The full debate is here I thought this deserved front page... .
I have replied, but regrettably the format is not too good so, without any other reason, I repeat it here... I confess to changing formats to making it clearer (one of the drawbacks of Haloscan Lance, sorry...) and some judicious editing of my replies to the points made.
First, I dispute your suggestion that GWB has "global ambitions." His campaign platform in 2000 was that the U.S. should be less involved - not more - in the affairs of other nations.
Yes, and then there is the argument that “other nations involved themselves in the affairs of the US.
Well, that does not entirely wash with me. A bunch of armed religious thugs involved themselves in affairs of the US; the leaders of one nation were harbouring the leaders of those religious thugs; but then the US administration in its wisdom decided that the moment was opportune to take out another thorny problem in the Middle East region.
Irrespective of the “justification” that might be the current favourite, the truth is that that action against Iraq by the “coalition of the brave” had as much validity in international law as did Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait.
As I said in my original comment, what was one of the very first actions taken by GWB as President; why did he take that action?
Ans – he withdrew, no sorry he impugned the US signature on the ICCJ documents. He said that it was to prevent any US serviceman from being charged with war crimes.
It just happens that any serviceman (or woman) taking part in an illegal war MAY be guilty of war crime…
Then, what is the US going to do next, after Bush is re-elected…invade Iran? That has already been signalled. North Korea? Well there is a problem there now that SOUTH Korea has admitted having intensive research into Pu extraction.
Also, I don't accept any criticism from Kofi Annan. He is the hypocritical leader of an insignificant, corrupt, and hypocritical organization. It was the UNSC's own resolution which gave any member nation the authority to use military force against Iraq, if Iraq did not comply with UN demands. For him to call the war "illegal" is beyond contemptible, particularly considering UN corruption in the Food for Oil scandal, and their apparent indifference to genocide and slavery in Sudan, not to mention the atrocities against the Iraqi Kurdish population that their own inspectors confirmed.
Well now, I have not yet seen any direct evidence that Kofi Annan has profitted personally from illegal activity within the UN.
I know that kicking the UN is a favourite US pasttime; has been for some while, and probably will be for as long as other nations try and pass resolutions criticising Israel for breaches of the Geneva Conventions, and the illegal occupation of “foreign territory”.
The only “corruption” that has been anywhere near “proved” is that Hussein and his henchmen were not only black marketing oil into Russia and other nations, but that they were sucking the Oil for Food tit dry as well.
Yes, I have seen the accusations against one of Annan’s family. To my knowledge, those are still only accusations. I am waiting for the various enquiries to be completed.
While on the subject, recall the reasons given to the international community for undertaking Iraq2. Not once did the subject of internal genocide, the Kurds, or any of those topics come up. Why?
Because the US knew and knows that would be pictured as interference in the affairs of a sovreign nation. The only justification that the international community might wear (and they did not) was the "direct threat posed by WMD" and that is where GWB hung his hat.
Added as an afterthought.... The other aspect to the "humanitarian justification" is the fact that many of the events used as examples took place some years prior to GWB trying to find reasons to get rid of Hussein.
As for Sudan, there is no difference between the US’s attempts to promote UNSC resolutions on Sudan on the one hand, and Jordan, Egypt, France, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran trying to have resolutions placed before UNSC regarding Israel.
I think you are being somewhat parochial in view of the fact that the UN has passed now several resolutions on Sudan, and that one of the major stumbling blocks is now the funding of a pan-African force. The only opposition to those resolutions came, I believe, from China.
Your criticism of the UN ignores one very important fact. Any Organisation is only as good as its members. Are you a golfer? Or a member of a club of any kind? If things go wrong, who is the first person everyone blames? Themselves? NEVER!!! It is always that poor B*******d at the top. Doing the job that no one else would want.
What should you do in order to be an effective member of the club? SUPPORT the club. MAKE SURE that the truth is told. BE CERTAIN that you comply with the club rules. PAY your dues. Think on't...
Now: you are absolutely correct that military power is only part of the U.S. influence over the rest of the world: there are economic and cultural aspects to it, too. I'm sure it would be bothersome to me, if I were a native New Zealander, just as it's bothersome to me as a Wisconsin native that East and West Coast culture has so much influence on the Midwest.But I think you would feel the same way that I do, if we were talking about letting Australia and Indonesia vote in New Zealand's elections. I wouldn't let that happen, any more than I would let my neighbor down the block tell me my kids have to be in bed at 8 instead of 9.
If you were regulating what time your neighbours’ kids were going to bed through the imposition of an illegal curfew and at the same time letting your kids operate the neighbourhood crime ring then there would be a parallel in your final point.
