In essence we let countries buy how much influence they want in the U.N.?
Yes. How is this worst than the current system? At least the SC wouldn’t be a strictly limited club of 5 of nations who just happened to get in on the goodies after WWII.
Paying more to get a vote or get on the SC only gets them a seat at the table after all.
-XT
Theoretically the Republicans (nor would Democrats for that matter) would not be in favor nor support a stronger UN, given the historical baggage that the UN represents from its’ founding. The earlier League of nations didn’t pass sentatorial muster, and this is saying a lot, since this was a time that brought the income tax, emasculation of the senate itself, and a national bank under the guise of the Federal Reserve… There is a need for diplomatic relations but that is quite apart from the issues raised by an organization like the UN.
If you want an example of what makes your typical Republican mad, and makes my planning-to-homeschool brother start cleaning his AR-15, read this. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50395
Ye gods, citing World Net Daily? You couldn’t try to find a more reputable source, such as the Midnight Star?
I understand that it’s a point-of-view site. That doesn’t make the story false. Is it?
To rephrase, are there points of fact that are wrong in that story? Let’s leave alone the editorial aspect, as of course it’s an editoria aspect. I know that.
If you want to simply stick with the facts, then the article boils down to “A right-wing pro-home schooling advocacy group (HSLDA) is making scary claims that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child could be interpreted as making home schooling illegal – despite the lack of any evidence that such an effort is being undertaken by any person or group.” Or, as Texas Ed points out, “ould you please give me some other examples where an activist judge (the majority of all judges on the bench are republican appointees btw) has overturned the Constitution in favor of a UN document?”
There’s a reason why nobody with a brain trusts World Net Daily to deliver the news, and this is a perfect example of it.
No, that’s the opinion part. The point under discussion is why some Republicans don’t really care for the UN. So, are these things false (I’m really asking):
…under Article 13, parents could be subject to prosecution for any attempt to prevent their children from interacting with material they deem unacceptable.
Under Article 14, children are guaranteed “freedom of thought, conscience and religion,” which suggests they have a legal right to object to all religious training. Further, under Article 15, the child has a right to “freedom of association.”
…in 1995 the United Kingdom was deemed out of compliance with the convention “because it allowed parents to remove their children from public school sex-education classes without consulting the child.”
Good responses, everybody.
A related queston might be, if conservatives don’t want the UN to be any stronger or more influential, why do they complain about it being weak and ineffectual?
But my more basic question is, what is the GOP’s vision for advancing global peace and stability? A different kind of international organization? Or something else entirely?
Good responses, everybody.
A related queston might be, if conservatives don’t want the UN to be any stronger or more influential, why do they complain about it being weak and ineffectual?
But my more basic question is, what is the GOP’s vision for advancing global peace and stability? A different kind of international organization? Or something else entirely?
My understanding is that when most Republicans complain about the UN being ineffectuctual, they mean that there’s little point in spending the money and getting yelled at by wacky tin-pot dicatators with their hands out to reform economies they themselves ruined, and it accomplishes little in dealing with so many violent hot spots / genocides / economy raping governments.
If it’s so ineffectual (if), then there’s little point in it overall. This does of course come down a bit to the idea of “I want it to be effective in my way, and my way only”, which is what everyone does, really. I mean, do you want to put up US law to a vote of a “world democracy” and end up with something we’d never do ourselves (enforced headcoverings, mandatory religious attendence, fill-in-your-own-blank)? I can’t personally see how you could possibly reconcile America and Iran without a major shift in the root cultural emphasis. From what I can tell, the dominant value in Iran is Shi’a Islam, period. The dominant value in America is some form of “I can do what I want, so shut up”.
As for what the Republicans propose that’s not the UN, I don’t really think there is much of something. How can you reconcile those things?
[opinion] Of course, it would go a long way if Israel would try to actually understand and address the root causes of Palestinian discontent at a real level that people would actually respond to, instead of only trying to kill bombers. I could just send everyone who made me mad in class to the office, but instead I try to run things so that there’s little reason to have that kind of conflict.[/opinion]
As I understand it, it’d not a case of “It’s weak and ineffectual - let’s beef it up” but “It’s weak and ineffectual - let’s ignore it”. They’re complaining about the U.N. being useless because they believe it is useless, and they’d prefer to act unilaterally.
First off, it would be a vision for advancing global peace and stability in regards to the U.S., which if a little selfish is an understandable view. I think the vision would be the U.S. acting unilaterally for the most part, forming temporary coalitions when they’re needed, whilst still being a part of major treaty-based organisations like NATO in order to make sure those coalitions are there when they need them.
The UN has the power its constituent members choose to assign to it, nothing more or less.
I do get tired of the argument that we shouldn’t support it *because * it’s ineffectual, when any ineffectuality it has is *because * we don’t support it any more than we do.
Really? How would more US support make it more effective, and in which ways?
Wrong. It’s often ineffectual because the UNSC is highly politicized. It’s almost impossible to get the five permanent members to agree on something because at least one of them has a poltical ax to grind. Take the case of the NATO action in Serbia. If ever there was a humanitarian action necessary in Europe, that was one. But there was simply no way Russia or China would agree to take action. Look at what’s going on in Iran right now. Same thing. Even the situation in Darfur, which shouldn’t be on anyone’s political radar, remains unaddressed.
That very structure is the result of the constituent nations not giving it any more power when it was set up. They could change it if they wanted to.
So what? That still doesn’t make it ineffectual because of the US. But if you think the UN could exist without the US as a permanent member of the UNSC, you’re dreaming, The US would withdraw, and so would China and Russia at the very least (I’m not sure about the UK or France). A UN without the US, Russia and China would not be a UN. It’s not so much what the constituent nations want, it’s what the big powerful nations will allow.
While telling her not to be so smart,
We put her down for being so dumb
Quoth the philosopher Lennon.
I hope this isn’t too snarky, but that still doesn’t answer my question.