I think you may want to clarify your question somewhat. I for one had trouble understanding it. AFAIK, most markets involve some sort of price mechanism, which the UN lacks. I think the word you might be looking for is “deliberation”, as in, “The UN is primarily a deliberative body.” ( [Aside] So it’s not a form of government and is therefore not a democracy, the latter being a subset of the former. [/aside] )
Aficionados (oh heck, casual readers) of game theory will be familiar with The Prisoner’s Dilemma. It describes a situation whereby a non-optimal outcome results when each agent acts in his or her own self-interest. The so-called solution to the game is to negotiate a collective agreement. Thus any negotiating body would be helpful within this framework. I hope this helps.
No, I don’t believe in simple equations at all. Security may or may not come with prosperity, the former is not necessarily predicated on the later.
As I clearly said, not all problems come down to money. Many do, absolutely, but not all.
If you think so, then we have bigger problems than I thought.
Unhealthy? Unnatural? Meaningless terms. See my comments in re achieving optimal solutions in re the utility of giving smaller powers a say in the equation.
And you will note that I already addressed this ad hoc assertion as less-efficient than the UN.
No, clearly I am not so please do try to refrain from straw men arguments.
Diplomacy can otherwise be restated as influence. Influence partly depends on your wealth, partly depends on your raw military power, partly depends on your rep. Again, I already addressed how unilateral and bilaterals are often less efficient solutions for many problems. Your willfully ignoring the issue doesn’t make a point at all.
No, my statement is that for a certain set of issues multilateral contacts and negotiations are more efficient than unilateral or bilateral ones, a position I believe is well supported in the literature, both theoretical and empirical. I specifically noted that I considered the UN part of a larger framework of multilateral conventions and something of a keystone without which multilateral solutions will become much harder.
Again, please do refrain from the straw man argument.
Then we will just have to disagree. I of course further disagree on the adjectives “huge” and “powerful”.
And I addressed your suggestion head on, although you have willfully ignored it. Your suggestion is to adopt a less-stable system (that is the absence of a formal body for multilateral resolutions) which is both less efficient and given past historical experience, likely to produce unpleasant results. As such, I see no logical reason for uping transaction costs. Further, of course, you are continuing your ad hoc assumption that all issues can be ressolved through bribery – I rather like the word so I’ll continue to use it – charity or welfare comes not with strings attached in most of the world’s conception of the same. This is clearly a fallaciously simple conception.
On Cooperation
Less moral, less powerful? Empty, empty words.
As if this were the case. I giggle at the implication. In the place of empty stereotypes, let’s take the reality. It’s more than clear that the wealthy nations drive the agenda, with some tiny exceptions here and there. Concessions are made to garner support, to build coalitions, nothing terribly substantial in the final analysis. However, there isn’t completely unity among the G7 – to use this as a proxy for the wealthy and powerful nations more worthy of your consideration-- so of course we find a bit of competition about detials and particulars.
What are we going to get? Competition, likely escalation in terms of competition for influence among if we remove the cooperative body. Which is likely to raise our costs. Essentially you’re falling for short-term thinking, rather like the fellow who economizes by failing to pay for insurance. Further, without multilateral solutions to help bind smaller (and not necessarily all-that-less-capable) nations to international (read G7 driven) concenses we are likely to see more “rogue” – in terms of G7 or US or etc. interests) nations and find a harder time constraining their behaviour. Of course raw force can be used, but this is likely, in fact will inevitably raise transaction costs in other areas as the “price” of cooperation will go up. After all, those cooperating with us will want to be compensated for the extra risk of unilateral actions against them. etc. (Of course your implicit assumption is that the big strong moral nations will not bear any extra costs from the little scampering wimpy nations who should be grateful for the crumbs, yes? Unfounded crap.)
The essence of my reply is you are willy-nilly abstracting away from expected increased transaction costs by simply assuming that somehow similar levels of cooperation can be achieved w/o the same framework. I believe all the historical evidence runs against this.