As it is, NZ is not illegally invading Australia or Indonesia. NZ is not allowing the Nauru government to murder the refugees that are being housed there for the Australian government.
The only economic aspects of US policy that I object to are, once again, the hypocritical and illegal. For example, banning NZ lamb imports “to protect US sheep farmers” on the grounds that the NZ product is heavily subsidised, Well, take the time, look it up. OECD publishes statistics on such matters. You will find that the NZ subsidy on ALL agricultural production amounts to some US2 million on border controls. Work out the percentage of USD60odd BILLION in total agricultural exports. Really significant, eh!! Same thing for the “chip” ban against Japan. Steel imports from Japan and Europe, cars from Japan, Korea and Europe… the list goes on. All of these found by WTO to be illegal.
Oh and remember too that the US was pivotal in promoting the formation of WTO, not an unwilling partner.
It will be interesting, real interesting, to see just how much the US does not get involved in the affairs of other nations during the next four years.
And yes, Kerry does come over as a total ponce. But that would not make me feel comfortable voting for Bush.
8 comments:
A better arguement about non-Americans voting in the American elections goes thus: It would be inappropriate for you, as an individual, to vote on the hyperactivity medicine taken by the kid down the street even if the kid is a bully. Once the kid does some bullying then you have the right to intervene but not till that point.
Likewise, it is inappropriate to vote for another nation's government officials. Tou are still within your right to go to war with that nation if you see the nation as a threat.
As for the US invading Iraq, Bush is a retard.
The excuse about WMD's was just an expediant way to get the American citizens to support him. If he really wanted to invade Iraq all he needed to do was wait till the next time Iraqi air defense shot at an AMerican plane patroling the No Fly Zone. It would have been a retaliatory strike from an overly defensive nation (following the 9/11 attacks) and no one would have thought anything about it.
He needs to take a page from former President Bill Clinton's book. When Clinton attacked things he would just do it and then appologize later. The international community felt better because Clinton was contrite. Bush spent too much time telling what he was going to do.
As for the UN, they've never been an effective group when real strife shows up. They do fine at doing inspections and passing resolutions but they never really effect anything. If you can't back up your resolutions with force, even the smallest aggressor will discount you.
The UN would do well to remove France from the Security Council. It's been a long time since France had any say over anything. They should be replaced with a modern country. There's no place for left over sentimentality when trying to keep the world at peace. An irrational nay-sayer has no value.
In the US, our electoral college is a real problem. It was created several centuries ago on the grounds that the average person was too stupid to vote for president. These days, literacy is much higher and information dissemenation much greater. We need to replace the electoral college with a system of popular vote and run-off elections. That requires a Constitutional Amendment and therefore is very unlikely to happen.
Take heart! Every empire falls. There's a good chance that we may be on our way out. Hold on, though, it'll be a bumpy ride.
LibertyBob
I have to be honest, Bob, and admit that despite appearances I am not entirely anti-American. I think that what hurts me the most is seeing a great nation such as yours...no make that the leadership of a great nation such as yours turning the nation into the international equivalent of the street corner bully. There is a parallel expression in NZ - "making themselves look like a bunch of tits".
I repeat my comment regarding the sports club. In my mind that is directly comparable with the UN. OK, there are reasons why the Rules require that the Secretary General can not be American, or Russian or French. Can you imagine one of Putin's henchmen filling that chair? No more than can I imagine someone like Wolfowitz in the job.
The UN as an organisation has been great. I hark back to the glory days of Hammerskjold, even Butrous Ghali did not do a bad job of it.
The problem Annan has been left with is that of an increasing number of very senior and influential members of the UN who - when the need takes them - intentionally step outside of the rules.
It is the equivalent of the professional foul in basketball, or football. Sometimes the ref picks it up, and promptly gets ignored by the culprit.
And I must say that the US is not alone in this practice. There are instances of Russia (Afghanistan, Iran, nuclear weapons assistance to India), China (nuclear weapons assistance to Pakistan, fun and games in the China Sea), India and Pakistan, South Africa in Mozambique and Namibia, France, Great Britain (remember the Argentina war?) all playing fast and loose with the UN rules at different times.
Little wonder perhaps that the poor old ref is feeling somewhat left out of the game.
That sad fact is that many of the problems you see involving the US is a direct result of problems inside the US. There are a lot of us here who would like to fix those ills but lack the resources. The third largest political party in the nation has a policy of not bothering others. That's why no one ever hears of them.
