|
Contributor: jwitt
Date: 2003-03-13 18:47:11
How can the UN be transformed out of its current status as a five ring circus? One can easily see any new resolution brought forth to do so being vetoed five times........and the dog and pony show continuing...
Reply to this message
|
Show in topic
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-13 20:00:46
Indeed, the UN is in serious credibility trouble. Not through it's own actions, though. France is pre-emptively vetoing for it's own adgenda, the US war machine doesn't like it's dogs chomping at the bit for too long, lest they lose their taste for blood, Russia not wanting to see US control of the Middle East, the bickering seems endless. Any resolution to come forth will probably be for naught, though as the US will yet again claim that Saddam, even if he does comply, is lying and invade anyway.
It seems that the only way to clear up this imbroglio would be to have a few learned people in the UN renounce citizenship to any country to achieve true impartiality. I personally consider myself a 'citizen of planet earth' before Canadian, but I do love Canada. I do not love it to the point where I am willing to let my country bend the rest to it's 'will to power', however.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-16 10:39:33
Don't put motives in France's veto. Geermany and Russia are prepared to veto also. Stop making France the scapegoat for the impasse at the UN. The USA is the one out of step. The USA has not been supporting the UN for years; it refuses to join in banning land mines or to join the International Crime Court. The USA has not paid its dues to the UN for at least 2 years.
Why?? Because they no longer want or need the UN; as they are the only "super power". They will make decisions based solely on US interests
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-17 00:06:27
I do not mean to imply that France alone is the problem in the UN. I merely mean that France is acting as any other power would act. They are protecting their already considerable investment and future payoff. Iraq does, after all, have the world's largest oil reserves and the country that comes out on top in this 'event' will have IT'S nation's company of choice become the world's largest (and richest) oil producer. The are all guilty of greed to one degree or another and that is the root of the current dysfunctionality of the UN.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-17 02:55:07
I disagree with you, France has almost nothing to lose by the invasion of Iraq, there is only one French company which signed contracts for oil production in Iraq, while there are several Russian and Chinese oil companies involved in Iraq.
I would completely reverse the logic of this, it would be positive for the US government to invade Iraq so they can have greater control over the oil reserves of Iraq (Currently there is no US Oil company in Iraq).
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-17 20:45:05
The 'complete reversal of logic' you speak of, I believe, is merely the other side of the same coin. The billions, perhaps trillions, of dollars that are to be made from 'the rest of the oil on earth' (that meaning Iraq has the largest amount of oil in the ground anywhere in the world) will go to stimulate one nation's economy. That means millions of 'trickle-down' jobs, as that nation's 'richest company in the world' will create employment, tax revenues, et al. TotalFinaElf is already owed billions, and stand to make untold billions more. That would be a tremendous boon to the French economy. The US would benefit in the exact same way if the reserves go to Exxon or Mobil.
The US is a very fat, hungry nation, consuming a disproportionate share of energy and resources compared to the rest of the world. Pres. Bush has promised the American people that they have every right to continue doing so, even if he has to go to war to secure the right of 'every American to have SUV's".
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-18 16:03:44
Oil sands included, Canada probably has the most oil in the ground - its an issue of proven versus probable reserves.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-03-17 11:44:11
Personally-speaking, I feel the issues of oil and business opportunities with Iraq are blown completely out of proportion. The "fight behind doors" between the various security council members go much, much deeper and further than mere business opportunities.
IMO, people who speculate on the intentions of France should do some serious research into Gaullist government policies. They are very specific and are the crux of the reason behind Chirac's policies.
In particular you should examine French politics before WWII, as well as de Gaulle's WWII and post war political career.
Compare the track record of de Gaulle and his Rassemblement du Peuple Français (RPF) movement to Chirac's record and his ties to de Gaulle's ideals embodied in Chirac's party, the Rassemblement pour la République (RPR).
There is much more to Chirac's play-acting (pay close attention to his choice of words). If you wish to avoid being fooled by the "spin" played by various governments (including the one in Washington) you also need to be wise to the same self-serving cynicism from Paris, Beijing, Moscow and London. If you agree that one should never trust the words of politicians then I think you would benefit greatly by understanding their past behaviour and motivations instead.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-18 23:53:02
I would think that France is an anomaly, to be sure. I don't think, however, that they are not reasonably transparent. France has had, for a while, a very large communist-leaning section of the populace. They were also the last 'traditional colonial power' to have to cede their territories, and reeled from the 'prestige-blows'. The loss of Indo-China meant the loss of the opium trade, which they had gained from Britain, only to see it go to the US.
