with a global base-and we pay 25% of its budget.

In 1972, Kurt Waldheim became Secretary-General. This man was a Nazi war criminal. He condemned the United States actions in Vietnam and Israel's 1973 Yom Kippur War, but was silent when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.

In 1982, Secretary-General J. Perez Cuellor condemned right-wing governments in Argentina, Ecuador, and Peru, while bolstering Castro's Communist regime in Cuba.

Boutros-Boutros Ghali became Secretary-General in 1992. He was an Egyptian Moslem and a founder of the Baathist party (now famous due to Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime). Ghali brought pressure to bear in the Middle East and in Moslem conflicts in Bosnia, Serbia, etc. While he was its leader, the UN funded China's one child/family policy, but had nothing to say about Tiananmen Square. Africa suffered under Marxist dictators (Somalia, Ethiopia) while the UN stood idly by.

Under a banner of peacekeeping, the UN has meddled in the social and medical affairs of the nations of the world. Said to be "man's last, best hope for peace," it has botched everything it has done. The Soviet invasions of Hungary (1956), Czechoslovakia (1968), and Afghanistan (1978) have gone uncontested. No peacekeepers were deemed necessary. It has sent peacekeepers into Bosnia, Lebanon, and Somalia, among other places. So, after their wonderful and effective work, would you plan a vacation at any of those places?

The UN's charter proclaims its purpose to be the saving of the world for peace (see Communist definition of "peace"). Instead of sending humanitarian aid, arbitrating cease-fires, or enforcing détente, it has spent 90% of its budget on meddling. In 1992, of $7.8 million spent, only 10% went to peacekeeping. Its vision of the world is one of peace through imposing bureaucracy and a smothering coercion. It has consistently and insistently attacked Western nations-Christian ones-as heretical. It aims to destroy everything that Western Christendom has stood for.

The United States won the war for the world, then paved the way for Communist tyranny through well-intended but foolish philosophies. We've seen its "effectiveness" as the war with Iraq loomed. The UN tried to deny America's sovereign right to respond to the attack on us by terrorists, while allowing Saddam Hussein 12 years to build up his war arsenal, oppress and murder his own people, and to support the terrorism that plagues the world.

Khofi Annan, meanwhile, was perfectly happy to leave Saddam alone, as long as his son raked in profits from the oil-for-food scandal.

To review:

1. Roosevelt declared that all men had four essential freedoms: freedom of speech and worship, and freedom from want and fear. Government can and certainly should protect the first two freedoms, but it cannot and should not try to guarantee the other two. In relieving want, it must take from those who have to provide for those who do not have (legal plunder), and no human being or government can free people from fear.

2. The United Nations was built on the faulty [utopian] premise that all the people of the world wanted peace and that all should draw together behind this goal.

Backers of the United Nations falsely assumed that Communists shared common ground and common goals with non-communist countries. Nations that intend to dominate the entire world can hardly be sharing common ground with nations that wish to be free.

In the ideology of communism, world peace is unchallenged world communism.

3. Most of the UN member nations are busy trying to steal as much from us as they can, under the guise of "world peace."

So there's my "simple" reason for disliking the UN.

Excellent post, Tarl Cabot. I knew bits and pieces of it, but that was a good executive summary.

The UN is great in principle, but the disproportionate dues/vote ratio makes for a situation where the have nots can safely bleed the haves. This after years of it being used as a stage to fight the cold war, with the Soviet Union using its extra "votes" to sabotage the US.

Interesting that this is still played out today with the UN regularly passing resolutions condemning Israel and not simularly condemning Palestinian suicide bombings.

Nonsense and nonsense.

Both Tarl Cabot and Lebell's posts are based on the opinion that the have nots are stealing from the haves.

Unfortunately for their opinions, that theft doesn't even begin to balance the theft enacted by the haves on the have nots in the form of global capitalism.

Tarl Cabot's other opinon, that the U.S. desires world freedom, is disproved by the history of U.S. foreign policy, particularly post-WWII.

