Non-US Dopers: A Hypothetical Anti-Bush Question

Great Debates
1

This is a hypothetical question. Or, rather, a real question about a hypothetical US Presidential candidate. The candidate does not, as far as I know, in any way resemble either Al Gore or John Kerry, the previous and likely current Democratic candidates who have or will most likely run against George W Bush.

Suppose the US had elected a willful and activist US President who had wholeheartedly embraced the UN, dumped boatloads of US finances into the UN (far above and beyond merely catching up on its dues), forgiven or renegotiated strategically chosen debts, sent its slickest and best ambassadors to the UN and the international circuit, and had unveiled a proposal for a more powerful UN, a true World Government, and started asking countries to consider allowing the UN to exert certain forms of federal control over member states and maintain its own independent Earthwide military, etc.

NOTES:

• A whole lot of the proposed charters for how to treat individual nations, and citizens within those nations, look suspiciously kin to United States Constitutional clauses regarding the separate states of the US and citizens thereof; within that framework, it seems pretty fair and egalitarian and gives every member nation equal treatment and every individual citizen equal treatment in the eyes of UN law while also demanding that every member state extend equal treatment to every citizen.

• The US Prez in question, over a lot of loud screaming from a disaffected US contingent, has successfully orchestrated US public opinion so that nearly 68% of the population supports the US consenting to being a member of this new-and-improved UN.

• There are several decently well-respected politicians in your nation who are noisily making the point that the US has used all of its sway and clout to stack the UN and orchestrate its decision-making structure with US representatives or US puppets, and that they are about the business of trying to turn the world into an extended version of the United States.
My question to you: if US politics had taken this road instead of the road currently traveled, how would you feel about the enveavor? To an extent, it’s a question about the architectural fairness of our political structure, and therefore if a world government seemed to be in the making and it seemed to be rather strongly patterned on the US government and its member states’ and citizens’ arrangement, to what extent would you embrace or reject or critique the opportunity / threat?

Also, out of curiosity: if such had happened and such an idea seemed to be gaining some global traction, would you view the US as less of a threat, more of a threat, or about the same as the US and its international activities in their current form?

Yeah, I know, in some respects it tastes like a poll, therefore IMHO. But I can’t see this anywhere but GD. I’ll be disappointed if I don’t see some GD going on here…

2

Beatifully posed hypothetical, Hunter.
On that day, I would watch the sun rise with all the joy of a fundamentalist watching the Rapture, and say “Wow. I think we’re going to make it”.

The UN is its member states; there is no “them” and “US” (capitals intended). I do not see “threat”, I see only disfunctional behaviour likely to cause unnecessary suffering, and that can just as easily come from my own nation.

As for possible US manipulation of the newly energised structure, well, it is currently set up such that nobody can really get much done due to the dreaded veto on the Security Council (the only current structure with any real power). Lose the veto and the primary means of sabotage immediately disappears. Indeed, if this new UN is to be stronger and fairer, it surely will not do to have all of the major decisions made by the 5 permanent members and some random yahoos, and so the UNSC could perhaps be dissolved altogether, leaving the 189-strong General Assembly (bad eggs and all) as the sole arbiter of binding commitments.

Now, should the US start seeking favour from key GA members using all kinds of carrots and sticks to try and get its way, good luck to it! That is, after all, how any halfway democratic assembly works at heart. I also find the Federal/State epithet compelling, although I don’t know precisely which numbers, proportions or percentages I’d pick as the threshold for enacting a given motion.

I could certainly still see the difference between “the system of government in the US” and “US-centric policies”. I would unreservedly embrace the former, but criticise the latter as being inconsistent with the new commitment to the US. After all, the American states “know their place” in the Federal structure; California does not simply fight the other states tooth and nail for any kind of advantage. It recognises that the welfare and security of the collective whole is the ultimate goal.

As someone once said, “bring it on”.

3

To the UN, by the US. Sorry

4

It would look like the US was still trying to take over the world, but using “Plan B” because “Plan A” hadn’t worked out too well.

The US has a credibility rating of about zero at the moment. Gonna take some time to get it back up again.

5

I agree with that, but I would say the US has a credibility and popularity rating far below zero at the moment since it has come to be untracable.

I don’t envy the president and government who have to take over this disaster when one of the goals is to clean that international mess up. (not to even mention the internal US affairs).
Salaam. A

6

I’d be a very happy bunny.

They would exist regardless. A superpower will always be regarded with suspicion. But surely this is better than the current situation.

7

I’d be even more scared of the US then I am now, which would be no small achievement. I am for all its faults a supporter of the UN, which I envisage as a meeting place for all nations and a device for the defusing of crisis situations, not as a world government or powerplay by one nation. Count me out!

8

But what would you specifically fear, Eolbo? What could the US do by engaging more closely with the UN, that it could not now, which would affect Australia or elsewhere to its detriment? I cannot conceive of a mechanism which would realistically become possible whereby the US could have so much more influence than, say, Europe.

9

I don’t pretend to speak for Eolbo, but don’t you think there’s a huge chunk of weasel built into your phrase “engaging more closely with the UN”, which fundamentally misrepresents the “started asking countries to consider allowing the UN to exert certain forms of federal control over member states and maintain its own independent Earthwide military, etc.” statement in the OP?

10

Well lets take the OPs premise and look at what it would mean in practise. The US currently is, and would be even more in this scenario, the largest donor to the new ‘world government’ and possesses all the clout that will bring. It will provide the strongest and best equipped elements of the military force of this ‘government’. And the new world government will apparently be constructed along US constitutional lines. In effect whether it is consciously intended or not the US would be the new world government.

What does this mean for me as an Australian and why would this scare me? My fears are two-fold.

