black@nisysg.DEC (03/12/85)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.politics Posted: Thu Mar 7 15:20:50 1985 >While I agree with most of Mark's comments in principle, the original >author was talking about SWAPO, which is not, as I understand it, a >terrorist organization. Rather, it has conducted a more military >campaign against the illegal S. African hold on S.W. Africa. I don't >know to what degree SWAPO is supported by the USSR, and I don't really >care. S.Africa holds S.W.Africa contrary to UN resolutions and contrary >to the stated policies of most nations. Why support of SWAPO should >be equated with either AntiChrist or the international communist >conspiracy is beyond me. > >Isn't this the same Don Black who was so confused that he thought >accepting World Court jurisdiction meant US citizens would be subject >to foreign laws? I don't see why people bother to respond to his >postings; they contain no colour of fact. >Martin Taylor South Africa is saying to the United Nations exactly what we in the US should be saying: POUND SAND! There's no confusing that the United Nations has only one goal, and that is to make all the nations of the world one large united nation. (Funny how that's exactly what the Communists are spouting.) Which means we can kiss goodbye the sovereignty of the United States government and the rights of the people. Aahhh, but the UN is so much more up-to-date and more knowledgable than our Founding Fathers! We should all knuckle under and say, "Here, World! Come take our riches and our resources! Come be the beneficiary of the fruits of American Labor! We Americans only exist to be your servants!" If I'm incorrect about the jurisdiction of the World Court, let me offer another example. The US Senate has not yet ratified the so-called Genocide Convention because of the exact same premise. This convention also contains provisions that would force the extradition of US nationals to foreign courts for prosecution if certain "offenses" were to be committed. Don't be misled by those who say that the United Nations is the friend of the United States. (With friends like that, we don't need enemies.) In Hoc signo, Don Black Path: ...decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-nisysg!black
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (03/18/85)
> If I'm incorrect about the jurisdiction of the World Court, let me offer >another example. The US Senate has not yet ratified the so-called Genocide >Convention because of the exact same premise. This convention also contains >provisions that would force the extradition of US nationals to foreign >courts for prosecution if certain "offenses" were to be committed. Isn't that better than the US practice of kidnapping non-US citizens to stand trial in US courts? Or of trying non-US companies in absentia for not obeying US laws in countries where to obey the US law would be illegal? The current US practice seems to be "US law applies everywhere we want it to. Other people's laws don't apply in their own countries if we don't want them to." Surely agreement by treaty is better than these bully-boy tactics? Reciprocity in international relations is more than just courtesy. The United Nations has never been seen as a place to supercede national governments or laws, but it is a place where they can talk together, and with luck work together to make the world a better place. Over the decades (or centuries, if we are so lucky), it just might become a world forum with some authority to back up its decisions (e.g. a standing peace-keeping force that could break up little quarrels among neighbours, or that could go and reinforce the troops of a country being invaded). Actually, I suppose the dream of all mankind would at heart be that the world COULD be made one United Nation -- and the lion shall lie down with the lamb, and all that. National chauvinism is unfortunately only one of the reasons it probably won't happen for a long time, if ever. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt