Global Security
Here is an interesting assessment of Global Security challenges by the UN. Click here to read it and analyze it in 2-3 paragraphs.
Monday, September 24, 2007
About Me
- Name: Muqtedar Khan
- Location: United States
Dr. Muqtedar Khan is Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Delaware. He is also the Director of the Islamic Studies Program. He is a Non-resident Fellow at the Brookings Institution. He is the author of American Muslims: Bridging Faith and Freedom (Amana, 2002), Jihad for Jerusalem: Identity and Strategy in International Relations (Praeger, 2004).
Previous Posts
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
25 Comments:
This article clearly and concisely states the changes that need to occur for the UN to be an effective organization in the 21st century. It is a farsighted internatonal plan, which fortunately takes into account the fact that the world has changed and that new solutions are going to be required to deal with the ever changing scope of problems in this now interconnected planet. The main idea of the article appears to be that the UN needs to work towards implementing more preventive measures, to fix problems in countries before they erupt into major conflicts. The idea that if the major crises, like poverty and human rights issues, are dealt with a country might not resort to war, crime, or terrorism. As far as prevention goes however, military force is not ruled out of the equation it is merely reserved as a last resort.
Unfortunately, it appears that the main enemy of the construction of a stronger UN is the United States. In fact, the current administration appears to have the exact opposite idea of what is required for global security, as exemplfied by the war in Iraq. Instead of things like diplomacy, economic stability,or even international support, the United States believes that military force comes first and everything else is just secondary. In the first paragraph of this article it clearly states the the UN can either change and adapt or simply become obsolete because of the unilateral actions being taken by states. It is unfortunate that the policies of the country that is largely responsible for the creation of the UN, is the same country that is currently marking its destruction.
It is nice to see that after being around for 62 years, the United Nations is still talking about big ideas but failing to achieve the goal. The United Nations, which is mostly funded and supported by the United States, is the most globally corrupt organization to ever be created. Corruption ranges from stealing millions from needy people and giving to high positions in the UN to receiving kickbacks from dictators around the world, and stealing humanitarian supplies and selling them on the black market. If there could ever be a more reverse organization, I am sure John Kerry would be the founder.
For an organization that preaches peace and cooperation, its actions hardly result in either. From failed peacekeeping missions in Kosovo, Bosnia, Sarajevo to Rwanda, Darfur, and all over Asia and South America. If the United Nations isn’t talking about big ideas and world unity they are sitting back and watching mass genocides take place because countries are worried about their appearance on the world stage or about what perks they will lose as a result. Rather than taking the moral high ground and responding to crisis, they have left the United States to continue to be the largest contributor financially and materially. The United States gives more than most other countries combined and receives more criticism than anyone. While we are disarming brutal dictators the UN serves as a forum for arms trades between supposed allies and enemies.
The United Nations talks of making the world a better place and allowing countries to have their own identity in the global melting pot while at the same time excluding some countries, disenfranchising votes by giving others veto power, and simultaneously tearing down every shred of unique identity and sovereignty a country has. Pushes for global laws to be enforced by military power threaten the very essence of this country and its constitution. The UN would like to allow special interest groups to push their agendas on other countries at will and have a force of law. It is unconstitutional to allow an outside party to impose law on this country. The world is not fair nor should it be treated as such. This is called the United States of America and not United Earth for a reason. We possess freedoms, liberties, and ideas that in other parts of the world would have you killed or jailed and we will not give that up. In my opinion the best thing the United States could do is withdraw membership from the UN, withdraw support and funding, and strengthen and expand NATO to take on humanitarian missions.
Adam Lovitz (Intro to International Relations)
The article presented by Kofi Annan, United Nations secretary-general, establishes a significant set of ideas and plans to strengthen the status of our world. Globalization has become the most influential and significant aspect of our world today. It shapes economies, therefore effecting progress in health, diplomacy, poverty, and so on. The United Nations has had the job to oversee international relations and establish global security, but terrorism has interfered with progress.
Terrorism is an international threat, and must be defeated before we can make gains as a civilization of humanity into the future. To defeat terrorism, nations must act as a unified force in the world and strive for an absolute diplomacy. Powerful nations such as the US must seek an administration who will base their goals on the ideals of the UN's plan. Yet we must be able to trust our government, meaning an internal plan of progress must be implemented as well.
We must have trust again in our government. It is the actions of the stronger nations that governs our progress into the future. International relationships have the capability of defeating a growing threat, yet we must remove the corruption of these nations first. There cannot be any exceptions to a plan, no disorder. Yet, this is hard when we already have a war that has no finish line in the near future and is based on the very opposite ideals of the proposed plan. The world is ironic and corrupt, and prevention of military action seems impossible in the near future.
This report summary recognizes a critical fact that needs to be brought to realization, our world is vastly interconnected and we have become a global community functioning on interdependence. It emphasizes the significance of the concept of collective security: that another country’s threat will inevitably become our own. The UN Charter holds that it is representative of all nations; however, more efforts on the state and regional levels need to occur. As Annan puts it, “the erosion of State capacity anywhere in the world weakens the protection of every State against transnational threats
such as terrorism and organized crime”. The issue of poverty among nations and its effects on a larger scale explain how poverty contributes to organized crime, which eventually leads to the crucial issue that haunts the international community today: terrorism. Poverty leads to organized crime which in turn produces transnational terrorist groups leading to the funding and support of major terrorist organizations.(This was demonstrated in a video from class, which suggested Al Qaeda gains (economic, arms) support from African nations visited by Bin Ladin in the early 90s). Poverty can be combated on a state level, along with aid from NGOs and the WHO. It also accents the importance of the UN’s ability to rebuild shattered societies by ordering an international commission to focus on their issues and promote unity. This disorganization among cultural groups within states is what leads to both small and large scale conflict. The UN can only do so much to protect innocent civilians and would not need to put forth so much effort if the issues were handled on a state level, enabling them to focus on larger issues that threaten the entire intl community. Involvement is crucial on the state level, in their abilities to transform their forces to assist in the deployment of peace operations, reallocate natural resources to reduce competitive conflict, and bring their issues to the attention of the UN Security Council. He also recognizes that more communication between states with similar threats could help facilitate earlier actions, thus preventing large scale conflict.
Aside from this, structural changes need to take place within the UN’s organization. The first is to integrate new permanent members with no veto power and the second to add new 4yr renewable seats. It’s equally important to reconstruct some of the sectors within the UN to increase its effectiveness. The integration of new permanent members will enable new nations or groups to bring their issues to the Security Council. It’s also important to add new permanent members, as the “Big Five” (the countries who hold permanent seats today) have often been accused of acting within their own national interests and forming alliances with each other to do so. The recognition of the Security Council’s effectiveness and authority is equally important to gain international support and cooperation by all nations. The crises in Africa are great example of this. In Sudan, UN peace keeping forces are often viewed as “sitting ducks”, in the fact that their existence is present but their authority is not. The Sudanese government (although publicly denying responsibly) supports the genocidal group Janjaweed, making it impossible for UN peace operatives to exercise authority. It’s nearly impossible for them to control territories that they are unwelcome in. Due to this, UN operative fatalities and violence often result in withdrawal of peace keeping operatives. Annan’s suggestion to increase recognition as the Security Council as an authority may solve this problem and lead to more effect peace building.