The U.S. desires self-preservation. And today, that self-preservation includes the stability of its position as the single super power afforded the rights to police the world as it sees fit. World freedom would be detrimental to the U.S. economy.

It is though. Non-humanitarian aid is essentially a new form of colonialism. Third world countries are forever paying off loans with rising interest rates, and taking out more loans to pay off current loans, etc. with no end in sight. Most aid between countries and from large organizations (World Bank, IMF) is not good for the country receiving it. There is good aid though, through organizations such as UNICEF, The Red Cross, and hundreds or even thousands of smaller NGOs, but "aid" generally helps the donor country more than the recipient.

So you acknowledge the theft but justify it by saying that one justifies the other?

Then how did the US (or any other country) survive before the UN? There were agreements before the UN about international trade, and undoubtedly there would be agreements after the UN.

As opposed to losing your job to outsorcing to another country? Again, any agreement could be better accomplished through agreements between individual countries (or economic partnerships, such as the EU). It might even lead to MORE IT jobs in the US, as the global operations would have to be scaled back, leaving it more economically feasible to have IT jobs stay in the US.

The successes of this body are too numerous to mention :rolleyes: . Otherwise, my bootleg Hong Kong DVD's might be $2 per instead of $3 per. Even today, copyright law is only enforced to the extent that a particular country desires to enforce it.

Again, countries survived before the UN. There was interaction before. I think that although the UN might have started as a good idea, it has degraded to a form of welfare for developing nations. It makes sense for alot of countries to support the UN, but the US is not one of them. And with the current state of most European economies, it is probably not beneficial for them either. And as for a supposed duty to the world, that should be left up to the decicion of private entities, not forced upon whole nations.

A huge task I may add. But hey, what will happen to the great USA, if all the countries take out their gold reserves from US, and say put it in a swiss bank? What will that do the prised dollar? What will happen to the top 10 banks in US that hold the pention fund money of the UN, or the procurment funds of the UN?
History tells us that there is always a decline of the hegimon.
As to police the world as one superpower sees fit, that is still to be seen. After all we are all different people, and the world is different. Some countries stive to the western goods in form of Coca Cola or McDonnalds, others tend to go without it. Respect that is what USA lacks these days.

Nice above post Publius. Some good discussion here.

If countries take their gold reserves from the US and put it in a Swiss bank, nothing will happen to the dollar. The US has been off the gold standard for approx. 80 years.

i have to say that tarl's post above is appalling.

that poverty is somehow normal, somehow acceptable, is not only ethically regunant but is also not good business because it builds an element of social instability into the heart of capitalism--and capitalism, for all the ideology of freedom that floats with it, in the same huge white porcelain bowl, requires social stability to operate. even as the system itself undermines it.

the idea that the redistriubtion of wealth is legal plunder is absurd. so absurd that it is difficult to know where to start to demonstrate its absurdity. maybe it makes sense in the manly fantasies informed by hack writers on the order of ayn rand, but nowhere else.

the whole communism thing is straight from the john birch society. i remain amazed that this outdated tripe has attained any currency for anyone. even if you stick with the relatively expansive assumptions about conservative credulity, it still is amazing.

world peace=world communism?
i do not know what you are talking about.

the funny thing in that is that it is the capitalist order that is interested in global domination, operating behind the figleaf of formal freedom.
just look around at the empirical world
get your head out of far right redbaiting nonsense from the middle 1950s.

from here, what manx said i would echo.

Poverty is normal in a capitalist society. You can't have rich people without poor people. No matter what you do, as long as you currently live within this type of economy, there WILL BE POOR PEOPLE.

It is essentially plunder though. The countries who have the power to bargain from a favoured position gain much more from their trade relationships than do the weaker countries. I defy you to show me how multinationals based out of the US and the US itself are gaining equally from trade agreements with, for example, any Latin American country.