Their fervent ardor to hang on to the African colonies still is a cause of strife today.
DeGaulle was a patriot, to be sure, and greatly helped in WWII, after certain 'differences' were ironed out by the allies and they 'made' DeGaulle as leader of the Free French. He always had the single-minded drive, however, to "restore France to it's former glory". Hardly attainable, I should think, in this day and age. At least for France.
I should like to point out, that some people have criticized me in the past for 'digging into the past' when trying to prove current, or ongoing', actions of dubious motivation'. I think that those who fail to acknowledge history are doomed to repeat it.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-03-21 11:30:40
I am not sure what you mean by saying France is an anomaly. If we look at the UK, Russia and China, we can also find "special" circumstances that they bring over from their past and their differences in culture. Perhaps you have a different meaning.
I agree with you that we need to acknowledge history and use this knowledge wisely.
I would like to add some detail to your description of de Gaulle vis-à-vis "The Resistance". France was a very, very, very divided and confused country in 1943. While most of occupied France was indifferent to their German minders, amongst the reaction to defeat by Germany there were many different french views of the future of France *as well as* how to achieve them. De Gaulle was perhaps the essence of what we might call a "political animal". He was a consummate political schemer. The "Free French Resistance" was not de Gaulle's creation and he viewed it with suspicion and ambivalence. He sought to weaken its power and purposely minimized it.
The liberation of Paris was a bit of a farce because of the behind-the-scenes shenanigans between de Gaulle and the other french liberators. At one point, Georges Bidault, president of the National Council of the Resistance (CNR) i.e. the "internal resistance" was sternly told by de Gaulle "Monsieur, un peu en arrière, s'il vous plaît" - basically a french way of saying "You, move back there where you belong!". When Bidault solemnly asked de Gaulle to declare a new republic, de Gaulle declared "...I am the president of the government of the Republic. Why should I proclaim the Republic now?". The Free French Resistance risked their lives and their families by staying in France, fighting the Germans while this "pretender", through political skills, comes "home" to claim his glories. De Gaulle was always intolerant to sharing power (a curious trait in light of his magnanimous multipolar ideals) and he proceeded to undermine the CNR by introducing his own people to the CNR while creating new organizations to supplant the CNR. There was a lot of more of this nonsense but you can read up on it if you pick up some decent books.
The reason why I delve into de Gaulle is because this manner of politics seems to have pervaded France for much of the last century and Chirac is a direct follower of de Gaulle and seems to follow his style. While no one can be certain of Chirac's real motivations, people who see him as a symbol of righteousness in this Iraq affair should do well to look into the "Politics of Grandeur" and the behaviour of people and policies that shaped Chirac.
Now, if you really want to be more up-to-date, you should read up on the sad history of the EEC or the "Common Market". Remember the "Common Market"? Most of us have left that term behind years ago but it was the precursor to the EU and it was the brain-child of France. The EU is also the brain-child of France. Many people and I will tell you the intent of the EU is to facilitate the re-emergence of France as the master of Europe. Germany is actually more powerful but it is out-of-commission politically because it is now culturally, mentally and constitutionally restricted in its foreign policy options. Germany simply fears using its political potential in the world stage lest it be viewed as a Nazi resurgence so it is effectively nullified so long as its people will not support overt presence in the world stage. Economic power is one thing but being involved in controversial international politics is quite something "sehr unangenehm" for the Germans. Gaullist France wants to exploit this untapped potential by re-wrapping it as part of the EU. If you doubt this, you may ask yourself why Portugal, the Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, Spain and Poland do not support France. Come back to the UK. Do you know what de Gaulle said to the UK when it first asked to be admitted to the Common Market? Why do you think France is not enthusiastic about the newer entrants and applicants to the EU and NATO? It's all written in the history books - way before the Iraq issue ever came up.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: jwitt
Date: 2003-03-27 20:05:07
Vox,
Once again, I understand the spirit of your arguments, but believe some of your suggestions will remain impractical for the forseeable future. I must agree that the "hardline Jewish cultural elements" have a resoundingly disproportionate influence in Israeli politics, but would strongly disagree that this represents a desire among the preponderance of Israeli society to subjugate another people. Israel has a proportional democracy, which works somewhat differently than Canadas representative democracy. The result is a bewildering array of political parties, and coalition governments where the really hardline parties, which represent a small minority end up with real power.