Even though the UN claims to have equal representation of all countries, this is an impossible task considering the different cultural groups that struggle to coexist within the nation they occupy. These issues could be solved if some nations would undergo (economic, social)development because its highly necessary for each state to share a common set of beliefs and form of govt in order to effectively function within the intl community. It is nearly impossible for the UN to be responsible for all human rights issues within states and regions, which is why it is extremely important to handle these conflicts on a state level first.
This post has been removed by the author.
“The UN holds the one of the highest responsibilities of any international organization, which leaves it open for the highest amount of criticism.”
Fair enough, however does the US not have more critics than the UN? Many third world nations as well as 1st and 2nd see America as a super power and welding such power as a country that can have a huge impact on the world. Many nations expect us to be world police (controlled by the UN). Are our responsibilities not high?
“ I disagree that the UN is ignoring genocide due to their global reputation. As I mentioned, they’ve often done all that they legally can and are often “sitting ducks” in these unwelcoming territories.”
In 1993, the United Nations sent 50 observers to oversee the distribution of food to needy families in Somalia. In a country with no legitimate government, the United Nations observed mass genocide in which an estimated 300,000 people were killed. Nearly 80% of food supplies were stolen and sold/traded for munitions and arms by war lords (UN accounts). In a country in which there is no law other than that laid down by a bullet, what sense of legality must the UN follow? Time and time again the UN has had the opportunity to stand up to the plate but falters on the term ‘legal.’ Where is the line drawn between what is legal and what is right? In 1994, the UN sent peacekeepers/observers to the country of Rwanda. The ensuing civil war killed nearly 1,000,000 people, most of who were murdered in cold blood. Again the UN sat there and watched claiming there was nothing they could do. The UN Charter Preamble reads:
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
AND FOR THESE ENDS
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security
If the UN was created for peace, equality, and human rights, why has it not intervened? I already cited several other situations later in the 90’s but what about Darfur? The charter speaks of international stability and security. Does that not start with a stable country? Can a region not lose its stability to a civil war? In the summer of 2007, there was a large riot with an estimated 2,000 people taking place in the City of Dover at the African American Festival. Officers responded from at least 9 different police agencies. Only two agencies have jurisdiction over the area where the riot occurred. However due to the instability of the area and the need to contain threats to themselves and others; forces outside of the affected area responded to maintain order.
“Unfortunately, the UN does not have its own military and they depend on volunteering nations for peace keeping forces.”
The UN uses forces from countries around the world. US forces are always the first to volunteer for a mission. And so far the term ‘peacekeeping mission’ is a joke. The UN more often acts as a target and observer in the region, rarely keeps or creates peace.
“ The groups that are performing (or have exercised) genocide inhabit the most hostile regions and are frequently too dangerous for peace keeping operatives.”
If you legalize marijuana you will have fewer arrests for possession of an illegal drug. If you keep police out of a bad neighborhood, the police are less likely to get hurt. If you keep armed forces willing to help create and secure peace in a region from entering a hostile region do you not make it safer for those forces? Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns… By keeping forces out of hostile regions they will grow worse, not better. The phrase ‘too dangerous’ seems a reason to send forces. Imagine a world where police go and seek out danger and hostility and destroy it. I would hate to live in a place where attacks on innocent people went unpunished….
“Many fatalities of UN forces have occurred. If these struggles were handled much earlier and were handled on a state level (Annan points out the UN should’ve acted earlier and sooner) the mass genocide may have not occurred/occurring today.”
Fatalities will occur no matter what happens, the focus is on how many lives you can save. The UN operates on too many parameters to appear as a non-offensive/aggressive force. If you are trying to eliminate threats is it not a good idea to go on the offensive? In Vietnam, the United States signed a Gulf of Tonkin resolution basically limiting the ability of the US military to make war against an aggressor. You can’t shoot the bad guy unless he is shooting first; same applied to most situations around the world in which the UN is involved. Let me ask the question, if the bad guy shoots first and kills, then that leaves the good guys with one less soldier correct? An eye for an eye is the way I’d like to fight, not with any kind of edge or pre-emptive strike (which would make it easier for the good guys to win). I agree the UN should have acted, not just earlier, but acted. Not sent observers or peace keepers who cannot pull the trigger, but acted. How do you handle something on a state level if the state doesn’t exist or have any legitimacy?
“It could be true that “perks” have influenced some situations…which again is most likely due to the power held by the five permanent seats. However, each of their interests would have to be individually assessed to prove this point and the addition of five more seats and removing veto power will eliminate room for this error.”
Iraq, France, Annan, EU, Russia; enough said. When a country or leaders in a country receive a kickback of any type, they will most likely not want to give it up. So now each interest in the UN would have to be assessed to see if they had a legitimate reason? So if a kickback from a dictator who killed their own subjects gave money to France and France used it for a welfare program that is a legitimate reason to not want to remove that dictator? So if we are now assessing the interests of individuals we are no longer assessing the interests of the ‘United’ Nations? What is right and wrong is black and white, justification can be gray, however no matter how justified someone may think something is, it can still be wrong.
“If all of these peacekeeping missions you mentioned above were failures, then why did UN receive two Nobel Peace Prizes? (One to peacekeeping forces in 1988 and the other Kofi Annan himself in 2001).”
The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Al Gore, again point in case. He did nothing for peace; he was awarded the prize because of his crusade against industry and emissions while having a higher electric bill than 90% of America. I think the Nobel organization may have a flaw in their criteria. Judge me by what I say, not by what I do…
“ Public opinion on the effectiveness of the UN seems to change according to what people perceive as the operation’s main goal. UN Job Approval ratings have proved this. (American public opinion was scored extremely high during the beginning of the Gulf War; however, when the quest to capture Saddam failed..opinion dramatically dropped and other successes were then overlooked)”
Failed attempts = lower opinion. Failing on tests = lower grades, that just doesn’t make sense to me! First, I have never been asked about my opinion on the UN in a poll so by that standard results are inconclusive. A 99% confidence ration does not equal 100.
“Also, major successes have been documented in South America in situations with El Salvador and Guatemala.”
That’s fantastic! Last I checked Guatemala still has police hit squads running around killing anyone who opposes the current government and an eye witness account (not what people watch on tv, read about, or hear from others) of El Salvador places a man on the side of the road being beaten, asked questions, and held at gun point. If this is progress I can’t imagine what it was like before the UN forces (which have not been spotted by myself or visitors to the country) arrived to save the day. Besides saying there have been major success is like saying instead of getting a zero on that test I got a 1. Yeah it’s an improvement but not really worth mentioning.
“The US is known to fail to give full economic support to the UN and currently owes $1.3billion. In 1999, the Helms-Biden legislation was established to pay back a portion of the debts. As of right now, the US has no plans to pay these amounts. Even though the US may be the largest contributor in terms of funds, it certainly is not its largest supporter.”
When failing to give full economic support means that the US still provides most of the funding I think that beats out a country with no money giving full support. Hmmmm, so we give more money but disagree with how it’s being spent? That sounds like a form of support. It also sounds like paying federal taxes only to find out they were wasted on a senator’s pork legislation which does not benefit the country as a whole. In any case, the US still gives the UN what it needs to survive. Could you imagine what would happen if the funding was pulled? The UN would crumble. And even though it may still exist, it is hard to have a nice comfy seat on top of a pile of rubble.
