Darfur and Iran and Oil

[hierochloe]

[quote name='Didacus' post='1008339' date='Jun 19 2006, 01:43 PM']
Many americans, especially when travelling abroad post an arrogant attitude and this attitude goes a long way towards causing bitter sentiments amongst non-americans world-wide.
Weither you agree or not it is not far from the truth.
[/quote]
I'll support that statement as I too have seen it first hand, the perception as well as the arrogance/ignorance that causes it. To be fair however, I must also say that I've seen that reputation taken to extreme on many occasions to the point that it becomes the equivalent of some of the worst stereotypes ever invented. Neither fault negates nor justifies the other.



My thoughts on the rest certainly contain errors, which I'll gladly concede if pointed out. It is a discussion after all. Here they are:

Regarding the UN, I believe this outfit is just as rife with all of the same intentions, good and bad, with which the US (and any other nation) is gifted/afflicted. As such they are prone to all the same positives and negatives of being a significant player in a global society. The difference is that the UN is impotent as a major player itself without the backing (financially/militarily/etc) of other major players (like the US). Yet likewise, some (not all) major players (like the US) need the endorsement of a portion of the global community in order to carry out their agenda (be that truly good, truly evil, or some combination of the two, the latter being where all but a tiny few if any agendas qualify). The UN functions as one medium, but not exclusively (there is also NATO, the EU, etc), in which a player may gain some endorsement or support, whether truly valid or not. I would compare it to somewhat of a medieval court where nobles manuever for position, always needing the support of the others in order to make power-plays, as it were. The UN itself participates as one of these nobles, obviously with a twist. No, there's no escape from politics in the global community.

This significantly affects issues like Darfur and Somalia, since without the backing of a major player (like the US), any UN action in these regions will likely be limited in scope and effectiveness (look back to Somalia before and after US involvement - yes, I know that got ugly in the end yet before that it supports my point quite well). Why is it the US is often the largest player in these actions? Well, naturally because it is the biggest one on the field for the most part. If the US were not participating in such a capacity, it would certainly be argued it wasn't pulling it's fair share (as demonstrated by criticism for the tsunami relief effort, or insufficient involvement/funding thereof). So it's plausible that if the UN is aware it will not get support for a major intervention it will not waste time attempting one. I think that this indirectly transfers some blame to the major players (NOT just the US) that could affect an intervention of catastrophe, and rightly so.

I think the answer to the first few questions posed by OP is that every player involved (UN, US, Russia, China, Britain, etc, etc) is sometimes egomaniacal/selfish and sometimes unbiased/unselfish. More often than not, the two must meet on the same issue since few actions can move forward with all the proper endorsement and support needed to be successful without both of those elements - unfortunate, but better than nothing in most cases, I would think. I beleive it's the lack of these two elements together that prevent real intervention by the global community, fully endorsed and supported by the UN, US, EU, or any other major force in places like Darfur and Somalia.

Is the question then should well-meaining, moral citizens of a major player (like the US) attempt to affect change in the global community by steering (or attempting to do so) their own government to support the things they wish to see carried out? I suppose my answer to that would be yes. However, one must always be cognizant that once these things are set in motion, negative/evil side-effects of such acts will inevitably follow, no matter what efforts they put forth to prevent it (the ectopic pregnancy was a good analogy). This by no means warrants complacency, yet a healthy grasp of reality should be retained as action is executed so that when the negative does occur, the action does not utterly fail as a result (surely I don't need to cite historical cases). Which is to say, once committed one must strive for success despite hardships, maintain a strong stomach, and [i]make the sacrifices count[/i] rather than be squandered by weak wills. If one feels any decision cannot be carried through with such resolve and commitment, then it should not be entered into. Who would build a house and then tear it all down for a few sqeaks in a doorhinge? No, but it should only come down when the roof has caved and rain is pouring in from everywhere and there is no feasible repair. If a few squeaks are going to spell the end of a house for someone, they should not build it. Or so I tend to believe. This is how I would approach the issues in Darfur and Somalia as a citizen of a major player in the global community.

Specifically, what can the UN do about OPEC, Iran, Darfur, Somalia, etc? It cannot do JACK ---- without major players backing it. It can only endorse and attempt to guide/oversee actions executed by the major players to accomplish its agenda. This comes with the price of fulfilling the agenda of the major players as well, in one way or another, good and evil.



Surely I've constructed a few major fallacies there and gathered lots of irrelevant and incorrect points together for one heck of an unsound perspective, but there it is nonetheless.

[Didacus]

[quote name='hierochloe' post='1008731' date='Jun 19 2006, 08:18 PM']
I'll support that statement as I too have seen it first hand, the perception as well as the arrogance/ignorance that causes it. To be fair however, I must also say that I've seen that reputation taken to extreme on many occasions to the point that it becomes the equivalent of some of the worst stereotypes ever invented. Neither fault negates nor justifies the other.
My thoughts on the rest certainly contain errors, which I'll gladly concede if pointed out. It is a discussion after all. Here they are:

[snip]

[/quote]

Agreed, the reputation becomes a stereotype and neither faults negates or is justified.

[Didacus]

Not that I want to rekindle anger or argument, but I would be curious what those who take part in this thread think of this article:

[url="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/03/nyank103.xml"]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...03/nyank103.xml[/url]


Before the second gulf war it was common to hear that Canada was the US' 'Best friend'. After the second Gulf War, not surprisingly, the rhetoric changed to UK being America's 'best friend'.

[Franimus]

If I remember correctly, the way we fixed this at a model UN meeting was to condemn the actions of those harming innocent civilians, and for the UN to collect money from the member countries in order to supply water and food to Sudan... or was that to the Congo, and Sudan just got warned? It was so long ago.... Really though, if they just disbanded the real UN and replaced it with a model UN... you'd hear news of bake sales to raise money for Ethiopians and of Canada assuming control of the entire world (after being renamed to Franistan after moi) in order to fix all problems by deploying Mounties everywhere (riding camels in Egypt, elephants in India, and tanks in Iraq).... Those were the days...

So to answer your question JasJis I'd say that the UN is rather corrupted with its own agenda (whatever that may be) and is too "busy" caught up in Northern Hemisphere affairs.