Good, then you should be able to see how your situation raises transaction costs and is likely to be less useful than the present one (however much it could stand reform and improvement, but this is a moving target).
Like my dear colleague Flowbark, I don’t follow your intent here. However if he has understood you well, then I think his answer stands well enough – i.e. the deliberative body reduces the transaction costs for achieving the optimal (or reasonably near optimal collective agreement to maximize international welfare, including that of any individual powerful nation.
(Aside, I’m actually thinking of a development on the basic Prinsoner’s Dilemma model but for the life of me the name and detials are escaping me. Fucking lead in the air here, it’s made me dumber than before.)
You’re probably thinking of repeated vs. one-shot games. But let’s keep this simple. [sub]Hey! Does this make me psychic? Maybe I’m in the wrong thread.[/sub]
Precisely but there’s something quite specific which is niggling in the back of my now lead-infused brain (soon to be free of Cairo, ehehahhaha) but no matter, what I get for trying to recall stuff five years old or so.
But hey, repeated versus one-shot is the heart of the matter here!
I agree. And I am very much in favor of the existance of an institution where such discussions can take place. In my view, the U.N. goes way beyond this, and is bloated, powerful and unevenly weighted.
I don’t know what your point is here. When I said “security”, I was referring to the fact that money can buy military might; when I was referring to prosperity, I was referring to the fact that money can buy a better economy and life for citizens.
And certainly the fact that you’ve repeated the words more loudly makes it more true than in your previous post? Perhaps if you write in all caps, it’s seal the validity.
Or is your point that some minor percentage of international relations don’t revolve around money (“sure it’s 99%, but not all”)? I hope not. Money may not bring back the girl, but it’ll buy a nation security, peace and prosperity, i.e. everything that it goes to the U.N. for.
Not meaningless, but perhaps misunderstood. Here are definitions: “Unhealthy”: Some nations (Sudan comes to mind) are allowed to vote on things that are clearly unhealthy for the world’s welfare. “Unnatural”: In the absense of the U.N. some countries would have minimal influence in the world; the U.N. gives them influence they would not otherwise (“naturally”) have.
Again, your repeating assertions does not make them so. You seem to be your own best source of information.
Again. Oh wait, this one has a minor insult in it! How about some reasoning, please.
Again. Please stop quoting yourself and insulting others. I’m not interested in your “It’s so because I said it is.” comments. And I’m really uninterested in your insults.
If it’s so “clear”, then please elucidate. And I can’t make you use words correctly, but calling it bribery when it’s almost the dictionary opposite is kindof silly.
I’m not sure what you mean other than being insulting. But assuming you really didn’t understand my point, again I’ll give you definitions: My statement was “I advocate international participation, but not on the terms of the less moral or less powerful.” “Less moral” = Sudan. “Less powerful” = (for example) Lichenstein. I’m not interested in Sudan defining moral issues (Human Rights for example) for the U.S. And I am uninterested in Lichenstein defining policy for the U.S. Should we cut off diplomatic relations with smaller countries? Of course not. But an equal vote makes zero sense.
I asked for a cite showing an advantage to a multi-lateral body (as opposed to multiple bi-lateral arrangements) in game theory (since you talked again and again about it). Your talking plenty and giving no cites noted.
Game theory deals with long-term advantage in various trading situations. The method of trade is not compared in any text I’ve ever seen. Game theory basically says that understanding and responding to the needs of your opponent/partner is key to long-term success for both parties. With or without the U.N. game theory is applicable to national relations. Comparing the existance of the U.N. to no relations may relate to game theory, but not comparing the U.N. to bi-lateral diplomacy.
And by the way, I’ve never said that multi-lateral discussions are bad or even not needed. In fact they are needed. But the U.N. is far bigger than multi-lateral discussion environment. It is a huge bloated beast with guns. That allows the felons to vote. And the children.