This post has been removed by the author.
The UN is not a government, period. It may want to be, it may act like it, but it is not. What is an international organization? Plainly, an organization that has a global reach. While the Federal government is not an organization it is at least in part loosely organized with a global span. Therefore I would conclude that it can be counted as one in the same.
The UN Security council which is as useless as its parent organization (Useless Nations) passes resolutions telling bad people not to do bad things. How often are these resolutions actually enforced? The US came up with plans to protect convoys but was ordered by the UN not to interfere. Therefore they could only watch the carnage not do anything about it.
I gave that as an example of the aid and food distribution not arms trades by the UN. Second, a website maintained by the organization which is being scrutinized is hardly ‘legit info’ It’s like asking a car maker what they think of their cars.
Is not the best defense of peace the readiness for war? How, if not through military forces shall the UN maintain peace? Tell a man with a gun to put it down or you will write an article about him hardly provokes anymore than laughs. Again back to the realm of rights. Who decides who has what right? What is a right? You say the UN, an organization designed to save people or “maintain peace and security” has neither the right nor the foresight to act militarily to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Well then I ask, what good is the UN?
“Intervention can sometimes be interference. The main goal is protect human rights and to respect all other states while doing so, large and small.”
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Intervention can save lives. In 1956 the US pledge support to any communist satellite that would break away from the U.S.S.R. The Hungarian revolution took place under such pretense and the US as well as the UN sat around and did nothing. 2,500 people were murdered in cold blood, again by the state and Russia. Is the right to life not a human right? Is every human, who has not violated any others right to life also eligible for that right? Time and time again the UN has done nothing to protect human rights. Africa, South America, Asia… human rights are violated thousands of times a day and still the UN only reports on the injustice, but does nothing more. Many of these countries that I speak of have no legitimate state or government. And when a country, a player on the global stage cannot help itself or its people, is it not the responsibility of those with the means to do so to aid them? Saying intervention can sometimes be interference sounds like you are justifying ethnic cleansing or discrimination.
“Yes, that is true in the state of Delaware...but would it be the same if Russia had a major crisis we would be allowed to just go over and start shooting people without an invitation.”
Russia has an image to protect and I would say that if the situation warranted it then I don’t see an invitation as necessary. We went to Iraq and Afghanistan on the pretense of security and with the assumption that the governments of those countries were neither friendly nor trustworthy. It is different to say that we would go to Russia (who is currently a friendly/neutral country) and act in a policing manor than it is to say we went to a hostile country and removed a threat.
“The instability of the area of Dover is a concern within the state of Delaware itself. This can in no way be comparable to international politics.”
Sure it is. What is international politics? Isn’t the only difference between that and national, state, and local the level on which they are measured? International politics is on a global scale yes but it still carries the characteristics of any other level. It can be comparable to Dover being a country and the City of Smyrna being a neighboring country. One country lends aid to another country just as one city did to another. The levels and scales are different but when broken down, the political relationship between one group and another can be viewed in the same way. Alliances tie countries just as being a city in the same state ties those cities together.
“Of course other jurisdictions within Delaware intervened..not to mention that below New Castle County there is no county police force. By law, Rehoboth Beach police can ask Dewey Beach for assistance regardless of jurisdiction. But that is the importance of consent and requesting aid…Dewey Beach police units can not go and patrol Rehoboth Beach without their request for assistance. I just don’t understand in any way how this example relates to the UN’s ability to “intervene”
It is the same concept. Another example, years ago there was a riot in Newark. Police from all over Delaware responded as well as Maryland and Pennsylvania State Police. The UN can intervene when necessary and either take control or lend a hand in regaining stability and protecting human life. In the case that Dover, Rehoboth, or Delaware ask for assistance that is because the current government is legitimate, friendly, and at least mostly in control of the situation (by that I mean they haven’t been overthrown by any other force). I know you will say well what constitutes legitimate or friendly. This follows the same line as the terrorists of America will see America as their terrorists. Sometimes sides will change or at least be viewed differently. In any case we saw a threat that was also harming other people and we acted since the UN would not.
Your comment about who makes up the troop listings of the UN, by your own admission you would then say that the UN does have troops at its disposal.
“Again, this backs up the concept of “sitting ducks”, as there are observers and often targets.”
I don’t recall that metaphor so I will sum it up and if I am wrong please correct me. The sitting duck theory of action: I cannot act unless asked to. Did you ask a professor to teach you or did you assume that because you are paying the university that the professor was going to teach you? If there is a car accident or a shooting and an officer of the law is nearby, should he stand by and do nothing until you ask him to? Or should he act to the best of his ability to aid those in need? Should the UN constantly send troops in to a country when they know that they have no intention of forcibly enforcing anything? Maybe the UN would be more useful if they acted on situations rather than react.
“I study international relations and have taken four classes on this. I actively research the UN and wrote a 20 page paper on its effectiveness…where I provided arguments for AND against its effectiveness. This is exactly parallel to the “sitting ducks” metaphor I used. (Critics of the UN created this term)”
I don’t recall asking you about your merits nor questioning your background. If your statements alone cannot justify themselves, don’t say them. Even PhD’s with all their experience and writings can be wrong. Citing what you have done is good for a resume, not for a debate.
“(The Sudanese government rejected the UN’s involvement for years)”
Of course they did. The Sudan was run by corrupt politicians and military regimes. In addition they were manufacturing chemicals that could be used in weapons, had slavery, and genocides. A drug dealer doesn’t want the police involved, that is bad for business!
“The UN police are responsible for restoring government law enforcement agencies, not for taking over the government. (un.org) They are supposed to build off any legit form of existing government and assist them (not take over them and tell them what to do- unconstitutional!) to come for an agreement on law and order.”
The UN has not restored any legitimate governments, anywhere. They don’t build on anything other than major world stage players. And what if there isn’t a legitimate existing government? Then what? Should they not intervene in a country where thousands die and there is no clear form of government? What is constitutional? By whose account? The UN has a charter and most nations do not have a ‘Constitution’ use that term carefully. How do you get an agreement on law and order if one side is nto willing to commit to peace, laws, or order?
The UN has troops and weapons; therefore it can create legitimate authority. In a 3rd world nation, the ability to kill is power.
“What I meant by this is that they have no protection over themselves because they are there to protect. Without consent from the recognized authority, this is an impossible task for them.”
The first part of that makes no sense. That is like saying we cannot create peace here because it does not exist right now. Of course they don’t have protection they are there to provide protection for others, not others for them. Again if the recognized authority is hostile to human rights I think the UN should intervene. I mean if you think that it was cool for anyone killed in government sponsored genocides to die and the UN not to intervene because the recognized government didn’t ask them to stop them… I would re-exam your thoughts. And it is impossible.
“If there was a world with world police recognized as the highest form of authority then we wouldn’t be having this conversation and all of our international crisis’s would be solved. Yes, that would amazing…utopian.”
You side stepped any response to my response of your statement. So I must assume that you still think it’s a good idea to keep police out of bad areas. When dealing with groups that have no sympathy for life or human rights, or respect for peace, and those that also operate on the basis that killing is power, should the UN not exercise its power to demonstrate it’s not a joke?