In fact, Canada could learn something by monitoring Israeli political outcomes. I have heard much discussion of Canada moving toward a similar system over the past few years, and although such a system may seem to have merits on the surface, we could end up with a situation where the 'Family Action Coalition' and other far right religious parties have real and disproportionate power.
As for the the location of the State of Israel, hind site is 20/20. It is interesting to note that before the 'Balfour Declaration' the British offered the Jews what is now Uganda to develop Israel, but my guess is that this might have resulted in some problems as well. Regardless, we can't turn back history and must focus on the here and now. I of course understand completely your emphasis on a need for secularity, this meshes well with my personal beliefs and those of the majority in the West. However, this won't work at all in most of the mideast for the forseeable future (if ever at all). Much as I am personally quite contemptuous of all forms of organised religion, it has formed the cultural foundation of the entire mideast to a far greater extent than the west, principally because it is the birth place of three of the worlds major religions (Islam, Christianity, Judaism and is home to their major spiritual sites). A secularized Israel which encompasses both the Israelis and the Palestinians would not only require the Israelis to de-emphasize Judaism, but also the Palestinians to de-emphasize Islam- both of which will be an impossible sell. So, I think a two-State solution will remain the only course which has any hope of success in both the near and long term. My French is not the best, but I believe the ideas given in the Israel and Palestine posting in this forum offer the best hope for a lasting solution. To answer your first question: What do your Palestinian friends think of the Israeli government? On the whole, I'm surprised you really need to ask. BUT, having said that, It is definitely my experience that the Palestinians really do try to see the difference between policies resulting from political processes and Israelis as individual people (this was absolutely true of those I knew). The media has a feeding frenzy on what is not positive as opposed to what is positive. The right wing media would have us believe that the Palestinians are a faceless mass of suicide bombers, and that the West Bank is a giant Islamic Jihad Rally- an utterly absurd contention. While the left wing media would have us believe that the Israelis are all frothing with hatred, and itching to turn the West Bank into a parking lot- an equally absurd contention. Both sides are represented by REAL PEOPLE, not badly embellished abstractions which can be turned on and off with a remote control. Real people who in many cases have an enormous amount in common and really ought to be friends, but extremists on both sides and the Western Media focus only on their differences instead of what they share in common.
Let me conclude by telling you about what in many ways I regard as my greatest personal failure- the day I had beers by myself. First you must know that I am a drummer, and a big fan of Jazz music. I came to know two other drummers, both Jazz fans, with a strong degree of overlap in their cassette tape collections. One was Palestinian, the other Israeli. After some hesitation from both, I got them to agree to meet, and set up a time in a small bar near the Israel/West Bank border (both very much enjoyed having a couple beers and sitting back and relaxing, hence becoming friends with me). Neither showed up, and both gave me really lame excuses as to why, but it became clear that the real reason was fear- not of themselves or even of each other, but rather by how it might be perceived by their peers should they find out. This is why I despair when I read polarized statements which feed this mentality, and the horrible grip which extremists have on both sides. You may have initially thought that when I made reference to your earlier statements serving extremist elements, I was referring to only Palestinian extremists, however those comments serve "hardline Jewish Elements" equally as well. They provide them with the "see, the world hates us and is out to get us" ammunition which was born in the holocaust, and has since been twisted to serve the interests of a small minority of right wing ideological expansionists. So I request that you take a more nuanced approach to the middle east, and not inadvertently serve the purposes of extremists who have created a climate which keeps people who really should be friends from becoming just that.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-28 19:20:58
Having read much on Israel and Palestine, I would like to offer only this.
It is truly tragic that the rift between peoples of the middle east bar even individuals with a common love for music from developing friendships because of predjudice and 'peer-pressure'. Predjudice is a learned thing, as anyone can see by watching children play.
Once upon a time, parents told their 'white' children not to play with the 'black' children(and some vice-versa). Only the parents thought there was good reason, while the children had no such feelings, until there were told to have them.
If children are the future of the world, and represent purity of feelings, (tantrums aside) we should all learn from them, rather than imprint upon them. (To a certain degree)
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-03-29 00:03:41
jwitt:
My suggestions are "impractical" by the very nature of the problems in the Middle East. I will try to answer your posting succinctly. I realize fully that my suggestions will appear impractical. I will give reasons for that later in my reply.
You say "...I must agree that the "hardline Jewish cultural elements" have a resoundingly disproportionate influence in Israeli politics, but would strongly disagree that this represents a desire among the preponderance of Israeli society to subjugate another people...".
This is not what I said or meant. I make the distinction between the Israeli people and Israel, the state; Israel, the government. Please look through any of my comments and you will not find me passing judgements on the Israeli people. I always point to the Israeli government or its policies. When I use "Israel" I refer to its official representation, and not to its people per se.