I have absolutely no idea what the point of this paragraph was, but I shall attempt to mirror it:
The whole capitalism thing is straight from PABAAH. I remain amazed that this outdated tripe has attained any currency for anyone. Even if you stick with the relatively expansive assumptions about liberal credulity, it is still amazing.

I find the above long on emotional rhetoric, and short on facts and logic. However, I particularly enjoyed these:

" maybe it makes sense in the manly fantasies informed by hack writers on the order of ayn rand"

"the whole communism thing is straight from the john birch society."

"i remain amazed that this outdated tripe has attained any currency for anyone."

"get your head out of far right redbaiting nonsense from the middle 1950s."

In spite of the middling length of your diatribe, you neglected to mention:

1. The basis for what you think is your (okay, anyone's) right to confiscate wealth from others. That concept was anathema to the founding fathers.

2. The income level which should trigger wealth confiscation by the government. When I can pin a socialist down on this subject, the answer tends to be anything greater than their income level. However, most of them simply duck the question.

3. How capitalism has survived without your guidance, if it's as fragile as you say.

4. If a person is automatically entitled to receive enough largesse to live wherever they want. Worded another way, is a jobless person in southern California entitled to enough money from other people to remain there, or would it be acceptable to provide enough money for a two-bedroom apartment in southern Mississippi?

Oh, one more thing:

Let's take a hypothetical. A child is born on a Florida farm, the seventh of fourteen children. No phone. No electricity. He plows fields behind a mule. His shirts are made from flour sacks.

After he graduates from high school, he goes back to work on his parents' farm, but for no pay.

How much government assistance (i.e. other people's money) should we start giving him?

i suppose there is an alternate dimension in which that would be understood as witty, suave, but whatever....read the end of tarl's rant and you will see what i am responding to at least.

the redistribution of wealth (legal plunder in your terminology) was an adaptation to modern warfare and the requirements that put on nation-states.
it also was central to funding the entire infrastructure that neo-liberal ideology likes to exclude from its "thinking" about capitalism.
income taxations was in significant measure a response to systematic inequities generated by capitalism that far outstripped the ability of "private charities" to address and that formed a basis for political threats to the system by the early 20th century...but i suppose that these adaptations are something that you oppose, as you seem to imagine that inequities in wealth are normal and that basic freedoms only really apply to the holders of capital.


but you should at least keep in mind that yours is not the only interpretation of basic freedoms and that other understandings have been at the basis for the instituting of other forms of capitalism that have proven to be less barbaric than the american model over the course of this century.
now you have had a conservative political offensive against the other forms, and the only coherent result of it so far has been to demonstrate that the only reason more equitable variants of capitalism have emerged is out of political fear of a threat from the left.

you should maybe recall that one of the main reasons for setting up not just the un but bretton woods, the imf, nato seato, etc. were as various reactions to fascism. the understanding that motivated them was that poverty, exacerbated by problems of currency, were the causes of fascism. all these mechanisms were set up to provide transnational sources of stabilization to nation states. maybe that is what makes them all "communist"? because in trying to do other things that might make the international distrubtion of wealth a little more equitable--in the case of the un--it messes with the natural order?

sounds like ned beatty's speech in the film "network" without the satire part.

i do not understand what point you were trying to make in the second part of your last post. best i can figure it, what you are saying is a tautology. more economically powerful countries exploit their power acorss bilateral arrangements with less economically powerful ones. well obviously. but following the logic of the first part of your post, i would imagine that you would think this too is part of the "natural order" of things.

tarl: what the founding fathers did not imagine as necessary in the late 1700s--in the context of a largely agrarian economy--makes no difference whatsoever in the 21st century. even during the period when tocqueville was researching "democracy in america"--the late 1830s--the agrarian model for the american economy was not really dominant--capitalism was taking shape in the cities--the civil war pretty much determined which general mode of economic activity would dominate in the states. so the world jefferson wrote about is long gone, tarl. it does not matter what they found horrifying--their was a different place.

not interested in the second point, as what i have to say on the matter is either in the post above or here.

on your third "point"---capitalism has a history, tarl. you could read about it.
then maybe we could have an interesting conversation. right now, this is nonsense.

on your john birch society views of the un--read the last part of the longer post above...around the "world peace=world communism" bit.


the rest of your post--your "examples"---operate on assumptions that are absurd, so there is no way to respond.