“I don’t understand how Iraq and the EU have anything to do with the big five’s ability to veto and act together to promote natl interests. They are not permanent members of the big five and that was your argument.”
But you do understand France and Annan and Russia? Annan and France received kickbacks from Iraq and other problem nations, that is documented. Russia sells weapons and materials to Iraq. If you are the owner of a tobacco company, would you want people to stop smoking because you know it is killing them? Now any person not in that situation would say of course I would want them to stop, they are harming themselves. Well France and Annan and Russia make too much money from Iraq to let a Security Council Resolution pass. That was not my argument.
“Imagine if Iraq was one of them and had veto power..that would be interesting.”
Well it wouldn’t matter much because Iraq has Russia and France to veto for it! :D Besides since the UN isn’t acting the US has. And clearly the US is not concerned with a veto.
“(The UN has talked about removing France the UK and replacing them with the EU as a member of the five permanent members)”
Interesting, the UN is thinking about adding an economic union as a member. Since the UN has been bought in the past, I wonder if Bill Gates and Microsoft can get a seat as well (Life goal #67)
“The US and China have completely different forms of gov’t and that is why their actions need to be individually assessed.”
Chinas government supports euthanasia, government hit squads, and the belief that they are superior to everyone else. I guess since they support those three things we should look at them as less of a monster when someone is killed. Oh and China, Syria, and Russia are selling weapons to North Korea, since they have interests there we should probably not assess their involvement with wrong doings as hard.
“Research the funding of the UN. The US uses their UN budget for other issues. They would have been a great example for your argument, not France.”
You’re looking at funding, not under the table pay. France is a great example, they make money from a person who kills innocent people because of a disagreement, sounds logical to me.
“Are you familiar with the Nobel organization? Do you know the specific criteria for nominating a winner? (Reading Nobelprize.org might educate you on this.) Al Gore did not win the complete Nobel Peace Prize. He won half of it, the other half was awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-UN org!) Have you seen “An Inconvenient Truth”? Where did you get your info that he has the highest electric bill?”
Yes I am very familiar with it, in fact I’ve done a report on it (if you want to bring merit in to this as you have previously). Also, it is one thing to attack a statement it is quite another to attack a person, you know neither me nor my education so until you do don’t make a judgment call. Ok so AL Gore won half the prize, and the IPCC won the other half, I also heard that Keebler Elves are sharing their Noble Prize with Famous Amos cookies… at least until the Cookie Monster finished off their inventory. More useless information in relation to my statement. Neither entity saved the lives of a person killed at gun point or via a crude blunt object (like Rwanda). No I have not seen it, that’s like taking Fahrenheit 911 and citing it as fact in a research paper. If I wanted more useless information, I would buy fortune cookies, not to say none of it is true… just most of it. And his electric bill, come on are you kidding? It was leaked and confirmed by him. Also He and Hildawg as well as some other Democrats met for a meeting on green house gases… in which each flew in a separate jet then took an SUV to the actual meeting place.
“The White House emits more electricity than UofD. “Case in point”
No I don’t think so; I used that phrase when what I said was actually relevant. Also I would like to see your information on the electricity consumption on both the White House and the U of D. I think my roommates and I do a pretty good job at using all that can be supplied to the West Tower.
I knew at some point the whole, saving the planet from green house gasses and emissions will promote the peace and prosperity of every nation! argument would come in. I chose to ignore it. Bottom line, if we lived in a perfect environment people would still be killing others because they could and because there will be different ideals. I don’t compare him to them. Actually the most I’ve ever compared Al Gore to is an ape, you know in-between elections when he grew a beard and looked more ridiculous than usual. I think some of the previous winners are fantastic people and they are the ones I think of when I think Peace Prize… you know a prize for maintaining peace. There are plenty of science foundation’s out there, let them give out the awards for science. Noble could even start a spin off organization for science. You know kinda like Joey is a spin off from Friends and The Hills from the OC… I think by this time you’re getting my sarcasm. If not, life is too short, laugh once in a while I heard it’s healthy.
“Not every one votes, but a President is still nominated…so are you saying we need to rethink our election process as well.”
Certainly but not what you think. First, everyone who is a law abiding (by that I mean not incarcerated) US citizen has the right to vote and the opportunity. If I were to volunteer my opinion on a poll then I guess it wouldn’t be a random sampling would it? And polls are based on random samplings or otherwise the data is skewed. Moving on, I think we should follow Australia, if you can legally vote, do it, or get fined. That way, you don’t end up with people complaining yet not voting in the first place. At least I can say I tried to change those in office.
“A consensus of opinion does not need one hundred percent of the American public’s approval.”
No but then again I guess Hitler didn’t need the consent of the American public or Jewish people did he? But since he doesn’t need it, it doesn’t really matter, right?
“The whole concept of “consensus” is equal repsentation of all views not complete representation.”
How do you know it is equal? Say I took a random sampling of students at Trabant and asked them if they believed in certain women’s rights issues. Little did I know that on that day and around that time a Women’s Rights Seminar just let out there. I took a random sample but it certainly is not an equal representation.
“Capturing Bin Ladin would not solve the issues in Iraq, terrorist organizations would still be present to achieve his goals. Just the same, capturing Saddam would not have completely diffused the situations there”
WOW! I don’t know what to say, I actually agree with you.
“My point was that you were looking at only the negative effects (or main problems) in Darfur, and were ignoring other successes that are actually beginning to help”
You can win many battles and still lose the war. Is Darfur all straightened out now? Then don’t get ahead of yourself.
“(And, of course you weren’t asked your opinion on Saddam in 1996, how old were you?)”
Haha funny you say that, I actually started watching the news everyday with my dad when I was 3, and I had an opinion on what was happening. I admit it wasn’t advanced nor was it completely thought out, nor did I understand everything that was happening but I still had an opinion. I was 11 in 1996 and yes I had an even more advanced opinion then. I had an opinion when we went in to Kosovo and Serbia, and Bosnia; I was just coming in to my teen years then.
“Do you honestly think they run around with big bold letters identifying themselves?”
Um… actually yes I do think that. And for them to run around identifying themselves as anything else actually classifies them as spies which then allows their captors to treat them accordingly (not according to the Geneva Convention). You know the bright blue helmet with the letters “UN” on them, oh and the blue UN flag patch on their arm, oh yeah and also the giant “UN” on their vehicles…. That kinda gave it away when I saw them one time (not in any of the afore mentioned countries).
“If you’re about to punch a guy outside of Kates for looking at your girlfriend, would you stop if you saw a Newark Police Officer? “
What does this have to do with what you said? And punching someone for looking seems silly, now if she was bothered by it steps would be taken accordingly. But if it came down to it (and if you knew me), if I am going to swing at someone, there isn’t a non-intrusive deterrent in the world that will stop me. I don’t easily scare, nor do I easily fight, but when I am at the point the games are done and it’s time for business. If your actions are altered due to the presence of law enforcement, should you rethink what you are doing in the first place?
“As I stated in that paragraph, the US is NOT supporting the UN and Congress still has no plans to pay this.”
Funding was threatened but in 2006 reports say the US gave 22-25% of the UN’s budget. More than any other country. Is the monetary contribution not support?
