The Irony! (warning: this is a political post)

[srholmes]

I find it ironic that two of the principles that the West prides itself on applying domestically, and that the US and UK say they would like to introduce into Iraq, are being completely ignored internationally, namely democracy and the fair rule of law, and that as a result they are prepared to expose the world to serious negative consequences. Here is why...




Democracy:

I can think of two ways of looking at this:

1) Some member states of the UN form a council, the security council, which votes on resolutions and pass those that are supported by a majority (and that also haven't been vetoed by a permanent member). The US and UK seem happy to go to war even if the majority of voting nations do not support this action at this time.

2) Just in terms of global population, lets assume that there are 6,215 million people. Lets say we are only interested in the adult population. The best statistics I can find here are for the proportion of people <15, so that will have to do as a proxy. The percentage of global pop 15 yrs old or over are:

Global: 70% of 6,215 m = 4350.5 m
US: 79% of 288 m = 227.5 m
UK: 81% of 60 m = 48.5 m
Spain: 85% of 41 m = 35 m
Australia: 80% of 20 m = 16 m
Bulgaria: 84% of 8 m = 6.5 m

(Statisitics from the World Population Bureau )

Even if all the inhabitants of the US, UK, Australia, Spain and Bulgaria were fully in favour of non-multilateral war, that is still only 333.5 of 4350.5 people, around 7.7 %. This is nowhere near a global majority.

I know, this is rather simplisitic. There are questions regarding who is entitled to vote, how any particular democracy works in detail, how power is transferred from individuals to states and upwards. But the basic definition of democracy is (according to Webster's, for example):
"government by the people; especially : rule of the majority"

If we are to take the words of GWB at face value (some may not be so charitable!), we can assume that he is a believer in global democracy. However, his disregard for the views of the majority of global citizens makes him (and Blair etc) appear hypocritical.



Law:

Another much vaunted benefit of living in the West is meant to be the opportunity to live under the rule of fair law. This grants individuals and entities a set of rights, and a framework within which to work to ensure that those rights are upheld. It is illegal to operate outside of the law, and any decision that is made that one entity deems to be unfair or unjust, can be appealed, normally up to a Supreme Entity. This system has endowed our societies with a certain amount of stability. It would be unthinkable to decide to ignore a legal decision because one didn't agree with it.

Yet if you extend this analogy to the member states of the UN and international law, this is exactly what GWB and co. are proposing when they suggest that the decision of the UN security council is only relevant to the extent that it supports their position, and that in the event of a vote against an immediate invasion of Iraq, that it is acceptable for the US and UK to go ahead and invade anyway. That is the equivalent of for example taking a gun and shooting a convicted murderer who has been sentenced to, say life imprisonment (Don't forget that pretty much all members of the security council agree that Iraq has broken other UN resolutions, it is the method of dealing with Iraq that is at question).

Not only do I also find this ironic (breaking the law to uphold the law is a contradiction), I also think that this has severe implications for the future of the world. Effectively, we would be saying that it is ok to ignore the rulings of , and therefore completely undermine, a forum specifically established to bring stability to the world.

This is far more serious that anything that Saddam, or GWB, or anyone has done since the UN was implemented. It has no regard for the steady progression from chaotic family feuding, through revengeful Old Testament justice (or equivalent), to regional, state and international law that has fostered the hope of a stable world.

Yes, we all agree that Saddam's behaviour is undesirable and should be dealt with. But is the undermining of the whole framework within which global differences are resolved a price worth paying? Viewed with an appropriate sense of perspective, I believe the answer is no.


Edited to correct typo in calculations....

[Q Classic]

yeah, you know what? the only funny thing about this is that getting your knickers all in a twist over this war is a really silly thing.

why? because it doesn't matter what you do, the end is nigh.

[DRoseDARs]

Take a International Politics college class. You'll find it very interesting...

In more direct response to your post, I agree but we (Humanity) are still in a nation-state world. We're slooowly transitioning into a world-state, but that's unlikely to be achieved until late-century, mid-century at the earliest. Bush Jr.'s actions do seem a bit hipocritical on one hand, but those same actions fall in-line with other, contradictory things he's also said. All-in-all, he isn't helping things much in the long-term, though I really do believe he means to be doing good...

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
...the end is nigh.