One that had no poor people?


I took a college course on US History since 1865, so I consider myself educated on the subject, your opinion notwithstanding.

I've read it. And if you don't want your opinions to be referred to as "Karl Marx views," you might want to knock off the "john birch" references.


I'm unaware of any "examples," with the possible exception of the hypothetical I posted. I also notice that you suggest reading for me, but you apparently missed my questions. So I'll repeat them here:

1. What is the basis for what you think is your (okay, anyone's) right to confiscate wealth from others?

2. What is the income level which should trigger wealth confiscation by the government?

3. How has capitalism survived without your guidance, if it's as fragile as you say? Okay, you probably think you answered that one. Free pass.

4. Is a person automatically entitled to receive enough largesse to live wherever they want? Worded another way, is a jobless person in southern California entitled to enough money from other people to remain there, or would it be acceptable to provide enough money for a two-bedroom apartment in southern Mississippi? (Hint: That means the recipient might have to move if he wants to receive free shelter.)

Oh, one more thing:

Let's take a hypothetical. A child is born on a Florida farm, the seventh of fourteen children. No phone. No electricity. He plows fields behind a mule. His shirts are made from flour sacks.

After he graduates from high school, he goes back to work on his parents' farm, but for no pay.

How much government assistance (i.e. other people's money) should we start giving him?

yours is a completely ahistorical viewpoint.
not interested in debating this type of question with you any further.

Obviously not. The world is not a perfect place. If you hate the UN and call for its dissolution because it steals, it goes to reason you would hate the US and desire its dissolution even more. But alas, people are not perfect in balancing their desires, either.

OK, in an attempt to get this thread BACK ON TRACK, I'll respond to irate's comments.

I'm not refuting "any criticisms" of the UN at all. In fact, I've repeatedly said otherwise.

How would I reform it?

Well, I would either abolish or reform the concept of "Permanent" members of the Security Council. It may have reflected Real Politik in the post-WWII era, but I'm not so sure it's appropriate today. Of course, it's a difficult subject and I don't claim to have all the answers.

With what would you replace it? Call "it" whatever you like, but the concept is the same. I'm arguing against those who seem to resist the whole concept of an inter-national body, that there is "no need" for the UN etc.

Well this statement is in glaring inconsistency with the majority of anti-UN arguments heard heretofore. On one hand we have anti-UN posters stating that the US should never cede an iota of sovereignty to the UN, yet on another we have you saying that the the United Nations "MUST act" in particular circumstances. Since the UN has no assets (military or economic) other than that provided by its members, you are suggesting that the United States "MUST act" when and if the United Nations so commands.

I'm hope you see the hypocracy here.

The UN should never be forced to act at all. By its very nature it is a democratic body. If the General Assembly or the Security Council vote against something, then that's a fact of life. It's called politics. And it happens everyday in the US and Britian and Sweden and.... in every democratic nation on Earth. The UN only acts when its constituent bodies/members so decide.

If you have a problem with the lack of UN action in a particular circumstance, you should take it up with the coutnries that veto'd it or blocked the passage of the proposal.

I couldn't disagree more. On one hand you're saying that the UN "MUST act" but on another you're removing any body with which it can prosecute those who have committed crimes. If the US deigns itself to be above International Law then there is very little the UN and the rest of the world can do about it. But the US should not be able to dictate to the rest of the world community, who support the concept of an International Court, what they should be allowed to do.

Again, I hope you see the glaring inconsistency here too.

