Anyone who knows history, including American history, should understand perfectly well that small governments can be just as prone to tyranny as big ones. Consider the city-states of classical Greece and Renaissance Italy. Also the slave states of the antebellum South, the post-Reconstruction governments of those states, and the anti-integration “sovereignty commissions” of those states during the 1950s. And a long history of corrupt local political machines and political bullies. Just imagine what Huey Long could have done with Louisiana, if it had been an independent state! In the U.S., it is the national government that has played a liberating role against state and local abuses – never the reverse. Never. (Some national abuses have been corrected, but never through application of local governmental power.)
There’s an argument I haven’t seen in this thread which is one of the reasons a good friend of mine who’s a hard-core conservative opposes the U. N. He used to be in the Navy and writes military fiction for a living, so he has a vested interest in military matters. One reason he opposes the U. N. is he does not want American troops to be under the command of anyone other than Americans. Another government should not be able to order American soldiers to endanger themselves. I can see his point.
CJ
I agree with the first part but I’ve got to take exception to this. It was western states that first permitted women the right to vote not the feds, it’s been at the state level that homosexuals have been gaining the most progress with regards to marriage, discrimination, etc. not the federal level, and it was individual states that decided to loosen some of the laws regarding marijuana not the feds.
You could argue that none of these things had a direct effect on the government at the federal level. After all, the feds still enforce their drug laws regardless of what California or Arizona might have to say about it. I do think it’s been demonstrated that what happens on the state level can have a role in what happens on the national scene for good or bad (Prohibition for example).
Would conservatives have these tin pot dictators doing their political maneuvers with armies and other means ? In a way the UN gives them some voice sure... but not giving them a voice means they will get heard by other means. (eg North Korean nukes)
I still think its better to have them in some kind of dialogue process and the world "community" than not at all. Especially if big countries didn't finance them. Its funny that Americans should complain about these dictators in the UN... but support them otherwise.
As for the conservatives... I think they don't like the UN because it does restrict US legitimacy to act. When people think the USA can do no wrong and is guided by God.... the UN is certainly unecessary and bothersome.Since when does the United Nations give other countries the power to restrict rights here? It’s a diplomatic forum, not a world government.
So do the weak ones.
Wake up! They already are doing their political manuevers with armies. It’s just at the present time most countries are more interested in killing their own people than outsiders.
I may have to bargain with the devil today, but that doesn’t mean I don’t want him dying tommorrow. If you want to have a forum, finew, but don’t pretend to me that diplomatic hogwash is anything more than hogwash.
Back in the day, we used to distinguish between military and diplomacy. What does a diplomatic forum need with tanks and soldiers?
Well its an option isn’t it ? Better than having things dictated only by the US or the local regional power.
It always has been that way and still is. The Un hasn’t changed that. Only the underlying instability of most of the world’s governments, and the ever-present fear of a hostile military power (i.e., the US of A) keeps htem from running wars of conquest. The UN does not seem to do much of anything to stop it.
Because you need Military to back up diplomacy.
Peace keepers used as buffers between beligerants make sure skirmishes don’t blow up into full out war. Or could be sent into regions to protect civilians when their own governements are unwilling or unable to.
Had the UN not been hampered in Rowanda I’m sure the extra tanks and soldiers that would have been sent could have saved milions.
But the UN has been unwilling to actually stop genocide. It has even proven itself many times over complicit in allowing genocide or helping.
Had the UN not been hampered in Rowanda I’m sure the extra tanks and soldiers that would have been sent could have saved milions.
[/quote]
But the UN itself has been the most unwilling to use force, even stooping to public lies to avoid any acidental justification of force.
You’ll have to go back and figure out what question I was responding to. I already know the UN is just a forum and that it doesn’t have any teeth. I was responding to the question of “What’s wrong with a world government?”
Marc
Then it’s indistinguishable from a government. You can’t have it both ways. If it is a deliberative body, in which negotations among parties take place, then the parties should back up their own deals. But if it is an arbiter and an enforcer, then it is conducting governance.
I suspect that part of the problem is that so many members of the UN General Assembly do not represent republics. They therefore cannot be relied on to represent the legitimate interests either of their own people, or the world in general. And yet they have a vote in the Assembly equal to the free nations.
Which leads to stuff like the Sudan or Libya condemning Israel. Entertaining, but not much more.
The UN is about as good as its strongest members are, it seems to me.
Maybe I am US-centric - what are a few of the crises of the last thirty years or so that the UN has resolved on its own, without the US taking a leading role?