I’m glad that you have not entirely dismissed multilateralism. Your opinion that the UN is bloated, etc. remains just that, absent some sort of substantiation. You may be correct; it’s just that I’m not sure what you have in mind.
I trust you are aware that the General Assembly does not control the guns. Peacekeeping operations falls under the auspices of the Security Council; the 5 permanent members have veto power. So I am a bit puzzled by your concern with Liechtenstein. Although they have a seat at the General Assembly, I’m not sure that really translates into much more than an ability to deliberate. And you seem to think that’s ok.
Perhaps there are other powers that the General Assembly has that you would like to limit (ones that I am not aware of).
I am very confused. All game theory texts that I have read have at least alluded to economic issues, IIRC. (But that may be because of my background.) Much of the framework explicitly addresses short term concerns. And much of game theory concerns cases where both partners are unaware of each others actions (“simultanious move games” for the aficionados). I’m beginning to speculate that we’re talking about different literatures. Here’s an honest question: did the names, “Nash” or “Von Neumann” ever appear in your texts? If they didn’t, we are talking at cross-purposes.
Actually, you and I are on the same page. It’s Collounsbury who I believe to be at cross-purposes.
A simple example of game theory: I am a shop keeper, I sell milk. I can either give you a gallon of milk (if I’m honest), or a gallon of water (if I’m not). You are a consumer. You can give me a good check (if you’re honest), or a bad one (if you’re not). What is the best strategy for each of us? Well, if it’s a one-shot transaction, you should give me a bad check and I should give you the water. But if we do business repeatedly, it is valuable for each of us to be honest with each other. I’ve read plenty on the subject, tit-for-tat, prisoners dilemma (sp?), reward matrixes, etc.
Collounsbury made several references to game theory insisting that it demonstrated the benefit of the existance of the U.N. The only way I can see to apply game theory to the existance (or not) of the U.N. is to view the U.N. as a market where you and I and others can buy and sell milk in the example I gave above. And frankly, I’ve never seen that investigated in game theory, and frankly I don’t see a value of investigating it. Game theory is excellent stuff for understanding long-term relationships, but not committee vs. non-committee decisions.
That’s right Bill, assert yourself by attempting to debase the poster who highlighted the pedestrianism of your impulsive nonsensical comment! Your dismissal is a grasp at validation–as are many other parts of your sidewinding, ever-shifting argument.
Many apologies. In all fairness, I did post a warning before this can of worms exploded. I do however think that it is shameless how obtuse perceptions concerning the UN and, indeed, the entire world are supported any which way possible through any device available (or not). I’ve been guilty of flawed arguments myself once or twice and I have seen many irrational arguments, so I sympathize.
When Bill’s argument was put under fire, he used the following and several other similar comments to back his untenable views of the UN and international relations in general:
Etc., etc. As Collounsbury, Tomndebb, and others pointed out, Bill is on the wrong track and making a number of false assumptions. Those assumptions have been highlighted thoroughly, but there seem to be a few sticking points.
Your replacement of the UN may be a fine idea (as it may equally be the stupidest thing ever suggested), but that is a different point entirely. As has been pointed out, the UN may not be the perfect solution, but it is the one that has worked best for the past half century. A “replacement for the UN” is a side argument at best, and more likely is simply a diversion.
“Encourage our allies to exert influence in the way we do”: How will you encourage anyone at all? There is a vast and complex network of relations and interests involved in multilateralism. In unilateral decisions, things are much simpler in the short run. The problem is that you either please your allies–which requires at least a semblance of multilateralism as a foundation for decision-making-- or your allies will dwindle, and you will even risk the label of rogue nation (or other damage to your reputation), which of course is extremely harmful for any country. Look up the etymology of “idiot” as an interesting aside, because it mentions what–based on these posts–you seem to want for the US.
“Exert influence in the ways that we do” is utterly meaningless here unless you want all your allies to be mini-versions of the US, with the same US methodology, make-ups, advantages, consequent problems, etc. Unfortunately I don’t think too many countries will be willing or able to convert from the systems they evolved to address their particular needs.
