My question is not `who should be sheriff?' but `who should be the
government that employs the sheriff, and what should be its form?'
Should the United States emply the sheriff? Or should the United
Nations as currently constituted? Or should the UN be revised, or
should it be a different organization?
Here is an example of an issue that needs resolution.
There are two ways to frame the current conflict over Iraq:
* on the one side, those who ask, `is Iraq a clear and present
danger in itself to the United States?'
* on the other side, those who ask, `is Iraq now a part of a larger
war, much as Morocco, the first country the US invaded in World
War II, was a small part of a larger war?'
Those who focus on Iraq alone say that Iraq is not a clear and present
danger to the United States. Hence, there is no need for the US to
have a war with Iraq.
Those who focus on a larger war, the `war against terrorism', say that
Iraq is to the larger war as Morocco was to World War II. They say
that with more US ability to project power among Moslem countries, the
US will make itself safer in the long run (although perhaps not in the
short run). With troops on the border of Iran, the US will be more
able to prevent anti-US leaders in Iran from funding terrorism. With
troops on the border of Saudi Arabia, the US will be more able to ask
the Saudi government to fund tolerant messages in the schools they
support, rather than intolerant messages.
Indeed, they say that it is possible that US President Bush will
reverse his earlier policy against `nation building' and insist that
schools in Iraq teach tolerance and that civil servants and judges
there become no more corrupt than those to whom he is accustomed.
These two ways of framing the current conflict over Iraq illustrate
the problem of government: how to get agreement among the various
powers that have a ability to prevent joint action -- among those who
enjoy a "veto power", or what in the US is called "states' rights".
So, to return to the question, who should employ the `sheriff'?
* Should the rest of the world depend on the US?
* Should the UN?
* Or should another organization be invented?
I don't think governments outside the US want to depend on the Bush
administration and its successors.
This leaves the UN as is, or as revised, or a new organization.
What should be the criteria of membership? Should a new government
include everyone as the UN now does?
The United States constitution excludes monarchies and the like:
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a
republican form of government ...
United States Constitution Article IV, Section 4
A similar rule would exclude Saudi Arabia from a new UN or other
international government, but include Iraq and China.
Should a new organization include states that more or less follow the
conventions on human rights that almost all states have signed? Such
a rule would exclude Iraq and China and some say it should exclude the
United States.
Should international legislation be based on the current UN two-fold
system in which, on the one hand, individual states, no matter how
small, have one vote when they become temporary members of the UN
Security Council; but which other states are permanent members and
have a "states' right" of veto?
A disadvantage of a system like this is that it is hard to adjust to
changes in relative power. Some have said that World War I occurred
because Great Britain, France, and Russia were not willing to give
peacefully some of their power to newcomer Germany.
Or should decision making be based on population, so that China and
India, gain power, and smaller states, like France or the US, have
less? The `one adult, one vote' method enjoys widespread legitimacy.
Or should decision making be based on the amount of taxes paid, so
that wealthier countries receive overt power in proportion, more or
less, to their actual power?
Or should decison making occur in a two `house' legislature, in which
one house is based on population, and another is based on the amount
of taxes a state pays to the new government?
An advantage of a population and tax-based allocation of power is that
states can adjust relatively simply to changes in their relative
population or economic power.
Under a population-based power distribution, France would receive less
than 1% of the total, the US would receive about 5% and China about
20%.
Under a tax-based power distribution, the US would receive 23% of the
total, if it paid taxes according to the current apportionment for UN
dues. I could not find dues info on the UN Web site, but France has a
GDP about 1/6 the size of the US and China has one that is perhaps
1/10 the size of the US. Based on these figures, France would receive
less than 4% of the power and China less than 3%.
Or should another criterion be used to allocate power? If so what?
What do you think?
--
Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises
http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