The oppression of Israel on Palestinians is expressed by its policies and the acts of Israelis who condone these policies and not necessarily indicative of the attitude of all Israelis. The tragedy is that Israelis seem powerless to reverse this trend. That is why I alluded to "... the Israeli government is actually robbing its own people of the soul that it claims the Jewish faith bestows them with...".
You make a good point regarding Israel's democratic framework and how it creates disproportionate representation of hard-line ideologies. I agree with your thoughts on this regarding Canada. IMO, this danger is not peculiar to Israel but to any democratic society that aspires to ideals that its people are not yet ready for.
Your reference to the 'Balfour Declaration' is interesting. I do not think there would have been any "better" home to designate as the Jewish State for the people of any inhabited location would have felt pushed out by the Jews. I had alluded to the blame that western nations (and Britain) must all share with regard to the Jewish people's plight. IMO, it would have been much better to have these nations welcome the Jews and for the Jews to have the courage to try to live solely amongst gentiles again. As it stands, Israel as a nation was born out of a religious imperatives and is now still struggling to survive because of these imperatives. Given you misgivings of organized religion, I am sure you see the inherent flaw in this primary tenet of Israel's policies. Will it ever end. What would happen if the US withdrew financial support? Could Israel stand on its own without being propped up? What constitutes failure and success as a nation state?
I agree with your assessment that a secularized Israel must consist of both moderate Jews and moderate Muslims. However, I do not agree that it is impossible and again, I will explain later.
As for my question about your Palestinian friends' opinions of the Israeli government, you indicate that they can make the distinction between Israeli people and their government and policies. You seem surprised I would ask. However, IMO the overwhelming impression one gets is that many Palestinians are reluctant to make such fine distinctions. However, I accept your assessment that many do make the distinctions. I also agree that most people caught in this mess are "REAL PEOPLE" who prefer to be in peace with one another.
Now I come to my final and most important comments. You indicated that my suggestions are "impractical", that they "won't work at all..." and that moderation is "an impossible sell". Well, I would say that from your own observations of your jazz-playing friends' behaviours that they really do want to "bury the hatchet", share their common interests and be friends. I would also say that you believed they could have made friends with each other. You did try...once. Your impression was that your friends "pooped out" on you and on themselves.
Why?
Because they thought it would have been "impossible", "impractical" and "impossible to sell" (to their peers). They were essentially afraid. They were too "practical" and "conventional". Your idea wasn't. Why do you complain about mine?
I believe there is never an easy way out of the strife that is born out of vicious sectarian differences. We can try to keep people apart with fences or threats of violence but there would never be peace. We just prolong the misery, rack up more grudges until the next big confrontation. If you want to solve the real problems you must tackle the fundamental basis of this sort of strife - IMO, it is the blind, primitive nature of all organized religion. Unless you get the parties to moderate and live in the same spot as neighbours they will always eye each other's intentions and each other's possessions with suspicion and resentment. Thus, my suggestions are not actually impractical. They are actually extremely hard to achieve but the reason why they are so is because they strike at the very heart of the problem. So take your pick. Take the easy, practical route and procrastinate or put some courage and vision into your actions and actually try to solve the problem.
In fact, I think you already made a start on this route but just haven't realized it yet. Why else would you have tried to get your friends together?
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-03-13 20:12:55
The UN sometimes looks like a five ring circus because of it's attempt to be a global democratic institution. Democratic institutions are messy, can get loud with a lot of people talking at once and over long periods of time, can take a long time to accomplish things and on and on. It's part of the deal when an aim of an institution is to foster dialogue rather than armed conflict. As Churchill said, "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war." So a dog and pony show it may appear to be but quoting Churchill again, on democracy, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." I'm OK with lots of talking over long periods of time because *precisely that* is one of the foundational tenets of democratic government.
If some group tries to convince you that all that talking is a waste of time and everything would be so much better without it, immediately look for the unsmelled rat.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: jwitt
Date: 2003-03-14 14:11:04
Can a council where five members have permanent status and special powers really ever be democratic?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-14 06:28:46
Yes, but everyone forgets once again that the UN general assembly has the same power as the Security Council if the permanent members cannot agree! So its not so much a circus as people might think.
The following text clearly states the power of the general assembly:
http://www.un.org/Depts/ dhl/landmark/pdf/ares377e.pdf
A small article on its usage in the past:
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=386906
Reply to this message
|
|
