mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan) (03/28/85)
Lines marked '>' are from Mike Kelly. >I made what I thought was a fairly non-controversial statement: >The U.N. is the world's political forum. > >To which mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan) replies: > >>NO! NO!! NO!!! The U.N. is NOT the WORLD's political forum; it is a >>forum for the OPPRESSORS of the world! > >Now, there are somewhere around 145 member countries of the U.N. Included >in these are certainly some pretty ugly characters. But it seems pretty >silly to describe an organization which includes as members virtually every >nation in the world as a "forum for the OPPRESSORS of the world." So they >get to spout rhetoric in New York; our ambassador does that every now and >then, too, you know. First, Kelly continues to make the mistake (thru-out his posting) of confusing governments with nations. Even if we accept democracy as a legitimate form of representation (I don't), few-if-any governments are legitimate agents of their nation (as an example, compare the military policy espoused by the US ambassador with the desires of most Americans). Second, while I object to the implications of Mr Kelly's 'Torture is torture.' (made in an earlier posting), I would regard any nation which systematically tortures peaceful people as oppressive, AND I WOULD CHALLENGE MR KELLY TO FIND ONE THAT DOES NOT! Third, it should be noted that, even in relative terms, the over-whelming majority of member states are oppressors, and the presence of a handful of less-oppressive states hardly off-sets this. Fourth, Mr Kelly may have an ambassador to the UN; I do not, and I will not accept responsibilty for the rhetoric of Kelly's. >Ignored in this is the good work the UN does. It attempts mediation of >world conflicts. It does a lot of transnational research that only an >international organization could do. It funds relief efforts all over >the world. Virtually an institution can be shown to have done (or attempted) some good. None of these (attempted) accomplishments requires a UN; all could be better accomplished with radically different structures. >If we are to have a world forum, we must include at it all the nations of >the world, even those the rest of us don't like very much. This is either a vacuous tautology, or a non-sequitur (depending upon interpretation). > If you are >against having a world forum, then you should say so. I'm not for or against a world forum (per se); such a thing is, however, technologically impossible. I AM against confusing a forum of governments with a forum of nations. And based largely upon the record of the UN, I am against a forum of governments. > There are many in the >U.S. that like the approach of "Look, we're the United States and you will >listen to us, not the other way around. If you don't like it, we'll just >blow you away." Personally, I think the UN, although clearly very limited >in its abilities *because nations are unwilling to surrender any significant >sovreignity*, is a better approach to mediating world problems. As I pointed out in the posting to which Kelly responds, this is like arguing that nails should be driven by fist, because it would be worse to do it by eyeball. Mr Kelly would apparently like to argue for the UN against an Imperialist; however, I do not intend to oblige him by becoming an Imperialist, so he will have to look elsewhere. Life is tough. Back later, DKMcK
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (03/31/85)
>>I made what I thought was a fairly non-controversial statement: >>The U.N. is the world's political forum. >> >>To which mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan) replies: >> >>>NO! NO!! NO!!! The U.N. is NOT the WORLD's political forum; it is a >>>forum for the OPPRESSORS of the world! >> >First, Kelly continues to make the mistake (thru-out his posting) of >confusing governments with nations. Even if we accept democracy as a >legitimate form of representation (I don't), few-if-any governments are >legitimate agents of their nation (as an example, compare the military >policy espoused by the US ambassador with the desires of most Americans). >Second, while I object to the implications of Mr Kelly's 'Torture is >torture.' (made in an earlier posting), I would regard any nation which >systematically tortures peaceful people as oppressive, AND I WOULD >CHALLENGE MR KELLY TO FIND ONE THAT DOES NOT! Third, it should be noted I also replied to DKMcK's "UN is a forum for the OPPRESSORS" in the belief that he was referring to oppressor nations, and that he was simply worng. His response to Kelly suggests irrationality rather than simple error. The UN is indeed a forum for governments, which DKMcK now almost defines as being torturers of their peoples and therefore oppressors. So he has therefore DEFINED the UN as a forum for oppressors, so that his original statement is not about the UN at all, but about the nature of government. [Incidentally, in my response, I listed several weak nations that had brought their troubles before the UN. I included Afghanistan when I was thinking of Kampuchea. I don't know whether Afghanistan complained about the Russians before the coup (or after). I doubt they would do so now, since the government of Afghanistan is indeed the oppressor of the people, a government that invited a foreign power to help it maintain (or gain) power over its own people (remind you a bit of VietNam?).] -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (04/10/85)
> Second, while I object to the implications of Mr Kelly's 'Torture is > torture.' (made in an earlier posting), I would regard any nation which > systematically tortures peaceful people as oppressive, AND I WOULD > CHALLENGE MR KELLY TO FIND ONE THAT DOES NOT! Uh, New Zealand? (not Mr. Kelly)