“Not on the terms of the less moral or less powerful”??? How do you decide who is less moral? How do you decide what is best for the less powerful? Collounsbury and Tomndebb already dismissed this non-argument. You appear to be assuming that you and the US are morally superior to the rest of the world (otherwise you would not suggest passing such judgement). “Power must not be abused” and “power must be used for good”-- That philosophy may work for Peter Parker in the comics, but this is the real world: it’s not about morality, it is about interests (and yes, sometimes interests may incorporate morality). Factions in any given government uphold morals of sorts (whose standards?), but that is by no means a rule and it is certainly not a guarantee of moral rectitude. Morals are not a universal bill–you will find that morals tend to shift based on national, regional, ethnic, and other bases. You will also find that moral decisions are increasingly difficult to isolate in complex situations–for example, what is the “morally correct” thing for the US to do in the Israeli-Palestinian problem? There is no clear perfect answer here, and it is worthless to think otherwise. In addition, whatever is done is going to piss off some ally or neutral, meaning that you have to work extra hard on those international relations you dislike so much to keep the machinery ticking. The UN is still an excellent tool to do so, since it focuses on diplomacy and encourages communication.
So here it seems you are looking for one of two things: 1) a world government that is able to pass judgement on the affairs of its moral/immoral and powerful/impotent constituents, or 2) a world run by the US. Neither are viable nor necessarily desirable. Both will be countered with strong opposition.
Any country’s positions on international situations (from Serbia to Timor to the Middle East) are in part the result of lobbying by interest groups within the government, not moral decisions. Before you establish a working and moral world government (and the UN is not a world government), you will have to ameillorate each country’s internal schisms, smooth over the incompatible interests of the various constituents, elect representatives that the majority of the country is happy with (I’m assuming pseudo-democracies here), educate the public more than we can conceivably manage at the moment, ensure a world-compatible standard of morality inside the borders before addressing morality outside the borders, etc., etc.
Ah, but then you go on to post a contradicting addendum:
“Probably most” what? Americans? American politicians? Goldfish? Bosnians? Diane Fossey look-alikes? Do you realize that the US (and any other given government) does not exactly have a unified view on many items, that the rest of the world happens to see things differently from the official American position, and that there is no absolute international consensus or moral unity on world affairs? How do you think that the US’s allies, to which you refer a number of times, will go along with your plan? Just look at unilateral messes like the Kyoto Protocol incident (irrespective of what your position on that is, do you want all American allies to act like that, and consequently annoy their allies --and just about everyone else-- in the same way?). You are proposing a system that will substantially multiply conflict instead of decreasing it. In other words, this particular hypothesis concerning the UN and what it ought to be is self-defeating.
As Tomndebb and Collounsbury brilliantly explained, the fact that the UN is a forum for discussion is one the most important and valuable of its functions. Replacing what isn’t broken with a system that is gravely flawed is hardly a logical solution.
And the solution you are supporting is not bloated, powerful, and unenvenly weighted? Once again, this view is uninformed and pedestrian (and, it would seem, hypocritical). The UN is not a world government by any means. It is an underfunded body that lubricates the machinery of the world, and that attempts to uphold peace, multilateralism, charters such as human rights, etc. The UN is certainly not too powerful–quite the opposite.
Sure, if you have heaps of money you can build yourself the world’s deadliest arsenal, and would therefore be in a position to enforce all your moral decisions, but that’s where it stops. You would need a lot of money indeed to buy off the entire planet. Being absolutely superior and certain (not that it would be possible, especially not in the system you suggest) would simply make you a target for violent removal, boycott, terrorism, etc. from other countries, and would therefore not bring any peace, prosperity, or security at all. Besides, we’ve already gone over what the UN’s real business is.