Our country has grown large and lazy. Too many citizens rely on talk shows to get their news of the world. It just goes down hill from there.
There are reasons I'm not in charge and the mass spanking this country needs is top on that list.
LibertyBob
Hey Probligo, I replied to your last comment on Grandpa John: (I also took a shot at Al - what follows here is the reply to you).
Okay, Probligo, we disagree on whether or not the invasion was illegal, and whether or not Bush's position on the ICCJ is evidence of "global ambitions."
I concede that U.S. influence on a variety of fronts would be very disturbing to me if I lived in NZ or any other nation.
However, the hypothetical notion of giving other nations a vote in our Presidential election brings up precisely that problem, only reversed. It offers direct influence over everyday American life to people who live on the other side of the world.
Just as American influence is bothersome to you, that kind of foreign influence would be bothersome to me.
As I see it the United Nations has become something as a Neo-League of Nations. I believe that the two biggest problems with them are the disdain for using them unless it suits your purpose and their voting structure. You have spoken about the former but not the latter. If one nation on the priveleged list with veto-power does not agree with a resolution or plan for action (heh, UN=action?) they can stop it cold. The voting process needs to be revised it it is to succeed.
(side note: I just checked the A9 feature you mentioned. The whole site is "powered by google". That's just too funny.)
Jeremy, you are absolutely one hundred percent correct on every detail there, except for my thoughts on the voting within the UN, especially the veto rights held by the "big five".
Ask yourself these questions...
What is the biggest, longest running, most intractable international dispute at present?
How many UNSC resolutions have there been in relation to this dispute?
How many draft resolutions on this dispute have been withdrawn, following the veto threat from just one nation?
Which is the nation that has put its veto power to those drafts?
Which nation is the ONLY nation to have consistently supported only one side in that dispute?
Why is it very UNLIKELY that the veto power will ever be dropped?
Will the "Electoral College" voting system for the President of the US ever be removed?
Gee, let me answer all of those questions like the ignorant american warmonger everybody thinks we are: uhh(picks nose)...France?
Might it be the same people that try and prevent cheaper drugs in their own country?
I do not want to even begin to talk about the screwed up points this country has one sidedly stood on. Many of them can't be defended rationally. Some of them are so complex it would take us days to debate and still not come to an agreement except and agreement to disagree.
The voting structure does need to be adjusted but will not. I would like to see the veto power replaced with something more weighted by issue. It is something that could be constructed by heads bigger than mine but will not. Maybe we could keep the veto power but be able to overule the veto with something like a two thirds vote? No, that wouldn't work. It would just make the UN feel like we're trying to impose even more of our government structure upon them. Unfortunately, our opinions do not matter to those of political power.
On your second real (rhetorical) question you called out our antiquated electoral college. I do not disagree that it desparately needs to be completely revamped. Much of the purpose behind it is now defunct. I did a post on something related to it a couple days back. After a bit of looking into votepair.com I completely disagree with the motives behind thier vote swapping effort but do find some common ground with one of their other ideas. One in particular is called Instant Runoff Voting or IRV. More info here. Your island neighbor uses this for its parliament elections.
And you are right. Nothing will happen with any of it.
Jeremy, these are the "answers" that I had in mind when posing the questions...and remember that they were relevant to the UN...
What is the biggest, longest running, most intractable international dispute at present?
Israel / PalestineHow many UNSC resolutions have there been in relation to this dispute?
I don't know, but they start in 1949
How many draft resolutions on this dispute have been withdrawn, following the veto threat from just one nation?
Again, I do not know for certain. I have seen reports (from UNSC on their various web pages and reports) that would indicate at least 30)Which is the nation that has put its veto power to those drafts?
Which nation is the ONLY nation to have consistently supported only one side in that dispute?
Answer to both these questions... The US is the only nation in the UN to have consistently, that means every time, voted on the side of Israel. The only time that the US permits a draft resolution on Israel /Palestine to proceed in the UNSC is when the wording is supportive of Israel, or does not mention Israel but is critical of Palestinian action.Why is it very UNLIKELY that the veto power will ever be dropped?
For the simple reason that none of the big five want to see it taken away from them.A suggestion and challenge for you. When you have some time, google "UNSC ISRAEL RESOLUTION DRAFT" and look for items coming direct from the UN itself and the UNSC. Forget about all of the little sources with political axes to grind. Find the original records, reports and Minutes. I did. It was a fascinating trip. One thing to remember...the UN only records resolutions that reach the floor of the UNSC and GA. To find the vetoed drafts you have to look quite a bit harder into the archives.
Good luck.
Post a Comment