The In-Security Council: Dump it or Grow it?

ussa #33 Actually, on palestine, I think an observation that a judge in the US made many years ago applies here as well: sometimes it is better to find a solution, he said, then to find a just solution.

50 years is a long enough time for any political problem to fester. Indeed, five years is too long a time. After that, the cost in human suffering is simply not worth any amount of redrawing of national boundries. There comes a point when one should just accept the status quo, declare victory, and move on from there. (and of course this applies in india=pakistan politics too).

This is the same principle I mentioned in my previous post, viewed in a slightly different context: place individual(s) above nationalities and religions. There is nothing sacred about national borders, which are generally the result of historical events and accidents. There is a lot sacred about human life (I would rather be alive than have the world`s boundries drawn exactly to my liking - and why should I think others`s lives are less important than my own). Particularly in today`s situation, when people by the millions migrate across borders. The important thing is the rights and opportunities that are available to individuals within a country.

re. stuka #27:
re. the normative and the descriptive:
Dude, it`s the differnce between what ought to be (i.e, dealing with norms) and what actually is.
Arjun has repeatedly proved himself a masterful describer of situations (e.g. ``might is right``) but often confuses it with, or seemingly has no vision of, how things ought to be.
Hope I haven`t done him an injustice here. But that cetainly is what I`ve gathered from his posts.

T.ahmed, it is observations like yours that keep ME going, at any rate! I really feel strengthened by your perspective. It`s ordinary Indians, ordinary Pakistanis like ourselves who will make the bonds that are essential prerequisites for a life as neighbors and friends.

As a professor of psychology and sociology (postcolonial) at CUNY and as a political activist and citizen of the hyperpower I have described in my article decrying the Security Council, I realize a face a contradiction. My article is based on direct observation of events at the UN, especially the Security Council and from reading numerous documents thereto.

This is how I feel --I feel like a Palestinian at CUNY! Of course I cannot even begin to imagine the daily horror or being a Plestininian in the Occupied Territories. But I empathize with that sense of estrangement and alienation. I sometimes wear an Arafat headscarf at faculty meetings, just to feel sane and politically moral in the ``good`` old usa. I am sitting in a rich, greedy and yes, `free` country, and that can be painful to the spirit, if not to wallet. Luckily I own almost nothing, so that`s good.

The ethnic dominance of the faculty in all US universities (have yu also looked at the top policymakers at the State Department and the Defense Department and all the foreign policy thinktanks?) and consequently the complete lack of support of Palestinian sovereignty in the US academy and US political life, is frightening. Pakistan, India or any part of South Asia is a freer place for political thought than the US!

Is it any wonder that the Palestinians were estranged, forcibly removed from their lands from their homeland under UN auspices, in 1948? We are living with the tragic consequences of that decision every single day.
The Security Council made that horrific decision. That`s dominance, that`s inequality, that`s the UN Security Council.
CKK

Harimau:

``[I developed ideas of social justice and fairness and love for people and things South Asian, because my parents raised me not to hate or be prejudiced.]

Sheeesh, there goes the (Urstruly) theory that every Indian is a closet Bajrang Dal supporter. ``

LOL!! If she does not support giving Kashmir wholesale to Ppakistan, she will become a Bajrang Dal supporter as well...at least in his eyes :)

Ref ussa #25

[I developed ideas of social justice and fairness and love for people and things South Asian, because my parents raised me not to hate or be prejudiced.]

Sheeesh, there goes the (Urstruly) theory that every Indian is a closet Bajrang Dal supporter.

ussa #25 you write ``because my parents raised me not to hate or be prejudiced. ``

Those are refreshing words indeed. My hats off to your parents who obviously were a classy people. Dont try to reason with jay though - this man has been repeating his hate-pakistan posts for years on chowk now. His hatred is hard-wired in him. I must say if someone had told me such characters existed in real life, I would not have believed it.

Anyway, I couldnt agree more with what you write. I have spent over two decades working with people of all nationalities, and one thing is clear: people are people. Differences between nationalities are superficial and meaningless for any practical purposes. As long as one keeps a person individuality above his nationality or ethnicity or religion, we wont go wrong. This is not just a ``feel good`` thing - this has implications in a practical sense in decisions we make every day. Example: In my past career, I had Indians and Pakistanis and a number of other nationalities working for me. 25 years later, with much water having flowed under the bridge, I look back and have nothing but gratitude for the sincerity with these people - regardless of nationality fulfilled the trust I had placed on them (bosses are as dependent on their staff for success as vice versa).

