HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
---------------------------
Support for kicking the USA out of the UN (#02)
[01.07.02]
[This goes to some mailing lists and some Usenet newsgroups,
and also to Taimur Rahman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, with
whom I had a brief public discussion on his "In Defense of
Marxism" in mid-June and who may be able later to check on
some things - if necssary - among those mentioned below.]
Tariq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, to the "MaoZe-
Dong" mailing list on Sun, 30 Jun 2002 22:20:21 +0500, sub-
ject "Re: Support for kicking the USA out of the UN (#01)":
>Dear Rolf Martens,
>
>
>I support, 'Kick the US out of UNO'.
Hello Tariq,
Thank you for your support of this call, and for your in-
teresting viewpoints.
We thus are already three(?) supporters of that call.
It was nice to learn too that some of you "in Peshawar, Pa-
kistan, will arrange, in the last week of July, 2002, a se-
minar/debate to see how effective are the arguments con-
tained" in my message.
I have to tell you that some inconsistencies in your message
suggest that you are really not Tariq at all but only one of
the many non-existent persons, so-called "cyber ghosts", in-
vented by a certain reactionary-minded person in the USA,
Thomas P. Murray, who takes an interest in trying to fool
others and "at best" lead them astray in various ways.
If that should be the case, I'm sorry for you of course,
since it cannot be fun to lead the existence of just a ghost.
And in that case too, you would constitute a new development
in Murray's activities, since he has not earlier been able
to acquire e-mail addresses with a domain clearly of another
country than that of the USA - in your case "pk", a Pakistan
domain. And then of course there would not really be that
further support for kicking the USA out of the UN, nor such
a later seminar/debate in Peshawar as that you mentioned.
Anyway, here are a few comments on your viewpoints; these
perhaps might interest some others even if it should turn
out that you Tariq are just another Murr-Murray ghost.
[Tariq, further:]
>I read your very lengthy message. It was a feat in itself to
>go through that. I deeply appreciate and admire the effort
>you have put in.
By my "very lengthy message", you no doubt mean my "UNITE!
Info #173en: Kick the USA out of the UN!" of 28.06 which,
yes, was relatively long. But something you wrote also sug-
gests you didn't really read all of it. That US Murr-Murr
always *was* a lazy bastard, even if striving quite hard to
"improve on" his swindle attempts.
>Nevertheless, I have my reservations about the exercise be
>any success. Although I know much less of international law
>and the functioning of UNO but: The members constitute the
>UNO, who all operate through their officially appointed
>emisaries. You would agree the US could not have gone that
>far 'down' had she known there would be some countries tel-
>ling her, 'No More'.
I on my part, on the contrary, hold that the call *is* quite
realistic.
It's true that, so far, the governments of other countries
have *not* resisted the international desperate terrorist
war and war threat activities of the US imperialists quite so
strongly as would correspond to a number of them uniting in
order, for instance, kick the USA out of that UN in which it
today clearly does not belong.
This is due to the bourgeois character of practically all of
these governments too, of course. And in particular, the
rulers of other "richer" countries, such as Sweden and the
other West European ones, and also the new tsarists who rule
Russia and the Chinese revisionists in control of China,
today see a great "need" to team up with the militarily much
stronger US imperialists, whose espionage organizations en-
gage in cloak-and-dagger murder activities against the people
everywhere too. These other rulers too desperately fear
"their own" people, and the peoples everywhere. They hope
that this really big-time terrorist, US imperialism, may
"protect" them from the people in the world.
At the same time, really big-time and (relatively) strong
imperialist powers have always been very hungry "crocodiles".
Today that incomparably strongest one, US imperialism, is
so insatiably hungry too that it wants, and tries, to eat up
as much as it only can of Western Europe, Russia, China etc -
or to be more precise, gobble up "for free", as much as it
only can, the products of these countries too - leaving only
smaller crumbs to those other predatory, much smaller ani-
mals, the respective ruling circles of those countries.
Thus, even they are in certain conflict with the US rulers
too.
"Don't feed the crocodile!" was, in another but in some ways
similar situation, over 60 years ago, the rather good advice
of one politician who himself of course was an imperialist
too, Winston Churchill of Great Britain, to the relatively
"rich" but small countries here in Scandinavia, whose leaders
in early 1940 thought that their interests were best served
if they continued to provide wildly aggressive Nazi Germany,
which had then already gobbled up some other countries, with
iron ore and other goods, and continued to have "good rela-
tions" with that particularly dangerous predator then, in-
stead of opposing it.