At the end of the day, that's all I ask for... ...this world needs a SERIOUS reboot before it's too late...

[Oerdin]

A global majority has absolutely nothing to do with right and wrong. Nothing what so ever. The Security Council, by design, cannot even pass a resolution unless the veto welding members all agree to pass a resolution; it has been a rarity in post war history that all five of the great powers agreed on the need for war. This occurred only once, after Saddam invaded Kuwait, and the other time the U.N. went to war it occurred because the Soviets walked out of the meeting and the allies passed the resolution when the Bolsheviks weren't looking.

That means every other war in the last 60 years occurred without U.N. resolutions. For a full 90% plus of all conflict in the last 60 years there was no U.N. resolution. This isn't a new thing it is more a continuation of the status quo.

[Sprayber]

What's really ironic is that this same thread has been posted about 20 times already. Ok, maybe ironic isn't the world. How about repetitive. But what do I care. Let the mods decide

[srholmes]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Take a International Politics college class. You'll find it very interesting...

In more direct response to your post, I agree but we (Humanity) are still in a nation-state world. We're slooowly transitioning into a world-state, but that's unlikely to be achieved until late-century, mid-century at the earliest. Bush Jr.'s actions do seem a bit hipocritical on one hand, but those same actions fall in-line with other, contradictory things he's also said. All-in-all, he isn't helping things much in the long-term, though I really do believe he means to be doing good...

Actually I would like to study some International Politics. I haven't had the opportunity as yet, hence my views may come across as somewhat naive, but as I am going back to uni later in the year I hope to take an elective with a focus on this area.

"I have a dream......" of a world state, surely it would make more sense, especially as many national borders are arbitrary and not even defined by geography (let alone what else). I would prefer we (Humanity) focused on eliminating poverty, living in an environmentally sustainable way and diversifying our habitation risk (ie colonising the empty planets of the solar system), than fighting each other. I know, it is idealistic etc, but never mind.

[srholmes]

Originally posted by Sprayber
What's really ironic is that this same thread has been posted about 20 times already. Ok, maybe ironic isn't the world. How about repetitive. But what do I care. Let the mods decide

Thanks for your informative post....

At least other people offered their views on the subject.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by srholmes
"I have a dream......" of a world state, surely it would make more sense, especially as many national borders are arbitrary and not even defined by geography (let alone what else). I would prefer we (Humanity) focused on eliminating poverty, living in an environmentally sustainable way and diversifying our habitation risk (ie colonising the empty planets of the solar system), than fighting each other. I know, it is idealistic etc, but never mind.

There will always be people who do not wish to be ruled by others. In my opinion, the only way any world wide goverment will come to be is if there is something found out there that distintions such as American, or Chinese become irrelevent and we think of ourselves as human. This will require something to define ourselves against. What that may be is anyone's guess. Until then, people will continue to seek means to be set apart.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by srholmes


Thanks for your informative post....

At least other people offered their views on the subject.

Damn man, a person gets tired of the same stuff. This has been done to death. The same people come in on the same side each time. After awhile a person has to do something about it or let it be.

[srholmes]

Originally posted by Sprayber


..... In my opinion, the only way any world wide goverment will come to be is if there is something found out there that distintions such as American, or Chinese become irrelevent and we think of ourselves as human. .....

I agree with this.

In terms of being repetitive, I apologise, but I haven't seen a thread looking at this with a sense of perspective before. Admittedly I have only been checking out this board intermittently, and it is a fast moving board so it is easy to miss threads.

Also, I think that this issue is becoming more serious as the crisis continues.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by srholmes


I agree with this.

In terms of being repetitive, I apologise, but I haven't seen a thread looking at this with a sense of perspective before. Admittedly I have only been checking out this board intermittently, and it is a fast moving board so it is easy to miss threads.

Also, I think that this issue is becoming more serious as the crisis continues.

No problem. I over reacted. I'm just a little stressed these days. This time next week. i'll be headed over there. I apologize

[mactbone]

First of all we've already seen that a simple worldwide majority is worthless - how many resolutions were passed in the UN by countries without the economic power to do what they voted to do? Second, the UN is represented by one vote per nation, so China gets the same amount of votes (in the General Assembly) as any other country like Guatamela.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Sprayber


No problem. I over reacted. I'm just a little stressed these days. This time next week. i'll be headed over there. I apologize

Oh...that's RIGHT...I forgot about that. Don't get killed, m'kay?