Well, I agree there should be fiscal transparency. I'm not sure if the salary of the Secretary General is confidential or not. I doubt it. http://www.un.org/Depts/OHRM/salarie...ces/salary.htm

Proposed Programme Budget for the Biennium 2004-2005 - http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups...npan015528.pdf

Background to the Budget for Financial year 2004/05 - http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups...NPAN017032.pdf

First and foremost, the United States actually provides considerably less than many countries. The contribution to the UN is based upon a percentage of GDP and the US is far behind in paying its dues. In other words, the countries that do pay their dues are experiencing a greater economic burden than the US which is not paying its dues.

Secondly, contributing troops to UN actions is entirely voluntary. There is not "quid pro quo" in this aspect. You can't say "Well, we will give troops but we want to have more influence". It may transpire that way in essence (as the US does indeed have far more influence than, say, Ireland) but you can't enshrine that in the charter.

Thirdly, and almost paradoxically, the US does in fact have more actual real influence and control over the United Nations than 98% of other countries with its permanent seat on the Security Council. In effect, the US can block, and regularly does, any action the UN SC undertakes or recommends.

So your argument is not only invalid in theory, but also baseless in fact.


Mr Mephisto

Well yes and no. It might be argued that America was a different place at that point in time, but Europe was well advanced into entering the industrial/capitalism age. In a letter Jefferson writes to Madison in 1785, Jefferson addresses the issue of inequality in European society, and while his primary concern is the unequal division of property (land) (keeping in mind Jefferson strongly believed that the best society was one based upon agrarian principles) it can be argued that in a world where capitalism rules the definition of property would not be limited only to land but would also include Marx’s “means of production” and the mass fortunes of people like Bill Gates. Well, I’ll let Jefferson do the talking:

Jefferson: to James Madison. Fontainebleau, Oct. 28, 1785

“As soon as I had got clear of the town I fell in with a poor woman walking at the same rate with myself and going the same course. Wishing to know the condition of the laboring poor I entered into conversation with her, which I began by enquiries for the path which would lead me into the mountain: and thence proceeded to enquiries into her vocation, condition and circumstances. She told me she was a day laborer at 8 sous or 4d. sterling the day: that she had two children to maintain, and to pay a rent of 30 livres for her house (which would consume the hire of 75 days), that often she could get no employment and of course was without bread. As we had walked together near a mile and she had so far served me as a guide, I gave her, on parting, 24 sous. She burst into tears of a gratitude which could perceive was unfeigned because she was unable to utter a word. She had probably never before received so great an aid. This little attendrissement, with the solitude of my walk, led me into a train of reflections on that unequal division of property which occasions the numberless instances of wretchedness which I had observed in this country and is to be observed all over Europe ... The property of this country is absolutely concentered in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards. These employ the flower of the country as servants, some of them having as many as 200 domestics, not laboring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers and tradesmen, and lastly the class of laboring husbandmen. But after all there comes the most numerous of all classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? ... I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property ... another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right ...if for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation.” :thumbsup:

Publius,

Given that the letter was written over 200 years ago, what do you interpret the bolded part to mean?

Does it mean that legislators ought not to figure out how to make property ownership more equitable?

Or does it meant that legislators are not capable of exhausting ways of making ownserhip more equitable (due to the problems of inequality being so "enormous")?

You don't have to dig up more references, I've seen enough of your knowledge in this area to believe you have a good idea of how this question sits in relation to other information.


Also, I'd like to know whether my facts are correct in this:

The founders were categorically opposed to taxation (as roachboy was responding to this assertion), or taxation without representation?

Well Mr. Mephisto, I guess I sidetracked for a second there, but I don't really have much to add after your postings.

Other than to inform you that you had me off the fence until you threw the IMF, WTO, and World Bank into the mix! :)

Seriously though, I thought those were Brenton Woods organizations instituted after WW2. What is their relation to the UN in terms of their basis for your including them as a function of that international umbrella institution?


