----- Original Message ----- From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 4:30 PM Subject: Re: The UN
> At 16:01 22-10-2002 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > > >The why was not adressed to that part of your statement. It was adressed > >to whether letting governments vote is the next best thing. > > Do you have a better suggestion? Yea, accept the reality of what the UN is, instead of pretending it is what it isn't. It is a forum for the countries of the world to talk, and occassionally express their collective will. The big 5 winning powers of WWII got veto powers on the Security Council, while the rest of the nations got the power to pass general resolutions in the UN. The fact > > > > >Why should dictatorships be able to dictate their will to representative > > > >governments. > > > > > > In the UN (with the exception of the UNSC), no dictatorship can dictate > > > their will to other governments. > > > >No, but the governments of dictatorships, when they comprise the majority, > >vote to ensure that resolutions favoring dictatorships pass the UN. > > First of all, I do not know how may of the 191 UN member countries are > dictatorships, so I cannot say whether or not they would comprise a > majority. Second, the fact that a certain number of countries qualify as > "dictatorships" does not mean they all agree with each other. If they > would, they would be controlling the UN completely. > > I think that what keeps them from controlling the UN is what keeps the > European right-wing extremists from controlling Europe -- these parties > have roughly the same unhealthy ideas, they would even be willing to work > together, but each and every one them only wants that if *they* can be the > leader. And of course, none of the parties are willing to let someone else > lead them. They do not trust each other. The same applies for dictators. > (Being somewhat paranoid is a great help if you want to be a dictator; do > you think that someone like, say, Saddam Hussein, would trust someone like, > say, Khadaffi to lead the United Dictatorships?) It wouldn't have to be that strong. All they would have to do is figure out what actions would benefit all of them and get the UN to pass that action. For example, > > >You surely know how they stack the Human Rights commisions with > >representatives of dictators who commit gross violations of human rights. > > Actually, this is the first time I hear that. Can you point me to a website > that lists the various members of the various Human Rights commisions? > > (This is not a "I demand proof!" statement -- it is a genuine question.) Here's a website: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/2/chrmem.htm There was quite a bit on it last year when the US was off for the first time ever, while bastions of human rights, such as Syria, Nigeria, Cuba and China were in. You know that these folks work to make sure that nothing of substance happens. Now there are other countries who are democracies, such as China or Italy that are on it too, but it makes sense that areas dominated by dictatorships will make sure that dictatorships and forces that strongly surpress human rights have their viewpoints adaquately represented. > > > >So, its much better to do whatever terrorists will want, and hope that its > >the US they hit first, and you'd be spared? That's gutless. > > Dan, you have to read my statement complete with the paragraph that > preceded it. In that paragraph, I did not write about "do what the > terrorists want", I wrote about the responsibility of the US with regard to > the rest of the world. The US should consider that a war against Iraq will > have consequences (in the form of terrorist attacks) not only within the > US, but throughout the world. If the US decides to go in alone, without > support from the rest of the world, other countries would get attacked by > terrorists because of a war they did not even support. Then, the question is why they didn't support it. > >I can see arguing that the war in Iraq isn't wise. I'm not really a > >strong supporter of it; there have been thoughtful people who have argued > >that the negatives outweight the positives. But, arguing that the UN > >should walk away from its promises because you are afraid that terrorists > >will get mad if it doesn't is not a reasonable suggestion. > > I am not arguing that the UN should walk away from its promises; I am > arguing that the US should keep in mind that if they decide to go to war on > their own, other countries will still feel the consequences. Certainly, the US needs to keep that in mind. It needs to weigh the risks to others vs. the risks to its own citizens and others if it doesn't. Then the real question is how extensive are the possible consequences to the US vs. the rest of the world. Considering the fact that N. Korea has surprised the US by admitting a nuclear weapons programs that may very well already have produced bombs, and considering the fact that the US is still very vulnerable to a nuclear device inside a shipping container, it seems reasonable to assume that there is a very good chance that Hussein is developing WMD. Given that, is it warmongering to insist that any UN inspections be backed up with an "or else" with real teeth in it; instead of an "or else we'll talk some more about what to do?" Further, given Iraq's history of playing cat and mouse, isn't it reasonable to have strict rules that will ensure that an inspection can be thorough? > > > >So, your suggestion is to wait until millions die in the US from a WMD, and > >then you would then graciously allow us to fight back? > > No, my suggestion is to come up with a plan that the international > community can support, and see an invasion as the *last* option, not