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

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.

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.

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

``As a professor of psychology and sociology (postcolonial) at CUNY and as a political activist ....``

Aaaahhh, that explains it.

PM:
Thanks for the explanation. In that case, let me offer my position which is similar to Arjun`s...

The ``What ought to be`` can be a utopian ideal, hence unacheivable unless grounded upon what is.

Arjun`s perspective (tying in with TAhmed`s quote of a solution rather than a just solution) is based on trying to mould reality to achieve objectives, partially if not completely.

The basis of the article is the political apartheid that exists between nations in a multi-lateral body. Here are some issues that are relelevant:

1. The author takes it as a given that organizational inequality is unjust. But is it? Is it just for the US to be judged by the same standards as Nauru?

2. The UN is a voluntary body that makes no claims on the actual soverignity of nations. It is a multi-lateral gathering in the sense that it allows for the mechanism of consultation. It is not, even under the charter of the UN, meant to be a world government.

3. Even if we are to discuss the normative, there has to be a common vision. The author is an individual who is ill at ease with the power that her country excercises. Is that a shared vision? Are there citizens of other countries that are similarly uncomfortable with a higher position in the pecking order of nations and thus want to voluntarily reduce their countris` ability to influence world events? What about those countries where it is not the will of the people but a ruling elite/dictator that makes decisions? Is the voice of that nation state to be taken at par with functioning democracies and after all what consists of a functional democracy?

The issue the author brings up is thereby not restricted to the security council. It is a fundamental questioning of what constitutes nation states and what governs their behavior within an international framework. Thus, their is no normative, or at least a common one.

As Arjun succinctly put it, the Veto power of the UN is a reflection of the recognition of power and influence, not an originater.

I am particularly grateful to Ahmadzai, Soysauce and Rational Faith for their knowledge and perspectives. We need that balance and freewheeling energy at chowk.

RF doesn`t agree with the premise of my article at all. But that`s very good too! I am also fascinated by the Hobbesian view of arjun that might is right, that dominant power without equity and justice are considered worthwhile goals, and the rejection(by RF) of Gandhian humanism and Nehruvian globalism and secularism is Ok too. I guess by that line of thinking, Rev. Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa and Nelson Mandela made no contribution to the advance of human ideals.

Well, nothing like discussion to sharpen one`s own line of argument. Thanks. Peace.
CKK

Ref arjun_m #34

[There is no Affirmative Action in global politics...live with it...]

You have gone too far. You have now gone and wrecked Soysauce`s day.

Watch what you say. People raised on a steady diet of Affirmative Action are reading the interacts!

In response to arjun_m, who wrote in :#34 to PM:

``Dude..Things don`t turn out just because you want them to be a certain way...Even if we assume we can move towards a system in which might isn`t right, how do you think we`ll get there...``democratizing`` the UN is no solution..it creates a false illusion of equality where none exists... ``

What you say offers absoloutely no insight into WHY the UN is so dysfunctional. Simply stating ``because it is that way`` is not an answer. It is no secret that the UN is politically a mess, however it is so largely because the ``mighty`` have co-opted it/subverted it for their own ``righteous`` reasons.

If you are of the view that it must neccessarily be this way because of some immutable flaw of the human mind, then so be it...that`s not a view I personally subscribe to (head in sand and all). So you`ll exuse those of us that think that there is yet hope for some sort of improvement, no matter how imperfect...we`re not asking for an act on par with transmuting water into wine.

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

Wow, I wish I had digit`s ability to cut to the chase. In taking on Arjun, he applies scientific method. That`s exactly what we need. Just imagine if, like arjun and some others, Newton had concluded `` Apples always fall to the ground -- that`s the way it is, that`s the way it`s always been.`` Instead he asked WHY? and the rest of course is history, or rather science as we know it. Or take John Lennon`s Why in his song ``Imagine.`` We need more Newtons and john lennons and fewer dick cheneys and wolfowitzes.