Hey look, I found something of an answer:


-- http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willet...S/APR-2002.HTM

Smooth,

Great questions you have posed here so let me answer them the best that I can (with a little help from my friend, Jefferson). In response to your first question concerning the bolded section in Jefferson’s letter to Madison, the answer is the latter “that legislators are not capable of exhausting ways of making ownserhip more equitable (due to the problems of inequality being so "enormous")”. Of course Jefferson is speaking mostly of the property ownership of land but again this must be taken in the context of Jefferson’s view that an agrarian society was ideal. Further down Jefferson notes that, “if for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated (speaking of land at this point), we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation.” Basically what Jefferson is arguing for is that if we allow great inequalities of ownership to arise within society, it will be the duty of the legislators to ensure that these inequalities do not become “so far extended as to violate natural right”.

In response to your second question concerning the “founders” it is first very important to note that lumping all of the “founders” together as having the same thinking is a mistake in itself for like all of us, each of them had significantly different ideas about how taxation (and government) should be handed. If, on the other hand, you are asking what Jefferson’s view was on taxation then I think that his opinion was quit clear and speaks for itself.

Jefferson: to Madison. Paris, Dec. 20, 1787. Speaking on the proposed Constitution for the United States. “I like the power given the Legislature to levy taxes, and for that reason solely approve of the greater house being chosen by the people directly. For tho' I think a house chosen by them will be very illy qualified to legislate for the Union, for foreign nations &c. yet this evil does not weigh against the good of preserving inviolate the fundamental principle that the people are not to be taxed but by representatives chosen immediately by themselves.”

The founders were not (as a whole) so much opposed to taxation as they were to taxation without representation. (It is actually somewhat ironic that the American public actually paid more taxes after the Revolution then they did prior to the King.)

So the real question here is, getting back to the topic of this post, are fees paid to the UN by the US government tantamount to taxation upon the American public without representation? I would argue that they are no more so then much of the taxation policies that our federal government currently has in place today. Why? Most of our tax code is decided with mere tacit consent of the Congress because the Congress has delegated its Constitutional obligation to governmental agencies and only intervenes when it is politically convenient to do so (also note here that nowhere does the Constitution, or for that matter most of the writing of our founders, give any power of taxation to the president, hmmm makes you wonder why he is always talking about it so much like he should be in control of it doesn’t it?). This in itself runs afoul of the ideals held by Jefferson (and other founders).

However, laying these concern aside for the moment and returning to the fact that Congress has been given the power of taxation (see Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, and the 16th amendment) and that the President has the power to make treaties (with the consent of 2/3 of the senate) and shall have the power to appoint Ambassadors (again with the consent of the senate) (see Constitution Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2) then I find the argument that fees paid to the UN amount to a taxation on the US people without due representation unconvincing. Our government has been freely elected (whining liberals about stolen elections be damned), our national leaders have chosen as a matter of foreign policy that the benefits to be gained by participating in the UN offset the fees we are asked (not required) to provide, therefore I am lead to believe that because our elected representatives have determined that it is in the greater interest of our country to participate in this organization, and any dues paid the UN, therefore, were paid as a result of this decision, then the American people have been given representation through their elected government. If the American people believe that this government has not acted in their best interest then they are free to remove its leaders from power and elect those who they believe would do a better job of representing them concerning the best course for US foreign policy.

(As an aside note: for those of you who are interested in learning more about our founders and what they believed I would recommend the following sight. http://www.claremont.org/ The Claremont Institute is a “conservative” intellectual think tank that believes in returning American politics to the ideals of our founders. Many of my professors from my undergraduate studies are Claremont Institute Fellows and contributing writers to this forum ... thus where I gained much of my knowledge of this subject matter.)

it seems to me that most strict constructionists know full well that the desire to return to the founder's ideologies is problematic:
on interpretive grounds (original intent? huh?)
on historical grounds (see above)
and on political grounds (the contradiction it implies between original intent and a precedent-based legal system, for example).

so the motive cannot really lay in the content of their politics--it is more about developing a way to frame attacks on what they understand as "judicial activism" by undercutting the ability of the legal system to respond to changing mores.

they know--we all know--that jefferson was not a prophet. what he wrote was as tied to the period in which he wrote as marx was, as lenin was, as von hayek was. etc etc etc.

it seems this tack brings us to distant shores. it seems difficult to get back from them.

whoa...easy there....how about you forget about the ONE Chomsky book you read that made you an expert for just a second.