One more thing: Growing up in a poverty stricken country like Pakistan, I realize that the single most important priority for poor countries (and indeed for the rich as well) is to fight poverty. 5 billion of the world`s 6 billion people are living in economically miserable conditions. If we fail, the children of the well-off people will find themselves swamped by problems that we cant imagine today. This is all the more reason why, despite (and indeed all the more because of) the miserable record of Pakistan and India at the government level to resolve their problems, it is so important (and indeed a moral imperitive, given the miserable conditions in which the vast majority of Indians and Pakistanis live) for well-off indians and pakistanis to (as you say) interact in a friendly and civilized manner. One day the governments will catch up with them, and end this waste of energy and resources trying to play games with one another.

Ferozk, I agree with yu. That was the whole point of my article -- the UN Security Council is part of a POLITICAL process, perspective and power equation that supports inequality and dominance as the qualifying criteria for relationships among member states.
Thank you for your analysis.
CKK

PM:

``I guess for some folks there is no difference between the normative and the descriptive. ``

What do you mean?

Jay, I can`t agree with your denigrating comments on Pakistan. Pakistan, like every member state of the UN acts in its own perceived interest. Because of its undeniable geoolitical importance, successive governments have had to walk a careful and wary line. Indians and Pakistanis, who generally go gaga over each other when they actually meet, must try not to be exploitd by their respective governments but focus more on their interpersonal connections.

My credo is: Orchards shall bloom along the LOC! Soft borders Make Warm Neighbors! Let`s Nuke Each Other with Prosperity, Justice and Fairness!

Individuals throughout South Asia and overseas, acting in solidarity can transform rigid, costly and dangerously powerful and inequitable structures like the UN Security Council.

Rome wasn`t built in a day and the UN Security cannot be toppled in a day either.
Best Regards,

CKK

p.s. No, I am not as you say, a ``homegrown Keralite`` under the tutelage of EMS. I have never lived in Kerala. I developed ideas of social justice and fairness and love for people and things South Asian, because my parents raised me not to hate or be prejudiced.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Ref stuka #9

[Let me also exprress my disbelief that there are still socialists in India.]

From http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/India,

``India is a Union of states with an increasingly federal structure. Officially it is declared as The SovereignSocialist Secular Democratic Republic of India.``

Was the Constitution amended by Indira Gandhi to change the official name of the country to ``Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic``? The simpler and more descriptive term would have been ``Crapola``.

Un is a voluntary organisation where the soveriegn nation states conforms to the UN policy purely on a voluntary basis. US walked out of The world court when it ordered compensation for mining the nicaraguan ports.

A UN case study

Pakistan is good example to understand the UN workings. Pakistan few weeks ago raised the kashmir issue. India responded by declaring that there will be no talks. Pakistan fired the short range ghaouri missile. Every one ignored. yesterday pakistan fired the longer range one, even india ignored. Why, the yanks have taken away the bomb, they do not want it to go off in a US port in a pak merchant ship. No one cares.
Gulf cooperation council invites india, not a musli nuclear power, because pakistan is a grotesque country, an aneamic with one muscular leg, the nuclear leg. It is a handicap, and the world treat pakistan as one, with concessions and loan write offs, even australia offered sick sheep for the starving millions.

For a good home grown keralite like Ms karunakaran, coming out of the shadows of EMS namboodiripad and the vayalar rebellion, a world body not based on one country one vote and one influence is a little hard to swallow.
The veto powers account for 70 percent of global economy and 99.9 percent of military power. What else counts, for that matter what else is in global affairs. I forgot, the religious values, the jihad. Yes that counts, and that is what the veto power nations are dealing with.

To understand the future of the UN, look at the life of the League of Nations: as a political body, it was no match for the imperitives of national sovereignty. Its economic agencies were more successful, and some continue to this day as UN agencies.

Thanks _digit,
Now maybe you can take one of `em prostheses and give Arjun one in his realpolitik rear. :-)
I guess for some folks there is no difference between the normative and the descriptive. Fortunately such visionless folks find a way to blow themselves into oblivion at some point.