“(According to the Biden Helmes Act official website.)”
The act states that certain reforms must take place before all funding was given. This doesn’t mean that the US will give nothing.
“So your response again has no relevance at all.”
My response, again, isn’t relevant? Then why do you keep replying? I think it is perfectly relevant.
“I don’t think the UN would crumble without US support.”
I said it may not fall apart but it would still be hard to maintain an organization when 25% of your funding, as well as troop support, and an office were just taken away.
Yes I feel that some of your statements are an attack as they seem to be more personal than factual. I am glad you had time to research it, that’s great (this means nothing to me). I have also researched the UN and had first hand experiences with some of its leaders both from the US and other countries. My conclusion is that it is an ineffective organization to create or maintain peace. Obviously people differ on opinion. People laughed when geographers thought the world might be round, or that the sun was actually the center. What a crazy idea! My comments are not based on opinion alone, but factual information. My information comes mostly from the UN website, the US Gov’t website, BBC, Fox, CNN, Washington Post, Washington Times, New York Times, and Forbes. Oh and then those pesky college classes, I sure hope they aren’t misleading me.
Define international law, or better yet tell me who enforces it. Yeah…no good. I’m afraid you do not understand my writing. It’s not contradictory if you understand the multiple sections of sarcasm. In fact after almost every response to you I have to put some in there because otherwise I would just get bored with it. Remember laughing is healthy, it’s also contagious. And while we’re on the breakdown of language, please spell check and re-read your posts before posting them, the red lines under your typing is giving me a seizure.
As for justification, even the most justified person can still be wrong in their action. Justification is in the eye of the beholder. What you may justify I may condemn and vice versa.
“Also, your responses did not relate to the blog topic at all and in no way reflected Annan’s main points.”
I touched on Annan briefly, I was more interested in getting someone aroused and in to a debate. Since my original comment, nothing has been about the blog directly. It has been about arguing with you.
The report offered by Secretary-General Kofi Annan clearly recognizes the fact that today’s world is much different than it was even ten or fifteen years ago. The exciting and exponential growth of technology throughout the world also poses some unique threats that never used to exist. The internet connects the world in such a way that nation-states no longer have to worry solely about other states. Because of the increase and ease of communication, terrorists and transnational criminal organizations are able to work on a much larger scale. This poses a large and somewhat unknown threat for countries in trying to secure their own country and citizens. However, with a growing global economy, a terrorist attack on one country can have a profound impact on many other stakeholders’ around the world.
Annan warns that now is the time for the United Nations to start becoming proactive. It is more imperative than ever for nations to work together in not only creating proactive policies but actually enforcing them. It is also essential that countries avoid military action at all costs. The United Nations has proven that negotiations do work and that nations must work together for their common interests. Unilateral military decisions, such as the United States’ decision to invade Iraq, often create more problems than they help to solve. It is in everyone’s interest to avoid war and in order to do so, the United Nations must acknowledge a need for a shift in attitude towards policy creation.
I wanted to apologize to the class for this blog getting out of hand and incredibly off subject.
In ref. to Jonathan’s last post…This “debate” is completely redundant and superfluous and I am sorry that you can not handle constructive criticism. From your response, it seems that you may be uneasy about my comments that point out a few of your many contradictions. I was just trying to show you different points of views in response to the allegations you made in your first post. I feel no need to justify myself or my “merits” to you. I did not mention them to satisfy my own pride, which seems to be your main objective throughout these posts. If you haven’t already taken it, POSC311 (Politics of Developing Nations) would be a great class for you to take to help eliminate your ethnocentric bias. In case you were wondering, I took it with Dr. Khan…who (in ref. to your comment on the value of professors’ PhD’s) has a resume in which I feel no need to question.
I’m sure you’re just as busy as I am and do not have the time time to sit in front of the computer and analyze others’ comments. I was only able to read a few of your comments from your last post. I respect everything you said, but was only wondering where you got your info from. Instead of psychoanalyzing me, my comments/facts from my paper, maybe it would be helpful to go back and read your own posts. You make bold allegations, contradict them because you know they’re wrong, agree with me without realizing it, and so on. You seem to have an amazing ability to argue with yourself, me, and factual information. If you ever become a lawyer, let me know…I’d love to be one of your clients if need be.
I’m sorry for giving you a potential “seizure” with my grammar. If I was writing this for a professor and not you, it would be different. Maybe you can proofread my final paper for me because I obviously learned nothing from working for the ENG110 writing center. Like the majority of students in this class, I try to maintain professionalism and your responses undoubtedly challenge that.
We should agree to refocus this energy and save it for the class simulation and end this right here.
Let’s agree to disagree :)
“In ref. to Jonathan’s last post…This “debate” is completely redundant and superfluous and I am sorry that you cannot handle constructive criticism.”
It is redundant only because you are failing to offer a counter argument that can persuade me. I am open to anything that can be backed by fact not by opinion or feelings.
“From your response, it seems that you may be uneasy about my comments that point out a few of your many contradictions.”
Again, sarcasm aside, show me where my contradictions lie. I will gladly reword or accept your view if you can give me a valid case.
“ I was just trying to show you different points of views in response to the allegations you made in your first post.”
I will gladly accept any point of view that you can prove is factual.
“I feel no need to justify myself or my “merits” to you. I did not mention them to satisfy my own pride, which seems to be your main objective throughout these posts.”
Then why did you mention them? If you reread my replies you would see that I have not bragged about merits.
“ If you haven’t already taken it, POSC311 (Politics of Developing Nations) would be a great class for you to take to help eliminate your ethnocentric bias.”
I actually plan on taking it. As for my bias, nothing will eliminate my bias just as you will always have a bias. What a class or knowledge in general can do is change the degree to which we are biased.
“In case you were wondering, I took it with Dr. Khan…who (in ref. to your comment on the value of professors’ PhD’s) has a resume in which I feel no need to question.”
I do not question his merits (although I do question his tolerance of others particularly past IDF members). However, when I made that statement it was also sarcasm. I feel as though most of your problems in my latest response is due to you not understanding my sarcasm.
“I respect everything you said, but was only wondering where you got your info from.”
Specific cases? I would be happy to show you where it came from.
“Instead of psychoanalyzing me, my comments/facts from my paper, maybe it would be helpful to go back and read your own posts.
I’m not analyzing anyone, but I think the point of a response is to analyzing.
“You make bold allegations, contradict them because you know they’re wrong, agree with me without realizing it, and so on.”
I think you are wrong, plain and simple. I make statements, some more bold than others, period. I do not contradict them, period. They are not wrong until you can prove otherwise, period. And, I do not agree with you, period.
“You seem to have an amazing ability to argue with yourself, me, and factual information.”
I don’t argue with myself, I do with you, and I do not argue against facts, I argue with facts, something you have failed to do.
“ If you ever become a lawyer, let me know…I’d love to be one of your clients if need be.”
I do plan to be a lawyer. I did not learn anything in E110. I have learned more about the English language in my German classes than I ever have in an English class, however unfortunate that may be. I would be happy to proofread your papers I too attempt to maintain professionalism, sometimes I get carried away when I feel someone is commenting about my character and not my statements. I apologize for any personal attacks I have made (which were about your grammar) however in retrospect they were made after you had done so. My responses (with exception to a few lines in the previous post) pose no challenge to that. I have plenty of energy to waste, it is time I lack, but due to modern marvels I am able to find time to read and reply. I will end this when you either stop telling me I am wrong or prove to me that you are right.