My decision to focus on the UN Security Council is based precisly upon getting answers to Why? But yu cannot really ask why unless you state the problem. The problem is that the Charter says one thing and the UN`s Security Council is set up to do something else. Why?

Having spent an inordinate number of hours at the UN`s New York Headquarters and read more documents than I care to count, I think we have a serious problem on our hands. We the People -- the UN actually uses this phrase. Well, does the UN mean it?

A million petitions demanding to dissolve the UN Security Council in its current form and take away its veto power would be an excellent starting strategy.

Hey thanks for the posts, pro and con and everything in between.

CKK

#15 by soysauce

[When you say the veto power simply acknowledges ``might``, you must have only the US in mind. I can`t see GB or France or even for that matter China as world powers.]

Most countries buy their high-tech toys from Great Britain or France. E.g., Mirage fighters from France, Harriers from Great Britain. People from countries that are dependent on France and Great Britain for their very survival when it comes to warfare ought to stop characterizing them as froggies or pommies respectively. Your 1 billion Maasanamuthus can very easily be vaporized by the nuclear weapons that Britain and France possess. As to China, it has picked a fight with every single neighbor and occupied their territory (including Russia) so it qualifies as a country with guts if not as a world power.

Of course a mindset that says you have ``privileges`` as opposed to ``rights`` because of who you are leads you to believe that impotent countries have the right to lecture sanctimoniously and condescendingly countries that have the means AND the will to kick butt.

Britain was willing to go to war with Argentina over the Falkland Islands to prove that you can`t trifle with her. France sends its troops to its former colonial outposts in Africa without requiring a UN vote because it has the MEANS and the WILL to do so. Impotent third-rate countries who can`t or won`t kick Pakistan`s a$$ ought to stop making morality out of necessity.

``I guess by that line of thinking, Rev. Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa and Nelson Mandela made no contribution to the advance of human ideals. ``

They did, from an agitantionist`s perspective, not an administrative perspective. It is one thing to point out criticisms, quite another to point out alternatives. If all Newton had done was ask WHY an apple falls to the ground, and left it at that, he would have been known as the neighborhood loon rather than the great scientist that he was.

Maybe the author`s article would have more credibility if she also came up with what she feel is an alternative system which other countries would buy into. Then yes, her premise that the current system is dysfunctional would be compared to the alternative she suggests, thereby setting up some stimulated thinking. Otherwise, pointing out weaknesses in any existing organization, inter-state or intra, is the easiest thing to do. People do it around coffee machines and water coolers every day.

Arjun:
re. There is no Affirmative Action in global politics...live with it...
Dude, would you say that Might is as right today as it was, say, 300 years ago? PLease think carefully before answering.
Also, would you say it`s as right ths year as it was two yeas ago?Assuming you agree that in the world of Global politics, the degree to which might can enforce `it`s`` fiat varies, you`ve conceded that ``affirmative action`` does play a role, however tiny at them moment.. It`s little steps... but you have to look at the really large picture to have any appreciation of the change. Vision helps you get there too!
And let`s not forget, Affirmative ACtion in the US would have been unthinkable a hundred years ago.. If it could happen at the State-scale, who is to say that (with some sort of organizatio nakin to world governement), it won`t happen in the future... It`s not impossible to imagine the ``lesser`` states organizing (THE KEY!!) themselves so as to affect the balance of where might lies. But you have to begin with some sort of vision for this to even BEGIN to happen. Incidentally, has anyone read the article I hotlinked in #4? Comments would be welcome.
rgds,
PM

stuka

Alternatives come up in discussions.
Some one some where has to make a start.
It may not be (well,ill even say wont be) THE start.
still...

++
People do it around coffee machines and water coolers every day.
++

Is chowk very different from the above?

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

It just doesnt have to be non-violent civil rights movements the humiliating moral stance of the weak!
Vietnam,Cuba....
What if they had accepted their might (whatever be it,poli..,eco..) was right?

Might is Rightists!!

does it include moral might?
If not please explain all those civil rights movements .
Not all of them were failures and I guess proved themselves right!