as the > *first* option. What besides "talk about it some more" will the international community support. In Realpolitic terms, it makes sense for other countries to wait and see if the US loses 100k or 1m people before taking any risk on their own. If NY gets hit by an A-bomb instead of a > > >Considering the fact that your country kept its representative government > >only because the US was willing to put NY and Washington on the line to > >protect it, > > Huh? That requires some explanation. That was well explained by Steve Sloan. It was clear from the first Berlin Crisis that the USSR had its eye on European expansion...at least the Finlandization of Europe at a minimum. > > >and considering the fact that you are part of the military of the > >Netherlands, that is reprehensible. > > I work for the military, yes, but that does not mean that I favour military > action as a First Option. Even if the military option is chosen now, it would not be fair to call it the first option. The first Bush listened to international pressure, and halted the Gulf War with Iraq intact. I wanted him to do it for a number of reasons: mostly the fact that all the negatives concerning overthrowing Hussein now were negatives then. We would have lost the coalition; the Saudies may even have told us that they would kick us out if we pushed to Bagdad. There were indications that, with sanctions and support of opposition forces, Hussein would have been out in a year or two. So we chose that route. Well, its over a decade later. Hussein still is in power, sucessfully defying the UN mandate. I cannot read the position of France and Russia as anything but "admit the inspectors or we'll talk some more." If the international community were to argue "we'll tell Hussein admit real inspections or else we will automatically authorize force if the inspectors report that you are not cooperating", then I'd strongly be on the side of going for this. Indeed, the way I read the US government, they have publically said they would accept this. > > Now *that* is reprehensible -- the idea that the Dutch would deliberately > let the Bosnians in Srebrenica be deported (the women and children) or > killed (the men). Yes, that is represensible. But, le > > Coincidentally, I watched a report about that on TV tonight. It again > confirmed what I already knew: the problem lies not with the Dutch troops, > but with the politicians. If you want to place most of the burden of guilt on those at the top; I will not argue with you. But, it was y'alls responsibility to protect innocent civilians. I'm snipping your explaination of the details, mainly because I really don't see much to argue about. It doesn't counter my point at all. >Why did the Dutch troops not stop them? Well, they could not do that. That is uncertain, because it wasn't tried. If they had told the Serbs that they would have to go through them to get to the civilians they were protecting there is a at least a chance that the Serbs would not have risked it. Especially, if the threat and the stand were publicized immediately worldwide, and the government of Serbia were told that the full force of NATO was behind the Dutch. Knowing US psychology, it would have been next to impossible for Clinton to not answer a call to support the brave, outgunned, outnumbered Dutch troops who were standing willing to give their lives to protect those whom they promised protection. Yes, I too fail the leadership on this much more than the individual soldiers. But, one cannot pass the buck to deny institutional responsibility. It was the leader's responsibility to give the troops the ability to fulfill their mission. It was the soldier's responsibility to risk their lives to protect innocent civilians. >The heaviest vehicle they had were > light armoured personnel carriers, the heaviest weapon they had were .50 > calibre machine guns. That kind of equipment is no match for Serbian tanks. > It also did not help that the troops were relatively small in number and > had not been trained well enough for the mission. > All of which is the responsibility of the Netherlands. They could have done what UN troops are supposed to do: form a line that cannot be crossed without consequences. They could have told the government of their position, and the government > But, at least now you have the chance to read the entire NIOD report on it, > free of charge. The full text (in English) is available at > http://194.134.65.21/srebrenica/. One hell of a read, though, considering > that the printed version is IIRC some 3,000 pages... That sounds like a bit. Nothing you've written contradicts the basis for my understanding. If you think that I have gotten some facts wrong that the report can point out, perhaps you can tell me about where to look in those 3000 pages...assuming you've read the Dutch version. Yes, you cannot tell me exactly where, but we should be able to narrow it down. I did look there, and was surprised by what I found at first; particularly in light of the debate on Iraq: "Christopher's trip was typified by inexperience on the part of Clinton, who did not fully understand the extent to which the rest of the world waited for America to take the initiative." That is quite interesting, because I remember reading quotes from European leaders from very little before this time stating that the US was neither wanted nor needed. Then, when the US finally did act, its actions were condemned for being too warlike. IMHO, this is begging for the US to dominate the world. It is neither realistic nor reasonable to expect the US to do virtually all the work, while countries like France gets to tell it what to do and what not to do, while assuming no responsibility at all. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