After some instances of dodging the real issue (his still unsupported accusations of the UN), Bill focuses his argument by including a qualifier or two:
Read http://www.un.org/News/facts/setting.htm for a few figures that will prove the UN is anything but “bloated”, if you intended that in a power/economic sense.
“A huge bloated beast with guns”! I laughed when I read this comment. And I don’t mean that to be insulting, just that I found it an honestly funny characterization. Bill, I don’t think you truly understand what the UN is or what it does. The quote above (never mind the rest of your arguments) makes it painfully clear that you are trying to demonize the UN for whatever purpose assuages your frustrated feelings. I see no evidence whatsoever to support this accusation and no arguments in favour of it either. The UN’s power is far more limited than you seem to think. If I am wrong in my attempt to make sense of your purpose in this thread, please post evidence or reasoning to show us that the UN is indeed this bloated gun-slinging demon you talk of. My observations of (and experiences with) the UN do not in any way support your view. I will definitely agree that the UN is excessively bureaucratic and that there are a few similar problems, but I suspect those are the results of incorporating so many interests under one roof.
As for the entire debacle on game theory, I am guessing Collounsbury mentioned it to illustrate a particular point, not to substitute the whole argument for it.
Going back to the top of the page, Bill:
Collounsbury addressed this immediately, and I still see no valid refutation of his various objections. You did offer this:
Countries are members of the UN because the UN can provide a forum for the expression and achievement of interests; the UN is also able to provide recommendations in certain matters; the UN can act as a central point where countries contribute troops required for efforts such as peace-keeping or emergencies; in addition, the UN is a valuable forum for the resolution of conflicts, the establishment of committees, the development of nations irrespective of how much influence they can buy, peace, etc. I would also have to add my opinion here, which is that the UN as a body in principle puts more emphasis on “morals” than the vast majority of countries do (including the US, which Bill wants to leave the UN).
From all the material you posted here, I am left thinking that you do not understand the UN, nor international relations, nor the particular mechanics involved in whatever issues may be causing your irritation with the UN. The bottom line is that inclusion in the UN is infinitely better for the US than exclusion.
Sweet Jesus! When I said “bloated” I had no idea I was making such an understatement. According to Abe’s cite, the U.N. spends $10.6B per year. And they have the gall on that page to compare that to valuable instituations like New York City or Dow Chemical, as if to imply that it’s incredulous that the holy U.N. isn’t as well funded as they. What a bunch of crap. Somebody pop that balloon.
More sidewinding, Bill? Now you are resorting to the insipid technique of deliberately misrepresenting evidence. Here is the full section you referred to:
That’s comparing it to Dow Chemical’s revenue, Bill. Such comparisons are not there to imply anything; they are supposed to help you put numbers in perspective, but I see this has managed to confuse you. Allow me to explain it for you. The UN site says that
Do you realize what the total expenditure includes? Do you realize the cost of operating these core functions is not exorbitant? Do you realize that the UN has to be able to attract the highest-calibre employees they can, and they have to pay them? How many other “bloated” bodies can claim the following:
I don’t know what their present budget is, but the streamlining efforts of the last 4-5 years could have lowered total expenditure since then–certainly some funds in UN history have been mislaid, and certainly some units had efficiency problems. Get some perspective, Bill. No one denies the UN has its problems, but your obtuse attempts at demonizing them are simply pathetic and rapidly approaching the despicable.
Well, I shall leave aside the hand-waving arguments about “powerful” “bloated” and the like unless Bill would like to say what he means by such terms – as he seems to be fairly innocent of either the actual functions or powers or structures (and concommitant expenditures) of the UN. The mere citation of a billion dollars does not to my mind mean “bloated.”
Ohh but then you are missing out! Or rather only in part, its all about political economy issues. A very rich context within which to place game theory. I’ve even seen rather interesting literature on game theoretical approaches to understanding traditional people’s exploitation of the environment. Very powerful.
Ah, well you failed to grasp my points.