Firstly, I do not want my country to be compelled to move in the direction of some of your constitutional clauses. Many Australians may look with raised eyebrows upon your gun laws, but fundamentally we dont really care as they dont affect us. We aren’t you and dont want to be, we have our own destiny to make in the world. Nor would I want my nation to be as it no doubt would engaged in war after war while we enforce these constitutional clauses, the bill of rights and whatnot upon our less tolerant brothers in say the muslim world.

Secondly, I do not want a world government period as I think its an idealistic pipe dream. I certainly dont want one dominated by the US. I think its obscene the level of power your nation has, I dont think its good for you, good for me, or good for the world. I dont think the values of the American republic are surviving the possession of absolute power. Values never do. The more counter-weights to your power exist, the happier I will be.

11

Hmm, I didn’t read the OP thoroughly enough.

12

I think you are confusing “US-style government” with “US government”. The “US in the UN” would perhaps be analagous to the “California in the US”. Sure, it has a big say. Sure, it contributes great wealth. But we do not hear of a “Californian government”, and there is no conceivable way in which California could realistically dominate the other states combined. In effect, a US-style constitution would prevent US domination.

Again, any state can do whatever its electorate votes for, regardless of what California does. As for some kind of “world constitution”, again, the US simply could not outvote the rest of the world regarding what it would comprise. It would likely be restricted solely to a few very basic tenets of international law and perhaps a nod towards human rights. There would certainly be no outright wars to force democracy upon states clearly not yet ready for it.

If anything, what Hunter proposes is a counterweight to US power, in the same way that the US constitution prevents California riding roughshod over less powerful states.

13

I would need much more informations about this “umproved UN” before making my mind.

However, generally speaking, I would be likely to strongly support such a thing, since IMO it would largely be worth the cost of one country having an overdue influence (besides, it’s not like the US doesn’t already have such an overdue influence , but based on much less peaceful or diplomatic means. Also, the US isn’t by a long shot the country I dread the most).
I should add that I’m quite supranationalist.

14

I certainly did not mean any such weaselling. “Federal control” is a highly emotive phrase, but I did not read it as meaning so much different to many elements of international law currently in place. Are the Geneva Conventions and World Bank regulations “federal control”? If so, so be it.

As for the Earthwide military, again I have no problem with a UN official, rather than an American, retaining overall command over the troops and materiel supplied by the nation states. If you are shooting at people wearing sky-blue helmets, you know you’re on the wrong side.

I think we are getting ahead of ourselves a little, conceiving all kinds of hypothetical constitutional details which impinge upon national sovereignty. The US can blow as hard as it likes; the rest of the world will simply not enact any proposals which are even slightly controversial.

15

So is it to use the language of the OP a “world government” “suspiciously akin” to the US government along US constitutional lines, and with the US providing most of the money and most of the muscle and empowered to “exert federal control over member states” or isnt it? Admittedly its a vague idea and the devil always lies in the detail but what does it mean? And if it isnt prepared to “force democracy” or its most basic governmental forms and decisions upon the unwilling then its meaningless. And while you make a distinction between US government and US-style government, in the circumstances I dont see it as a real distinction. If you choose the form and constitution, and if you provide the lion share of the money and the military then you are calling the shots lets be clear about that. Thats government by you in practice even if its not formally acknowledged. And if you dont see it as so, lets envisage a situation as follows. The world body votes for the immediate adoption of the ICC and Kyoto by all members, and the establishment of a Palestinian state and given a free vote they do vote for all these things. Does the ‘world government’ say “yes, we hear the voice of the world community and it will be so”, or does the US say “piss off, not doing it” thus exposing where power really resides?

16

Well then, I think we’re talking about two utterly different hypotheticals, both of which might nevertheless fall within the vague language of the OP.

However, I read the OP as the US very definitely surrendering its ability to sabotage the whole shebang:

As for your Kyoto/Palestine hypothetical, again nation states must retain sovereignty, except in the necessarily basic (since nothing else would ever realistically be accepted) World Constitution.

17

As an Australian I would be very creeped out. The fictitional president would have to achieve massive structural and philosophical changes to the UN before I would feel comfortable with anything they say. Why should any country accept government by an unrepresentative (look at the security council, I bet you can’t name the current members), unelected group of “representatives”.

I don’t see the US as any sort of threat at all. Many of Bush’s opponents see him as an ill-informed loony warmonger, but even with evidence (right or wrong ) about WMDs he still had to face opposition at home. His “warmongering” influence has been very localised. I can’t imagine the American people letting a president make much international trouble but I wouldn’t like to be subjected to the whims of the UN.

18

Not if the OP intends to maintain UN membership as it is. I have no great desire to have federal level laws made by states that have only the most tenuous grasp of democracy, contract law, individual rights, etc…

19

You’re kidding, right? The people of the US would never stand for “dumping shitloads, I mean boatloads, of US finances” into the UN. What makes you think we have some hidden cache of “slickest and best ambassadors” that we aren’t using now?

You don’t explicity say this, but I assume this new, more powerful UN would also exert it’s influence on the US as well as “member states”.

The erroneous assumption you are making in all of this is that the UN will be some sort of benign dictatorial body working for the good of mankind, and not a quarreling, ineffective, power grabbing body that gives a voice to every tin-pot dictatorial regime on the planet.

I’d like to ask those who think this is a great idea to go back and read the OP again and think about how this transformation will be achieved and executed. How much sovereignty would you be willing to give up in your own country in order to let North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc, etc, etc have a say in your internal affairs?

20

[quote=Don’t ask]
you must be joking.

And I have a quesiton for the OP:

Why on earth would the UN see the US Constitution and the US-style governmetn as the ideal example to follow, let be being implemented no matter where outside the USA?
I wouldn’t want to live under that constitution and US-style government. Let be that I would like to see them as The World Order.

Salaam. A