Sorry, Apos if I overstated the connection between your first and second paragraphs.
That said, nations don’t have identical interests, but they do have many common interests. Hence they often find it in their best interests to suppress some conflicts of interest in order to pursue other common interests. Viz. the European Union, in which countries that have numerous historical, cultural, political, and economic differences have, to a large degree, put these aside in order to exploit their common advantage–though not with many a pang to be sure!
The United Nations is, of course, not nearly as democratic as the EU and also includes many countries whose political structure is unlike that of any EU nation. So the challenges to finding consensus are, to be sure, greater, and whatever consensus is produced will always be tipped towards the will of the permanent members of the Security Council. Still, I see no reason to conclude that the UN can’t and won’t play an important role in working towards global peace and stability in a way that furthers the ends of most member nations. Bear in mind that something far less than absolute “world unity” can still advance these causes to the mutual benefit of most. What has become increasingly clear, though, is that part of the UN"s role in the future may well be to rein in the power of the United States–especially until such time as the Bush administration’s alarming policies have been curbed or reversed.
Well, gosh darnit Sam. I know I’m a bit of free thinker, but you’ll have to forgive me for finding my own comments–most of which directly replied to your own–as entirely relevant to the subject of the UN’s effectiveness.
“Indeed, I don’t want the U.N. having armies.”
No argument there.
*"The U.N. is not a democratic body. It is not accountable. Many of the countries in it are not democracies, and even the Democracies are a level of abstraction away from the true wishes of the citizens.
In other words, I see the U.N. as a potentially dangerous institution. Not to us, but only because the U.S. has the military power to essentially ‘veto’ any U.N. action, aside from its explicit veto on the security council."*
I see the UN as a potentially dangerous institution too: but that’s also (if not, at the present moment, especially true of the UN’s ability to be manipulated by the United States. Since, thanks to the Bush administration, foreign countries have been alerted to the problem of US hegemony, I think, as I said above, that the UN will increasingly serve to check US power–as it has done in the present case (by depriving Bush of the stamp of UN legitimacy for a war that few but he wanted at this time and in this way). As the varying interests of the permanent members of the SC tend to balance one another, I don’t see dangerous resistance to US power on the horizon. What resistance there is will, I think, be beneficial.
“The U.N. is useful when kept in its place - as a forum for countries to negotiate, form treaties, etc. As a ‘government’, complete with a military, it would be terrifyingly dangerous.”
I would never and have never advocated the UN as a basis for world government through which to supersede the soveregnty of its member nations. So I think we agree :).
—Hence they often find it in their best interests to suppress some conflicts of interest in order to pursue other common interests. Viz. the European Union, in which countries that have numerous historical, cultural, political, and economic differences have, to a large degree, put these aside in order to exploit their common advantage–though not with many a pang to be sure!—
Sure: but this only supports the Huntington concept of regionalism. Regionalism is not globalism, even by a longshot.
Well, Apos, see the second part of the post where I make the leap from regionalism and globalism. As to Huntington, precisely to the extent that there a clash of civilizations, the UN is part of the solution. Indeed, the Bush doctrine is probably the most counterintuitive respond to that clash, such as it is, that can be conceived.
“Yep, I agree, CyberPundit. On these geopolitical issues we seem to be eye-to-eye”
See, that’s why I dislike Dubya; he makes me look much more leftist than I am.
Actually one of the unfortunate things with the current policy is that Dubya is in the process of destroying decades of bipartisan consensus which agreed that the interests of the US were best served by working through international institutions and by persuasion rather than bullying.