Very good, now try to think in terms of political economy. If one pauses one begins to see the application, yes? Political decision making, above all multilateral concerns are all about payoffs, exchanges and the like, albiet without explicit prices or markets.
Admittedly one does run into a real challenge in quantifying these things and to an extent the observations have to be taken in the context of the problem of adequately wheighting different costs and pay-offs. However, in terms of understanding diplomatic exchanges between fairly rational actors, I think its pretty damn powerful.
Indeed it does, if one understands the theoretical structures.
Really? Then you had a deficient education in game theory if you are unable to apply the analytical framework beyond simple obvious transactions like milk?!
Pity, its quite interesting and powerful.
All the more pity.
Committee versus non-committee decisions? Is that how you view this? (Mind you in fact it might be quite useful if we are talking about a comparision of how different organization structures contribute to certain kinds of decision making, if one could achieve the proper estimates on “costs” etc. Hmmmmm.) What blinkered thinking.
Here, let me suggest some things – mind you I am not recommending these, only citing them as illustration your exposure to game theory has been, limited? Not that mine is wide ranging or I’m particularly good at it, however I can suggest that your thinking its only applicable to milk (even taking the humor in stride) is wrong:
Bramns, Steven Negotiation games : applying game theory to bargaining and arbitration New York: Routledge, 1990
Hovi, Jon Games, threats and treaties : understanding commitments in international relations London: Pinter, 1998.
Zartman, I. William. International multilateral negotiation : approaches to the management of complexity
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994. in particular the art
Steven J. Brams, Ann E. Doherty and Matthew L. Weidner “Game Theory: Focusing on the Players, Decisions, and Agreements”
Hopmann, P. Terrence. The negotiation process and the resolution of international conflicts Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1996.
Rapoport, Amnon et al, Coalition formation by sophisticated players New York: Springer-Verlag, 1979.
Morgan, T C Untying the knot of war : a bargaining theory of international crises Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994.
Roth, Alviin Game-theoretic models of bargaining
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. ( abit businessy I think)
Binmore ed. The Economics of bargaining
New York,: B. Blackwell, 1987.
Hovi or Zartman’s volume are probably the most relevant, but this is simply to illustrate my application (vague and quickly done obviously) of game theoretical concepts to the idea of negotiations and specifically the sustained negotiations in the context of the UN is hardly abberent.
Now, if you would care to make some sort of substnative reply and substantiate how we achieve more efficient outcomes through your as yet unspecified framework, well …
Or you may prefer unsubstantied attacks on the UN apparently based on a vague understanding of it and its structure and an ideologically founded dislike for the institution.
I’m well aware of your thinking. I am equally aware that it is fundamentally flawed. Security may be achievable through many routes, and military might may or may not be sufficient to guarantee security. I rather think that this is all quite clear to anyone with a more than elementary understanding of international relations and history.
Ahhh, the retort. Very nice, not bad really. However you failed to address my original point in the message to which I replied. A little emphasis was called for.
No, my point was a decent percentage of international issues revolve around issues which are not fully resolvable through money, that cultural, religious conflicts above all are certainly not resolvable through simplistic monetary bribes. Indeed some economic problems are not fully resolvable through money. Of course I would never argue that money is not important, but only that it seems rather obvious and elementary to observe that while money is an important factor in many conflicts, differences, negotiations, it is neither the sole nor even always the overriding factor.
Rubbish, but then I begin to see where your analysis, impoverished as it is, is coming from. A rather simplistic set of reasoning
As I said in the other thread, there are rules in re voting and in re participation. The degree to which Sudan’s participation is “unhealthy” depends on one’s analysis of the costs and benefits of expelling Sudan. Obviously such a calculus is found, Afghanistan comes to mind. But Sudan has more things we want, ergo the effort is not put in to stomping on Sudan. And of course, Sudan’s voting (or not) has little bearing on the US losing a seat. It was our own allies, the worthy nations in your view, which fucked the US.