I thought that you were supossed to go a few Saturdays ago, Sprayber.



Back on-topic: I've been thinking (too much) about this subject for several years know. Not just casual dreaming, but serious thought. There really is hope for a feasible world-state system of governance, but the technical problems inherent with transitioning between that and the nation-state system makes the processes VERY rough. However, once it does happen, future expansion does become "easier" in that there won't be any "new" precedents to set, just rehashes of old ones.

[srholmes]

Originally posted by Oerdin
A global majority has absolutely nothing to do with right and wrong. Nothing what so ever. ...........

True, that is a problem with any system with a democratic element. But my point was not on the merits of democracy as a political system, it was that given that democracy is a stated aim of gwb & co, they are behaving hypocritically.

[mactbone]

The problem is that there are two forces at work in the world right now - globalization and decentralization.

Take a look at the Balkans, many of the African nations, or even Spain and you can see that not everyone likes to be part of a larger government because they don't think that their concerns are addressed.

On the other hand we have units like the EU.

Personally, I'm opposed to a World Govermnent because I don't think that my concerns would be met. The first issue would be poverty and most likely they would tax western nations ungodly amounts to balance things out. The reason I think that is because of simple statistics - North America and Europe have much smaller populations (and much larger economies) than the rest of the continents.

[srholmes]

Originally posted by MacTBone
First of all we've already seen that a simple worldwide majority is worthless - how many resolutions were passed in the UN by countries without the economic power to do what they voted to do? Second, the UN is represented by one vote per nation, so China gets the same amount of votes (in the General Assembly) as any other country like Guatamela.

The view of the majority must figure in some way in a democratic system. Either you count people's votes simply as I did, or you split them into a hierarchy of entities and sub entities and count the views of the high level entities.

I don't think that the system is perfect now, but at least it includes a democratic mechanism. Maybe you could have 2 or 3 houses, combining the US and UK systems, so that you can have one house with equal votes per country, one with votes proportional to populations, and one filled with recognised experts representing a range of walks of life to ensure that legislation passed is sensible.

Whatever you do, my point is that ignoring democratic principles while trying to spread democracy is hypocritical and probably counter-productive.

[srholmes]

Originally posted by MacTBone
The problem is that there are two forces at work in the world right now - globalization and decentralization.

Take a look at the Balkans, many of the African nations, or even Spain and you can see that not everyone likes to be part of a larger government because they don't think that their concerns are addressed.

On the other hand we have units like the EU.

Personally, I'm opposed to a World Govermnent because I don't think that my concerns would be met. The first issue would be poverty and most likely they would tax western nations ungodly amounts to balance things out. The reason I think that is because of simple statistics - North America and Europe have much smaller populations (and much larger economies) than the rest of the continents.

I agree, there are several forces, but they don't have to be viewed as being in opposing directions.

Global governance could relate to a few key area, such as individual rights, and international conflict. The world state would not have to have far reaching influence over every aspect of our lives as long as it maintained a basic stable framework within which we could live.

I would like to see world poverty dealt with. I don't think it necessarily needs large taxes on the West. After all, we don't all have the same degree of wealth in the West and I don't expect that to change globally.

I would remove the distorting forces of discriminatory trade regimes first and see where that took us. (For some reason this is difficult due to the influence of countries that profess to believe in free trade).I would expect it would go a long way towards making life tolerable in poorer countries, whilst removing the burden of arbitrary subsidies from Western taxation. The main losers would be the farmers (as a major example), the main winners would be everyone minus the farmers (in this example).

[Straybow]

Democracy without access to education and information is worthless. Didn't Iraq just "re-elect" Hussein as President? What kind of information about their own government do they get? Many countries perpetuate primitive tribal village cultures. I suppose they have value to people originating from those cultures, but I would not want them deciding things for my country.

When we in the West see how other countries are ruled we simply do not consider them worthy of ruling us. We have enough trouble with our own scoundrels without finding 3rd world scoundrels to add to the mix.

But even for countries with much in common we do not want our neighbors ruling over us or with us. Canada has no desire to join the United States of America. Wales and Scotland would probably jump at the home rule option were it ever let out of the bag.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Oerdin
A global majority has absolutely nothing to do with right and wrong. Nothing what so ever.