Regards,
Shodan
I’m not an American conservative, so the following is mostly my perception of the reason why American conservatives dislike the UN. Maybe I’m wrong; if I am, I would like you to correct me.
In my opinion, the main reason why American conservatives dislike the UN is the fact that by construction, it is designed to be a forum where all nations can discuss the problems that they have with other nations. This has the effect that, for example, “pariah” nations have as much say as liberal democracies (I see some conservatives already said this in the thread), and it may also have the effect that other countries will tend to gang up on the US. Like it or not, the US is currently the most powerful country in the world, and it doesn’t hesitate to use this power to rearrange the world balance. Conservatives think this is a good thing; after all, the US is a liberal democracy, which is presumably better than a tyrranical dictatorship, and it is their country, which they feel some emotional attachment towards. So if the US wants to invade some nation to bring democracy there and increase stability in the region where this nation is found, it’s a good thing, right? Maybe, but what will happen then is that this country will protest to the UN, its allies will do the same thing, and some other countries will express the opinion that military force is not the best idea at the time. And the UN will have no choice but to reflect the will of its member states, and to condemn the US for its decision.
Another reason why, I think, conservatives dislike the UN is the fact that it is mostly built around discussion. When you have so many different nations in your midst, you can’t really put forward a united will except in a few rare cases. Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to like action and to dislike long discussions that don’t seem to lead anywhere. (After all, they usually dislike big government for its tendency to eventually become improductive, while they usually like business, even big business, because being based on a capitalistic model, it can presumably weed out incompetence and inefficiency.) So why talk with dictators when we know what we should do? Let’s just do it! Personally (and that’s just an opinion, sorry if it offends), I think that conservatives are often reckless. They know what should be done (and it often involves military force), but they don’t necessarily think about all the long-term consequences of their actions. Not all conservatives are this way, of course, and the opposite is not necessarily better – if you don’t act fast, maybe you’ll be nuked before you know it – but I believe this is a factor.
I’ve also seen the Israel-Arab states conflict mentioned in this thread. Of course, the US supports Israel almost unconditionally in its conflict with its neighbours. Conservatives think this is a good thing, since after all Israel is a liberal democracy, its neighbours are usually dictatorships and absolute monarchies, and furthermore, they’re Muslim states. And today, most terrorists are Muslim. So Muslims are by definition suspicious. On the other hand, most countries in the world do not support Israel unconditionally, and some even support the Arab countries. (My own opinion of this conflict is that even though, yes, it was probably started by the Arab states who tried to attack Israel the day after its independence, today we’re past that, but the conflict is kept alive by people of both sides and therefore taking sides is unproductive. But then again, I don’t know very much about this, and I’d be willing to be educated.) So, since the US is pretty much the only country to support Israel unconditionally (I’m not sure why, but I’m sure it’s not only because of selfless love and concern for the Israelis, much like the countries who support the Arab states do so because they like oil), often it and Israel will be surrounded by hostile nations in the UN, and the UN will have no choice but to reflect its membership’s views.
I think this is why American conservatives dislike the UN.
Right, the UN is a place where countires sell their votes in exchange for " favors " I think the idea is good, but the politcs reeks.
And this differs from most other governmental bodies how? Just look at the horse trading and handouts in the recent CAFTA and Energy Bills, for examples.
I think there is a dose of disliking Europe as well. Some people see Western Europe as the leading edge of civilization in regards to government. They see their health care systems, etc. as what all nations will or should eventually evolve in to.
But American conservative values are pretty different that of (what they perceive as) European values, and they see the UN as an organization that is striving to make the world more like Europe, not more like America.
Actually, insofar as Americans compare the UN to any European entity, I imagine they would think of trans-national organizations like the European Union or the League of Nations, rather than a health care system which does not cross boundaries.
In what way did you think the UN was trying to make the world European?
Regards,
Shodan
I think the main reason conservatives dislike the U.N. is because it gives every nation an equal vote (at least in the general assembly), implying some moral equivalence between representative democracies and the most repressive dictatorships. (And in the Security Council, China and formerly the USSR have the same power as the US or France or the UK.)
American Conservatives have this strange notion that those nations which deive their authority from the consent of the governed are morally superior to those which don’t, and bristle at the appearance of being “in the wrong” due to having been outvoted or condemned in resolutions supported primarily, if not entirely, by nations whose sense of right and wrong seem cockeyed to us.
The routine adoption of resolutions condemning Israel is a prime example of this. Dictatorial Arab nations = 22 votes, Democratic Jewish nation = 1 vote, result, appearance of Israel “not complying to internationally supported resolutions.”