Hah. That’s a good one. You are innocent. Whatever influence Sudan has comes from extra-UN considerations (oil, being the source of key components in soft drinks owned by rather large American corporations), the UN simply provides a forum for us, the observers, to watch the transactions going on. There’s nothing inherent in the UN which “forces” influence – beyond the context I have already addressed above.
My assertions? As opposed to yours? This is rich, however if you want to consult some literature on the issue and come back with something substantive. I rather think I’ve presented some fairly well-reasoned, given the context, arguments founded on the facts. You have done what?
Already done, you’ve been ignoring it. Not my fault.
Tad hypocritical, the response is it not?
What can I do to explain more clearly than I already have? Bribery only goes so far and is not effective for all occasions and all parties. You have a strangely simplistic conception of how this all works.
Critical, critical my dear fellow of the thin skin.
Understood it, yes, found it convincing, no.
I note I already addressed this point, to which you have made no substantive response.
Check out Zartman to begin with, as I recall that’s quite relevent and further Hovi if I recall correctly. I confess I’ve got some contrains on giving cites as the better part of me books, notes and all those good things are some thousands of miles away from me presently, so I’m afraid that largely speaking my own knowledge and recollection. If you have some points to refute, then bring them to bear.
Rubbish, what on earth are you talking about?
Hahhaha. Ah my that was funny. With guns. That is rich.
Military peacekeeping in some 40 countries.
Presides over disarmament treaties
UN Commission on Human Rights
UN High Commissioner on Refugees
Brokers misc agreements such as Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs
International Criminal Court
UNICEF
UN Development Program
World Food Program
Iraqi Oil for Food Program
International Labour Organization
Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN
World Health Organization
World Meterological Organization
International Maritime Organization
International Atomic Energy Agency
There are other groups. (Oh yeah, there’s the General Assembly and the Security Council) Frankly, I find it astounding that $11 billion would cover all of that (I suspect that it doesn’t, in fact.) $11 billion is less than 5% of US Pentagon spending and less than one fifth of one percent of the US economy, never mind the world economy.
I see the intrepid Balor has long since left this nest of vipers…but that never stopped this crowd before ! So, onwards…and back to Human Rights – or not, as it happens.
Seems curious to me that the US would have been voted off now given that nothing has changed within the US – except for Bush being inaugurated…
Actually, I do think Balor makes a ham fist of a potentially interesting debate: The world is extremely pissed off with the US Government of George W. Bush – as opposed to the people of the US – and, in consequence, repercussions are - and will continue to be felt - for some considerable time.
So, I don’t believe the US has been voted off because anything has changed within the US because it hasn’t (international Human Rights standards are simply ignored by the Federal Government as and when it suits). The world is very upset by Bush in a number of areas including;
Kyoto
NMD
Landmines
The proposed International Criminal Court
Ignoring the new international consensus in order to repay his special interest backers, and
(for the first time in modern history) not having any form of identifiable Foreign Policy – frankly, an absurd position.
It’s not necessarily US objections to any of the above that concerns the community but rather the absence of a willingness to engage in dialogue because Bush has no interest, no appetite for anything beyond reducing taxes and generating more power. I don’t believe that’s merely a public perception but a very sad fact.
The price paid by the US is, at the moment, small (like the subject of this OP). As time passes, the vacuum left by US non-involvement will be filled by, primarily, the EC (witness Israel and the PA currently) and US influence will continue to wane for the duration of this Presidency.
One imagines the situation will be largely recoverable in the fullness of time but within the international community at the moment, the US has been assigned the unofficial title of ‘Rogue Nation’. That’s what the world’s diplomats generally think behind those fixed smiles and little moves like that described in the OP are intended as mild rebukes.
One simply can’t really discern any Policy save for reliance on the fact that God is an American so everything will be just fine and dandy. I’m sorry, but in international terms the man is a village idiot and US interests will suffer greatly as a result.
None of the above should be interpreted as reflecting on the people of the US but rather on the unique attitude to Foreign Policy and International Relations as practiced by the President without a passport.