This article from the UN, presented by Secretary general Kofi Annan, states the international changes, plans, and ideas that need to occur for them to be a positive, change enacting organization in the 21st century and well into the future to preserve stability on the international front. The UN feels that they need to work more proactively in fixing problem countries BEFORE they turn into huge international conflicts in which countries choose sides and create tension, possibly going to war or becoming involved with terrorism. The UN’s big idea is that if a smaller scaled crisis such as poverty, women’s rights, or other human rights problems are dealt with before they drag on and become more of a problem, countries won’t end up going to war, become involved with terrorism, or have to engage in tense, strained relations with other countries in order to get what they want. The world is much different from when the UN was first made because of globalization, and it is necessary to deal with new problems differently than they had been dealt with in past years. Globalization and the increasing interconnectedness of the world has changed the way economies interact with each other, effecting healthcare, poverty, transportation, industry, etc. It is the UN’s job to oversee the major changes in the world and to make sure that global security, progress, and stability are being upheld. Terrorism has been a problem that the UN needs to address but many countries have different feelings as to how they want to approach the situation and deal with terrorists and terrorist harboring countries. Before the UN can make better any part of the world and enhance global stability, change, and progress, the UN needs to produce a united front on what to do about terrorism. If terrorism isn’t stopped, any efforts by the UN to increase international stability and progress will be futile.
This executive summary of General Kofi Annan calls for a clear and well developed plan for collective security. The threats that his plans outline are right on target. Not saying his plans are working, but civil wars, poverty, terrorism, and wars between states are clear issues that need to be taken care of. The idea of global security, and the concept that we all need to essentially work together to create a more secure world is there. The one problem is, the organization these ideas are being preached to, the United Nations.
The problem I see with this summery is that the UN has done nothing sufficient to creat this vision of "collective security". How is the global problem of terrorism supposed to be handled and does the counter-terrorism plan work? The UN has stated that in the past few years they have reported a considerable accomplishment in recieving counter-terrorism cooperation, yet where have the effects of this cooperation actually helped. The United States has waged a war on terror, but there is no definate end in sight for this war, and certainly no additional help coming. According to Annan military force should only be used for peacekeeping and peace enforcement, so the U.S. is one of the few to believe that terrorism in the Middle East is a direct threat. I guess this is the problem, that this "colective security" has, no one will ever agree, and the UN will never have or get the cooperation that they "ask" for.
Globalization can be real, but right now the world is still developing a cohesion of individualism and moral conduct into its shared consciousness. What is right here is wrong somewhere else and the lack of knowledge between and among different entities creates friction that hopefully will decrease with multi-ethnic immigration to the west. Unfortunately, morality is a luxury item of the consciousness and is usually only exercised by people who can survive without making selfish choices. Is it even economically possible to provide the world with the standard of living required for art, science and morality? Morality and the mediation of selfishness in core regions of the world would curb much of the world’s future violence. But that’s utopian and no one is really interested in helping someone else without a return of some sort. So with such a broad spectrum of global inequity and its subsequent violence and conflict, the UN can, for now, only seek to undo the sins of our fathers and try really, really hard not to commit sins of their own.
Specifically addressing current global security it is obvious what must be done. More oversight, more detailed, more monitored endeavors and more legitimate power. The UN would have much more credibility if the United States had more credibility. But since the US leadership is on a unilateral crusade, I think the UN should seek to bring in more Eastern European countries and began developing more economic, political and military power for its own development varying in degree with the next election. The US has far less obligation to the UN than its European members and cannot always be relied upon. Currently the US is not interested in humanitarianism unless it is getting paid for it. If the UN truly has the well being of peoples at heart it will have to do things itself, which requires more global power. Long term security will only come about by alleviating the pressures mounting from inequity and bringing a halt to careless foreign policy that merely take from one and give to another. American greed and lust for intrinsic items is completely displayed for the Arab world to see with America’s ties to Saudi Arabia who has been an oppressor of Arab countries since their rise to power. America has created its own problems. America did not cause Germany to make a run at conquering the world, although isolation undoubtedly fueled German sympathy for the Nazi party of WWII. But its arrogance and neglect of peoples within the regions it exploits has propagated resentment and given an excuse for the world to hate America, especially for disheartened Muslim extremists who wouldn’t have consented to American lifestyle regardless of the entire oil issue. This is easy to prove, just ask, what would you think and feel?, a very simple, even cliché question that most people seem incapable of asking themselves. This question should be considered in every decision regardless of its moral answers. If something would piss you off why wouldn’t it piss off someone else and why wouldn’t that have blowback? Because this obvious truth is so often ignored, the UN is nothing more than a bureaucratic band aid.
The US must cooperate, consider and integrate the UN into its decision making and policy. US and Europe are became increasingly ethnically integrated. Everyday the western world is becoming less of a white settlement and more of a human settlement. Minorities are gaining wealth and power. They must not be neglected. They must be embraced to avoid future conflict and possible civil wars in places such as France where the Arab population will soon reach 1/3 of the total. It is no longer white people defending their great democracy and capitalistic societies, it is all people who have chosen to live in this system. The more rouge nations there are, the less power we have as a whole. The time of blind nationalism should be in the past, people have new ways to acquire meaning to their lives. The more opportunity a person has for financial prosperity and security, NOT MATERIALISM, the less the will seek religion and nationalism to define themselves. A hybrid of individualism to detract from sects of all types and degrees, and a shared moral consciousness indoctrinated into business and foreign policy is the next stage in the development of world development, economy and security.
As for right now, The UN must continue to invest and keep the peace in developing nations to prevent further proliferation of disdain leading to terrorism. They must be extremely sensitive to the cultures of the people they are helping as they readily declare new enemies through their distrusting nurtured nature. It will be important to gain the trust of these countries as they must eventually take the role of supporting themselves and continuing the processes of the UN. Terrorism is operating globally and can emerge anywhere so all underdeveloped, corrupt, exploitable nations are at risk. We must keep a close eye on leaders we instate and those democratically elected and provide incentives for nations to follow the formula for growth. As for the middle- east, US military presence is only continuing the cycle of terrorism as hundreds of thousands of innocent casualties have mounted. But if we leave and entrust the democratic system and free markets to the common people of the country they will most likely become targets of extremists as well. The people of Iraq must be given a stake in the progress of the free world if they are expected to fight for its success. Rule under Saddam , for some, seemed more promising than life after the US occupation so we must work to change that perception.
Globalization can be real, but right now the world is still developing a cohesion of individualism and moral conduct into its shared consciousness. What is right here is wrong somewhere else and the lack of knowledge between and among different entities creates friction that hopefully will decrease with multi-ethnic immigration to the west. Unfortunately, morality is a luxury item of the consciousness and is usually only exercised by people who can survive without making selfish choices. Is it even economically possible to provide the world with the standard of living required for art, science and morality? Morality and the mediation of selfishness in core regions of the world would curb much of the world’s future violence. But that’s utopian and no one is really interested in helping someone else without a return of some sort. So with such a broad spectrum of global inequity and its subsequent violence and conflict, the UN can, for now, only seek to undo the sins of our fathers and try really, really hard not to commit sins of their own.