"You're feeding the crocodile in the hope that you may be the
last to be gobbled up by it; but this will turn out to be
foolosh", W. Churchill in that situation told the leaders of
those countries, to their great embarrassment. He turned out
to be right on this, of course. The Norwegians and the Danes
well remember 9 April 1940 and what followed for their coun-
tries during five years from then on. A few Swedes, still to-
day, do think that the "crocodile-feeding" at that time by
*their* government was "a success"; in this they very much
are wrong.
Today, even the of course very reactionary rulers of the
small and medium-sized West European countries, and those
of the rather big ones Russia and China, will have *some*
thoughts, at least, on how it may be unwise, even as seen
from their own likewise reactionary wievpoints, to continue
"feeding" that particularly big and hungry "crocodile" in the
world today completely.
And of course the many internationally-oppressed and -exploi-
ted, considerably weaker countries in the world today, many
of which are now also already under direct or indirect US
military attack, and many of which are being quite openly
threatened by such attack, in speech after speech by the pre-
sent-day crocodile leaders, they very clearly have an inte-
rest in reflecting, among other things: Should we not team
up internationally, so as for instance to kick that croc out
of the UN, alerting all to the danger from it?
Of course there is hesitation on the part of many governments
of such countries too, since these themselves are also of a
bourgeois character and in most cases likewise stand, some-
times more actutely and sometimes less so, in contradiction
to their own, or "their own", people. That of Pakistan, for
instance, clearly is relatively dependent today on that cro-
codile of today's world, US imperialism.
But for many of those oppressed/attacked/threatened coun-
tries' governments, who together of course do have a big
majority of all the votes (some 180-190 altoghether) in the
UN General Assembly, kicking the USA out of the UN already
should be something to reflect seriously on.
And not only this. As class contradictions and the contra-
dictions deriving from this, those of imperialism in the
world, continue to sharpen, as they certainly will, the US
imperialists will embark on even more desperate adventures
of war, terrorism and direct mass murder than they have done
so far. Those rather recent, very desperate, terrorist at-
tacks of theirs against "their very own" people on 11 Septem-
ber 2001, and their, if anything, even more insane interna-
tional "follow-ups" of this so far do constitute a new "de-
velopment" in the world, a new "development" in the cen-
turies-long struggle between the bourgeoisie and the prole-
tariat in the world. That quite dangerous crocodile, fed by
the the bourgeoisie in all the world so as "to protect" it,
in the rather near future will try to put it jaws around
others, in openly-violent and other ways.
Then the need for joint resistance against it will be seen
even more clearly, by a number of governments too, I think.
>I am reminded of the tactics of the 'great' Mongol con-
>querer, Chengiz Khan who swept over most of Eurasian mailand
>in a very short time. At each city before his horsemen would
>knock at the gates the moles inside would have eaten up the
>edifices already. Unless we clean the muck within the house,
>no window dressing would work.
In this you're quite right, of course, Tariq (or, perhaps,
Murray). Youre referring to that bourgeois, exploiting-class
character which most governments have too, and which I men-
tioned above. The people everywhere must step up their re-
sistance against that exploitation engaged in by them, and
of course what is necessary internationally above all is pro-
letarian revolution.
But this does not mean that it's not entirely possible, even
today, for a number of governments to team up, out of some
interests not entirely those of "their" respective people,
to team up against US imperialism for instance with such an
action as that which I've proposed and which you (or Murray)
have stated your support for too.
>Again the most effective body of the UNO is the UNSC, where
>five permanent members, actually the victors of WW II, at the
>end of which the UNO Charter was drafted by these very na-
>tions, hold veto power.
Well, some people *say* that these five "permanent" members -
one of which, by the way, does not even exist any more, the
Soviet Union, but still expressly is mentioned(!) in the UN
Charter as if it would exist, and another, the so-called
"Republic of China" (said to be a "permanent member" too, in
the UN Charter as found on the Internet today!) which only has
control of a small part of Chinese territory, the island of
Taiwan, no longer actually is a Security Council member
either - all "have a veto" on certain questions.
If you had really read my "very lengthy message", Tariq (or
Murray?), i.e. my Info #173en, "Kick the USA out of the UN!",
then you would have seen my arguing, that no, they *don't*
really have such a "veto", at least not in this very clear
case, the question of whether this, in practice already,
*non*-UN-member crocodile should also formally be kicked out.
As I wrote, Article 24 of the UN Charter, which provides that
the Security Council, as only the executive organ of the UN
- while, clearly, the General Assembly is the UN's highest
deciding organ - is obliged to act NB! "in accordance with
the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations" NB!.
This clearly *overrides* that provision in Article 27 which
requires that, on some decisions, all the five so-called
"permanent" (not in all cases really so permanent either -
see above!) members of the Security Council must concur, for
the decision to be valid. That is, the provision which some
people think means is a "permanent" "veto" given to those
five back in 1945.