London_calling I don’t think the US is quite being described a rogue nation yet! But I see where you get your point, and the examples you mention are part of the answer to your question. I have to disagree with this:
That is assuming that the US’s allies were perfectly happy with Clinton and then became unhappy with Bush when he took office! Certainly there was dismay directed at Bush, e.g. the Kyoto Protocol or in a very specific case when the German chancellor indicated that he did not feel Bush could communicate with him clearly. But it is also not fair to say that the world was perfectly happy with Clinton. Sure, the world opinion suggests that Clinton was a more competent statesman than Bush, but Bush did not create all the problems. He did exacerbate many of them.
Objections did not arise out of nothing when Bush was inaugurated, but Bush did not exactly endear himself to his allies either. As was discussed in the thread I posted earlier (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=69780), the US was voted off for a number of factors. Probably the most important factor was that the US repeatedly acted unilaterally in ways that displeased its allies. The allies withdrew support to show the US what happens down the unilateral road. I imagine Bush has now realized that diplomacy involves a lot of people lobbying for a lot of issues, in a lot of countries. In cases where the US is considered too sensitive, or is unable to do so, lobbying is performed by US allies, and when their support is withdrawn, obvious consequences take place.
So being voted off was very probably a consequence of Bush’s peculiar policies, yes. Unless the policies improve, or deals satisfactory to US allies are struck, something similar could happen for the third time this year.
Or, if the all too popular ignorant knee-jerk reaction of “screw the UN, let the US withdraw completely” is heeded there will be a whole new basket of problems.
Oh, I agree with you Abe. As I state after listing some of the reasons why Bush is currently getting the cold shoulder, it’s not his policies but rather the consequence of not having any policies – let alone a coherent strategy - together with the absence of a willingness to engage in dialogue on those International works in progress that the community finds so unpalatable.
Thus we find Administration representatives like Colin Powel standing up this week to address a press conference on the Mitchell Report on the mid-East and saying…nothing. Under any previous Administration this would have been the moment to act: Colin Powel would have been saying “Therefore, the US will…” However, the US finds this to be…", “In consequence, the US…” But absolutely nothing was forthcoming.
And this at a time when the mid East is closer to outright war than at any time in 25 years.
In addition, the ill-conceived one-off policies (like destroyers to Taiwan – but where you going to get the diesel engines from Mr President ?) and Bush’s personal attitude to other leaders (examples: South Korea and Germany) create the impression that Bush is a dangerous unilaterally minded and very ill-informed loose cannon.
That’s what has changed since January 20th – the absence of a willingness to participate per se while at the same time tending to undermine the new international agenda by acting unilaterally piecemeal and in “America’s interests” (read: special Corporate interests).
And to reiterate, it is not in “America’s interests” to withdraw in this way as the vacuum will be filled by others - It is America’s influence and regard on the world stage that suffers and declines.
Because I am always rather embarrased not to have cites on hand even when there is good reason, I would like to provide linkage to this survey article which discusses precisely the topic which I, Flowbark and Abe have been debating with Bill.
Now, I hope all will be confident that I am not willy-nilly fabricating positions and theory, although certainly my POV is not the sole one. One might also want to consider the World Bank article on “Regional Cooperation In Managing Scarce Resources” which tangentially applies to the application http://www-esd.worldbank.org/rdv/training/dinar/regncoop.htm
I won’t become involved again, because the issue in debate is not what I intended - human rights. I would like to cast one Parthian shot.
Flowbark has now listed many of the good things the UN does (there are others), and I commend this to all readers. I would have done this earlier had I understood a problem that existed.
I made a serious error of judgment when I started this thread. I assumed that readers would have a proper education and would actually know what the UN is and what the UN does.
Some contributors’ lack of knowledge about the UN is shocking. If I foresaw this level of ignorance, and the deep paranoia that it spawns, I would not have wasted my time.
Maybe I should start again, but life is too short.