Armed Robbery implies a violation of un unwilling party, by an aggressor party. Have you ever been to southeast asia? They are thrilled to have those factories and the wages they bring, even if those wages are significantly lower than in America. But comparing american wages and lifestyles to those in Asia, or French lifestyles to those in Russia for that matter, is plain ignorance.

I have never read Chomsky nor have I been to SE Asia. But I have been to a textile factory in Mexico and spent a few nights in a tar hut shanty town where most of the workers lived. I was involved in filming a documentary about the poor working conditions in factories which supplied U.S. manufacturers with goods. Within a few minutes of walking into the building, a couple of people on the film crew passed out due to the intense fumes of the chemicals used to process the fabrics and materials. Beyond the horrendous working conditions in the factory, the shanty town was comprised of ramshackle housing, some made from cardboard, where entire extended families lived and worked at the factory.

"Thrilled" is not the word I would use to sum up the feelings of the people I met. Maybe "hopeless suffering" would be more accurate.

Here is some more info on the UN's oil-for-food program, the corruption, and the stalling of the investigation: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer.

Hilarious.... The report out today, 21 billion dollars in kickbacks for Saddam from the Oil for Food program, 2x as much as they expected.

Milton Friedman won a Nobel Prize in economics for proving that poverty is not just a byproduct, but a necessity in a capitolistic society.

Both statements are true:

capitalism needs social stability to keep chugging along. otherwise the unhappy (impoverished) might rise up. it also costs a hell of a lot of money to control a pissed of and disenfranchised population (witness wars and imprisonment).

capitalism also needs poverty to keep chugging. there are so many reasons that it's difficult to list them. maybe from the outset I can list it gives us a good reason to work hard. gives us a scapegoat when things go wrong. gives the entire system a ready work force to do the grunge work. keeps wages lower.


What you are pointing out would probably be best understood as one of the internal inconsistencies within capitalism. marx believed that capitalism sowed its own seeds of destruction by creating conditions that were objectively incompatible with each other (need social stability, need social instability). Thus, once the inconsistencies became apparent, challenges would arise and the system would implode.


So we are left with discussing the theoretical implications of capitalism versus what we are working with currently. Given that capitalism is here, its global, and doesn't really look to be on the decline in the near future, there is still an argument over how it operates.

There is nothing "natural" about the way any economic system works. Economic interaction, like I would argue all human interaction, is a social construction. That doesn't make it fake or illusory, but it does mean that human beings can change the rules. There is no external, objective, intrisic force that prevents human beings from realizing a different "flavor" of capitalism. But to the extent that we reify capitalism, we will be unable to understand that there are no rules other than the ones we ourselves create.

At some points in time, capitalists have come to understand this and promote stablizing programs. I'm not too happy about it, I'd like the thing to wither away myself. But we'd need to look at Friedman's writings more carefully to assess whether he also understood that the "necessity" of poverty to the smooth running capitalist economy must be understood with a healthy dose of realization that the long-term effects create very real problems to the system.

Poverty is relative.

Poverty in the developed world is wealth in the developing world.

Most people who complain about poverty in nations like the US have never seen true poverty.

Of course poverty is relative, but we measure it absolutely.

I'd much rather we measure relative poverty, but then our numbers of impoverished would be staggering. (BTW, relative poverty is measured by those living under half of the median income).


I don't know how you can come up with a statement that others haven't seen "true" poverty, which implies an objective state, when you started with the notion that poverty is relative.


There are a number of misconceptions packed into your second sentence, but that's not for this thread I think.

