On Aug 25, 2004, at 2:16 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
In situations like this it might make more sense to give some
enforcement power to an international authority comprised of member
nations from all over the world. Of course the US has decided the UN is
bogus, so until we get a little national humility and get rid of a
certain arrogant, cowboy Texan in DC, little will change.
But there is an experimental basis for that view of the UN. For example,
the UN is tacitly endorsing the genocide in the Sudan. My Zambian daughter
said that, as much as she hates to admit it, Bush has done more than anyone
to address the situation.
Yes, those kinds of lapses are really troubling and hard to understand. It's not a perfect institution, but at the moment the entire planet is verging on slipping into balkanization -- a globe covered with nations engaged in petty squabbles for local and short-lived ascendancy. We (as a planet or as a species) are not capable of sustaining or surviving perpetual international war, and as imperfect as the UN is, it's what we've got right now to try to address these kinds of problems.
The solution is not to unilaterally bomb the Enemy Of The Month. The solution *might be* to mobilize the will of nations to conform to the UN charter and to give it enough enforcement power to make its edicts carry some clout. This also means that nations (including the US) which step out of line need to accept sanction rather than charge off on their own.
It's a damned mess, all of it. I've toyed from time to time with formally renouncing my specieshood as h. sapiens and declaring myself a bottlenosed dolphin instead. But they won't let me into any of their club meetings!
-- WthmO
This email is being broadcast with a 5-second delay.
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