While that is true in principle, it remains a burden for the US to prove Saddam's wrongdoings. Particularly that links with terrorism silliness.

Originally posted by Oerdin
That means every other war in the last 60 years occurred without U.N. resolutions. For a full 90% plus of all conflict in the last 60 years there was no U.N. resolution. This isn't a new thing it is more a continuation of the status quo.

You missed the point. Duyba originally tried to seek UN sanction to make his actions look legit. While none is forthcoming, he changed his tone.

[Urban Ranger]

I wonder why none of the chicken hawks has the balls to comment on this:

The IAEA has made progress in its investigation into reports that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger in recent years. The investigation was centred on documents provided by a number of States that pointed to an agreement between Niger and Iraq for the sale of uranium between 1999 and 2001.

The IAEA has discussed these reports with the Governments of Iraq and Niger, both of which have denied that any such activity took place. For its part, Iraq has provided the IAEA with a comprehensive explanation of its relations with Niger, and has described a visit by an Iraqi official to a number of African countries, including Niger, in February 1999, which Iraq thought might have given rise to the reports. The IAEA was also able to review correspondence coming from various bodies of the Government of Niger, and to compare the form, format, contents and signatures of that correspondence with those of the alleged procurement-related documentation.

Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents - which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger - are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded. However, we will continue to follow up any additional evidence, if it emerges, relevant to efforts by Iraq to illicitly import nuclear materials.

[Emphasis my own]

IAEA full report

[uh Clem]

The Bushies were lying again? I'm shocked.

[Urban Ranger]

This is getting a bit much.

We now have bad sat images, bad documents, and plagarised report. What else is up next?

[Guynemer]

WAR! Ungh!
Good God, y'all!
What is it good for?

[Drogue]

Even if we don't have a world state yet, Britain (or rather Blair) claims to want to further democracy, but most British people are against it. How can we export democracy when we don't practice it? Moreover, the US and UK are both members of the UN, and support democracy. I'm not counting a veto (since that is undemocractic) but if they go to war without even a majority in the UN, how can they claim to be upholding democracy. I know there have been a few threads on this, but I've yet to see a decent answer.

This reminded me of a quote from a film (Crimson Tide I think)

We're here to preserve democracy, not practice it

[srholmes]

I have just been watching a debate on fox news channel to check out some different view points to my own. To be fair, out of 4 panel members they actually had one that represented the 'the UN route is important' viewpoint, to their credit.

Anyway most of the anti UN arguments seem to be caused by frustration with the time it takes to achieve anything there and by a sense that the US is so strong that the UN is irrelevant.

The view on achieving a majority in the UNSC was that the position of countries such as Angola etc were irrelevent, and as such these panel members weren't bothered about not getting a majority. One guy even said he welcomed its being undermined.

There was no real debate about the problem of ignoring democracy to install democracy (not that I really expected that from Fox news).

On a related note, though, I was quite impressed to see Clare Short (fairly high profile UK govenrment minister) threaten to resign in the event of a UK backed non-multilateral invasion of Iraq. I reckon there is a chance (maybe 10% - 15%) Blair could get forced out if he takes the UK down that road.

[Urban Ranger]

No comments from the Darth Bush supporters. It figures.

[srholmes]

Here is a relatively impartial summary of the history of UNSC votes.....quite interesting.

[Urban Ranger]

It's quite ironic that the pro-war faction now wants the vetoing power to be removed, considering that the US used it 76 times, just less than the former USSR.

[DRoseDARs]

Well, once the United States finally proves it serves no purpose for it to remain- in any real capacity beyond General Assembly representation - part of the UN and decides to leave, maybe the rest of the planet can finally get some good reform going there.

I don't dislike the UN's existance, nor do I dislike the United States having a role therein. I want the US to withdraw its support because decades of our leaders arrogantly disregarding the purpose of the UN have hindered its effectivness and limited its potential. There IS something to the UN being perceived as the US's knock-around b*tch...and it needs to stop. The US isn't alone in its disregard for the UN..but its the largest, repeat offender...

EDIT: On that last point, no I'm not saying "violating UN resolutions" I'm saying dismissing the will and purpose of the UN when it doesn't suit the US perfectly.