It's sad that they'd give away a Nobel Prize for something so obvious. I figured that out myself the first time I decided to think about it logically.

Wow....You all certainly have a lot to say.

I was called away by a family crisis and ended up half way across the country....I am still studying the info from Mr. mephisto's first post and weighing in all of the comments. and can't wait to finish reading all of the posts.

I wonder how Saddam survived the UN sanctions?
 

What, no comments on this? Maybe more than a link should appear:

Hussein's illegal oil revenue put at $21.3 billion

'Staggering' violations of U.N. sanctions seen

By Pauline Jelinek and Desmond Butler
ASSOCIATED PRESS

November 16, 2004

WASHINGTON – Over more than a decade, Saddam Hussein's government raised more than $21.3 billion in illegal revenue by subverting U.N. sanctions against Iraq, including the humanitarian oil-for-food program, congressional investigators estimated yesterday.

That's double the $10 billion the Iraqi president previously was alleged to have siphoned off.

The earlier estimate included only the oil-for-food program. The new, higher number includes illicit profits from efforts like the illegal smuggling of oil in the years of sanctions that preceded the humanitarian program that began in 1996.

"The magnitude of fraud perpetrated by Saddam Hussein in contravention of U.N. sanctions and the oil-for-food program is staggering," Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., said yesterday as his Senate Government Affairs permanent subcommittee on investigations began a hearing on the matter.

--*--

Of course, Saddam had to learn to survive Bill Clinton speaking very, very sternly about him.

My God!!

There was some corruption by Saddam Hussein!! Well then, we should disband the UN entirely.

We can't have any hint of corruption in a cross-national body. No no no...

The same way we should disband Haliburton and the US Military and NATO and the EU and NAFTA and the IMF and the.... ad nauseum


/SARCASM


Mr Mephisto

I watched some interviews last night on Free Speech TV by Democracy Now!. One man was the UN Assistant Secretary (I may have that title incorrect, he was the guy directly under Annan). He, along with others, resigned once the sanctions were placed, I believe is what he said.

Anyway, the point is, (oh yeah, he is in Ireland, as well) that he stated everyone knew what was going on. There was no scandal. All the deals between Turkey and Iraq were known to the US government, and allowed because they were economically harmed by the sanctions but are our allies. He said that the individuals who may have taken bribes ought to be punished if they stepped outside the boundaries, but as far as the billions of dollars being shifted around, that was all known to the world stage.

In fact, he reminded the audience that quite a number of US companies directly and indirectly benefitted from the trading. I don't remember all of the details, but it will either be shown again or maybe is posted on DemocracyNow!'s website (if they post streaming video of their segments, I don't know).

The corruption is not just by Hussein, and, while not a reason to disband the U.N., is a proper subject of debate in a forum relating to why some may have a general negative reaction to the U.N.

Your position seems to be that the U.N. does lots and lots of good things reasonably well that don't necessarily get big headlines. That's fine, but are you saying the corruption, which now appears to have lead to the funding of terrorists, isn't worthy of honest debate or should not be considered when evaluating the U.N.?

You have put a lot of thought and typing into your defense of the U.N. (which I think everyone here appreciates), but are we just like lawyers here--hired to pick a side--or can we talk about all of the issues and try to put them into context?

For me, I think the corruption is a bad thing, particularly when you look at the nations involved in the oil-for-food program. I think the U.N. is pretty weak in international peacekeeping, slow to react when genocide or massive catastrophies hit, fails to stand by its resolutions if force may be required, and leans a little to anti-US in my opinion. I think it does a lot of humanitarian good, but wastes a lot of money and is inefficient in many respects. I think it is a mixed bag. We shouldn't disband it, but should not be afraid to criticize it.

Imagine if the Bush administration were responsible for similar corruption in the U.S., had tried to block any investigation, and tried to defend itself by saying that it spends a lot of money on kids programs and aids research and poverty programs. I think this thread would read a little differently.