Specifically addressing current global security it is obvious what must be done. More oversight, more detailed, more monitored endeavors and more legitimate power. The UN would have much more credibility if the United States had more credibility. But since the US leadership is on a unilateral crusade, I think the UN should seek to bring in more Eastern European countries and began developing more economic, political and military power for its own development varying in degree with the next election. The US has far less obligation to the UN than its European members and cannot always be relied upon. Currently the US is not interested in humanitarianism unless it is getting paid for it. If the UN truly has the well being of peoples at heart it will have to do things itself, which requires more global power. Long term security will only come about by alleviating the pressures mounting from inequity and bringing a halt to careless foreign policy that merely take from one and give to another. American greed and lust for intrinsic items is completely displayed for the Arab world to see with America’s ties to Saudi Arabia who has been an oppressor of Arab countries since their rise to power. America has created its own problems. America did not cause Germany to make a run at conquering the world, although isolation undoubtedly fueled German sympathy for the Nazi party of WWII. But its arrogance and neglect of peoples within the regions it exploits has propagated resentment and given an excuse for the world to hate America, especially for disheartened Muslim extremists who wouldn’t have consented to American lifestyle regardless of the entire oil issue. This is easy to prove, just ask, what would you think and feel?, a very simple, even cliché question that most people seem incapable of asking themselves. This question should be considered in every decision regardless of its moral answers. If something would piss you off why wouldn’t it piss off someone else and why wouldn’t that have blowback? Because this obvious truth is so often ignored, the UN is nothing more than a bureaucratic band aid.
The US must cooperate, consider and integrate the UN into its decision making and policy. US and Europe are became increasingly ethnically integrated. Everyday the western world is becoming less of a white settlement and more of a human settlement. Minorities are gaining wealth and power. They must not be neglected. They must be embraced to avoid future conflict and possible civil wars in places such as France where the Arab population will soon reach 1/3 of the total. It is no longer white people defending their great democracy and capitalistic societies, it is all people who have chosen to live in this system. The more rouge nations there are, the less power we have as a whole. The time of blind nationalism should be in the past, people have new ways to acquire meaning to their lives. The more opportunity a person has for financial prosperity and security, NOT MATERIALISM, the less the will seek religion and nationalism to define themselves. A hybrid of individualism to detract from sects of all types and degrees, and a shared moral consciousness indoctrinated into business and foreign policy is the next stage in the development of world development, economy and security.
As for right now, The UN must continue to invest and keep the peace in developing nations to prevent further proliferation of disdain leading to terrorism. They must be extremely sensitive to the cultures of the people they are helping as they readily declare new enemies through their distrusting nurtured nature. It will be important to gain the trust of these countries as they must eventually take the role of supporting themselves and continuing the processes of the UN. Terrorism is operating globally and can emerge anywhere so all underdeveloped, corrupt, exploitable nations are at risk. We must keep a close eye on leaders we instate and those democratically elected and provide incentives for nations to follow the formula for growth. As for the middle- east, US military presence is only continuing the cycle of terrorism as hundreds of thousands of innocent casualties have mounted. But if we leave and entrust the democratic system and free markets to the common people of the country they will most likely become targets of extremists as well. The people of Iraq must be given a stake in the progress of the free world if they are expected to fight for its success. Rule under Saddam , for some, seemed more promising than life after the US occupation so we must work to change that perception.
It is clear that as Globilization inevitably transforms the world into a smaller more compact place it is necessary for the United Nations to increase the amount of functions it serves and its effectiveness. To keep the peace and control this world. Clearly, the forefront of progress must be the most powerful nations of the world: the United States, Europe, and the East Asian Powers. It is in their best interest as these nations are most prone to security threats. The answer is not for these nations to spend billions of dollars for their own defense and security but in fact stabilizing nations that breed terrorist threats economically and politically. The UN brings nations together for this common interest a far better use of expenditure than selfish millitary expenditure.
Of course the credibility of this force rests on the amount of troops it has to enforce, and the willingness of the security council to act swiftly. The guidelines of actions are the following:
1) Violation of Minority Rights (Remember the Holocaust, Don Cheadle, and oh yeah Sudan funny how we need to wait for a number of six figures before we decide to do something.)We know very well of the crimes commited in the past and there should be zero tolerance for this. The UN must have a presence of officials in nations who exhibit ethnic tensions. UN peacekeeping forces should be deployed to protect all ostracized people when there is a clear threat.
2) Current Government is ineffective in preventing terrorism from breeding both organized crime to finance its efforts and exploiting the impoverished. Here we must foster economic and infrastructure improvement while avoiding any infrindgement on cultural traditions. The UN should get WB, IMF, WEF, and WTO to create closer ties to developing governments. Understanding which industry is most compliable with local economies, and subsidization of such develop can create a long term increase in national output and thus employ an impoverished population. In this case force is not always necessary. However, if development is halted by civil instability, a peacekeeping force is necessary to stabilize the situation.
3) Pursuit of Chemical and Nuclear Weapons. The demand for Nuclear and Biological components is high around the world. Nations fear their own protection from individual nations. If more of these weapons are created they will be far more likely to fall into the wrong hands. All nuclear powers need to assure that developing nations seeking these weapons are under the pending protection of a joint UN peacekeeping force. Failure to comply can cause bombings for millitary targets in certain nations. Of course the Atomic Energy Agency can oversee, regulate, and limit all chemical and nuclear components flowing into nations who have private interests that demand such elements. Knowledge of what biological components are most common can help us create corresponding vaccinations and prepare for specific biological attacks. We can't prepare for all attacks but knowledge of which ones are most likely will save the lives of the most people possible in the event of an attack.
The UN must not be considered an aggressor who has its on self interest like a nation would. The international world is anarchy there are no laws. The world must know the guidelines of the UN as an organization backed by the elite nations of the world to develop and stabilize the struggling nations of the world. Yes, there is self interest of wealthy nations to assure security, but as long as the rest of the world sees that they can benefit from getting involved with the UN, the legitimacy of the UN will evolve to a higher level.
Existence of the UN is still much needed for the world. Many of the ideas on prevention and peacemaking are very valid and sound like they could work. It is good to combat poverty, and it’s true that reducing it can help the states with security issues, public health needs to be improved, wars between states need to be prevented, weapons need to be controlled. The problem is that even though the smaller, less powerful countries may want and need this change, the Policeman of the world is acting against all that the UN is working towards.
The US continues to make unilateral decisions to protect their interests, not taking into account the smaller guys. The US is the first one to violate rules on weaponry, and the use of force for peacemaking, etc... The deployment of military capacities seems to be more as a way of colonization, rather than self-defense or peacemaking as the UN would like it to be. The UN feels that the developed states have a responsibility to keep peace, but what happens when the assaulting state, is the one that is suppose to keep the peace? Maybe the US has too much control over the UN for its efforts to be successful!
This article, begins with recognizing the fact that "in today's world, a threat to one is a threat to all" (p. 4), which is a huge part of the definition of globalization, and the interdependence that results. The article acknowledges and defines the most important international threats, then proposes ways of preventing them.
While I think the article is well thought out and full of good ideas, I still have some problems with it... the first problem is that use of force comes after other suggestions of prevention. I wish that the implementation of development, preventive diplomacy, &c. would work, military force (or the threat of) is the best way to achieve peace. Still, just after that, the document states it is the "responsibility of national authorities to protect civilians from large scale violence." The UN Charter claims to represent all states, but obviously is biased. This document acknowledges the response to the AIDS pandemic was poorly implemented but fast forward to today... what about Darfur?
In addition, another problem I have is that, if developed states are the ones whose "responsibility" it is to keep peace, then who keeps the developed nations in check when they violate their own rules? (like, say... the US?)
Still, I think there are a lot of other good points here. I really agree with the statements about the importance of working against poverty, especially after that film we watched in class about the Al Qaeda. I don't necessarily feel that ending poverty will be the ultimate saving answer, but working to combat it on the scale it's on today would make a HUGE difference.
The first thing that jumps out at me is the concept of collective security. I think that there has always been some sort of collective security among many nations, but the difference is now they are for different reasons. For instance in the past, pre-globalization if you will; collective security meant that nations that had similar beliefs and similar cultures would back each other for the simple reason to protect their way of life. As globalization evolves there are still hints of that, but more prominent is the secondary effect an attack can have on the world as a whole. Take the example of the video “Dirty War” in the aftermath of the attack there would have been a worldwide effect from it. The process of importing goods would have to be monitored more extensively, which in turn causes prices of this to go up worldwide. Also, many global businesses that are located in England could be vastly hindered and cause the global market to suffer because of it. As professor Khan stated in class that it would be easy to bomb a cargo container, and it would completely screw our economy from its effects. The secondary effects would be on the rest of the world that exports goods to us, they would also be screwed because of the higher costs that would be implemented for more extensive cargo scanning.
I think that an important point in this paper is ensuring the consistency of the treaties for all countries, especially the arms treaties. I think the inconsistency is causing the market for nuclear weapons to increase. If one country has nuclear weapons, why wouldn’t another want them to protect themselves? I’m not saying that the market for them would disappear, but I believe it would greatly decrease.
This post has been removed by the author.
The UN has existed for several decades but has not adapted to this day and age where everything is interconnected because of globalization and it has not changed its policies to fit the needs of the world. This report states that “a threat to one is a threat to all”, any major attack to any industrialized nation would have overwhelming penalties for the developing world (1). It also outlines policies to prevent treats in the world. First, poverty should be fought in order to save millions of lives and to strengthen the nation’s security. Next it says that biological security should be addressed in order to combat health issues and to protect against future diseases. It then states that preventing civil wars is essential, as well as preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism and transnational organized crime. It shows the UN Charter provides framework of the use of force and sometimes that when threats are imminent, there must be military action, but only if there are no other ways to diffuse the situation. It states that the UN needs to take action to fix countries prior to their escalation into an international conflict. Also when the state that has an attack brought upon them does not act, the international community must act. It says that the UN needs to be revamped to restore and increase effectiveness of its groups for Human Rights and changing the Security Council to have either no veto or renewable seats that makes decisive action early, rather than later as it does now. Basically this document suggests as stronger UN that has more diplomatic answers to problems rather than military action and must expand its groups in order to combat the evolving world and the toll of globalization. I agree with James who said that without changes, the UN will become powerless and obsolete in the coming decades with the unilateral decisions of nations like the United States. The U.S. takes whatever action we feel are necessary without any approval of the UN and without completely thinking out the strategy to be implemented. We seem to make quick decisions that in the end hurt the world economy such as the War in Iraq.
“We will have to build on the successes of regional organizations in developing strong norms to protect Governments from unconstitutional overthrow, and to protect minority rights”
This makes absolutely no sense. The U.N. which is heavily dominated by countries from the West such as the United States and “Great” Britain, which majority of the time leave countries with weak militaries to have absolutely no say in the policy making. So if the UN was to set strong norms in order to protect governments from unconstitutional overthrows then it would be setting up a capitalistic norm for the whole world which is absolutely unfair primarily because the policy would be from western culture and that culture would be enforced on to nations who practice their own type of culture. It would be another form of neocolonialism where the UN set norm (which is a product of Western society) is infringed upon countries in the East and as soon as any type of up rise takes place within those non western countries which is politically correct in their system, the UN or some Western Super power will say it has a right go into the country and “liberate” it. I think its childish how the government attempt to code up their political message in order to get it passed. They attempt confuse the public in general so they can make their political move on exploiting other small countries. Before we can fully invest all our trust in the UN we first have top revamp it so there decision making is equal between all countries, after this is established then we can work on creating a strong norm to protect governments from unconstitutional overthrow and to protect minority rights.
This article seems to touch on just about all of my worries of globalization in the current world. Civil wars, state wars, poverty, and terrorism seem to be enough to create at least a slight fear when something as small as a virus can cause a global epidemic with the way that the 21st century world has become. It is really good to see that the UN is touching on ways to protect everyone from the issues that can lead to demise of our global world.
A big issue that i have with this brochure however, is that it does not provide the explanation of HOW they are going to achieve the goals of global security. There is no inclusion of a budget, or where this budget is coming from. Also, as with most globalized policies, it doesn't approach the issue of jurisdiction of countries. This will become a huge issue when it comes to the arrest of international criminals as well as when the domestic law enforcement is to step down. Although global security seems like a great idea, i don't see how it won't become another policy that causes more problems than what it's worth.
This article outlines the Un's need to change in order to keep the world safe in the changing world of the 21st century. The article begins by mentioning the six areas that were the most important and deserve the most attention in the upcoming years. The problem with world disease was a big one. It mentions the way the UN contained the outbreak of SARS. The UN wants to try a similiar approach in fighting the rest of the worlds diseases including AIDS.
Another obvious problem is security. The UN wants to keep down attacks between countries, within countries, and by terrorists. The UN once again stated that terrorism is never acceptable and is always punishible. Also that a country should not go to war unless under immediate threat from another country. Nations have become too ready to go to war when other options have not been thought through.
Shannon Dougherty
The United Nations (UN) report begins with a comment that unilateral action by States places strain on the UN, risks international security, and impairs the ability of the UN to perform its duties. These unilateral actions could only be the result of one nation, the United States. The UN proceeds to attack the actions of the US throughout the remainder of the document. On page seven, for example, the report lists the UN Charter provision and customary international laws that justify war. Seeing how the US has failed to follow such long-established traditions, it is in violation of international law in its Iraq war. The 2003 report places a strong emphasis on change, but such changes only seem to target the actions of the US.
The report implies that dealing with minor issues will lead to solutions on major problems. This idea mirrors the failed “broken windows” theory of crime. There are external forces that affect the ability of a nation to provide security, cease fighting, and combat international vices. Solving poverty may strengthen a country, but the resources allocated to save the population from poverty are removed from other national interests. The US is the richest country in the world, but its poverty rate is one of the highest among post-industrialized developed countries. Should the US remove funding from national security efforts, from its already under resourced military, or from its poorly funded welfare programs to pay for a program to remove poverty in the nation? The executive summary from the UN is simply too idealistic to change international relations, since the UN has no means to implement its policies other than politely asking nations to follow its requests.
Post a Comment
<< Home