What I argued was that, in case some members of the Security
Council (which has 10 "non-permanent" members too; those are
replaced every second year) propose a recommendation to the
General Assembly to kick the crocodile out, and some others
in the Security Council (inluding some "permanent" members,
including the crocodile itself, for instance) perhaps oppose
this and would try to "vote no" to it within the Security
Council, these "votes" then would be *invalid*.
This because it very clearly goes straight *against* those
purposes and principles of the UN, which are stated in its
Charter, against the very most basic of them all, in fact,
that of *peace between nations*, to keep such a clearly in
fact non-UN-member as that crocodile, the persistently Char-
ter-violating USA, as ruled by the present regime there.
As I wrote too, most probably it would be sufficient to have
a recommendation from the Security Council on this, behind
which there stood *only one* SC member, for the General As-
sembly then to be able to effect, with a "simple" majority
vote, the expulsion of the USA, in full accordance with the
UN Charter's procedure rules.
The agreement of some 95-100 UN members, including one member
of the Security Council, thus would be sufficient, I argued.
>This means one permanent member of UNSC can undo the will of
>the entire world.
Well, once more, that's what some people *say*. It's not
true, I've argued. And it would be most flagrantly undemo-
cratic really to "have", or to accept, such a "veto", of
course.
If some 100 UN members (on the initiative, say of some of the
already attacked ones or some of those many today openly
threatened, by the US imperialists), including 1 in the SC,
agree on kicking the USA out, then they with full support of
the UN Charter, and basing themselves also on such elementary
principles of democracy as all can easily understand, can
say, "Crocodile, you're out! Your purported 'veto' is not a
really existing such, since it in this clear case goes
straight against the most basic purposes and principles of the
United Nations. Goodbye; the USA as a country is welcome back
only at such a time when there are really democratic elections
in it."
>'Veto' is not without reason 'Vote' misspelt. I do not know
>how you visualise getting the motion through the same UNSC.
[The UN Security Council, you mean.]
It's because you, obviously, failed to read all of my Info
#173en that you don't know this. I've now explained it to you
(and to others who perhaps missed my point on this) once more.
>UN GA [the Un General Assembly] where nations have equal re-
>presentation, the house has little legal weight.
Not true, of course! Take any "ordinary" bourgeois republic,
for comparison. There it precisely *is* "the house", the
parliament, that is the highest deciding organ. The executive
one, the government, is elected by it and basically must
abide by its decisions.
Now, true enough, the UN *was* constructed *somewhat* diffe-
rently, and more openly undemocratically, back in 1945, with
that Article 27 provision concerning those SC members which
were then called "permanent" such. But things do change. As
I wrote and as all know, it's pretty ridiculous that the
regime on the island Taiwan (although today perhaps no worse,
in its character as against "its" people, than the one on the
Chinese mainland) still is listed as one such. And one other
of those "permanent" members, a socialist state in 1945, and
20 years later, quite on the contrary, a social-imperialist
one, since over 10 years today is so little "permanent" that
it no longer even exists as a state.
And not only do things change; things *should* change too.
A "veto" on the part of a "government member" - who is now
persistently committing all sorts of vile crimes, and even
declares his intention to continue doing so "eternally"! -
against his own called-for resignation, or his impeachment,
that's something that not many people will find remotely
acceptable today.
>I feel the UNO is so structured that it ensures exactly
>opposite of what its charter declares.
"Ensures"? As I already said, the UN structure does *not*
really ensure that.
>Despite the above, we in Peshawar, Pakistan in the last week
>of July 2002 are arranging a seminar/debate to see how ef-
>fective the arguments contained in your message are.
Which would be very nice, Tariq, if you're *not* really Mr.
Murr-Murray, USA! Time will show, very clearly, how things
stand concerning this!
>We plan to have two or three International Law experts, on
>each side to speak for and against. The experts will be from
>academicia, bar and public sector to speak for and against
>the proposal. I hope it will be of some interest to those
>interested. We plan to invite just a select group, not more
>than 20 besides the experts. I will try to let you know the
>outcome.
>
>
>Tariq
A report by you on this might be quite interesting, provided
the whole thing is not just a ghost "seminar/debate". Taimur
Rahman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, whose background is Pakis-
tani, might be interested too, in that case. (I mentioned him
above, and if later, you do "let me know" something about
this, then I shall show it to him too.) Let's see what I, and
perhaps he, will be informed about, and conclude, concerning
that Peshawar seminar/debate in early August or so, then.
>PS 1. Robert Fisk...
No, that writer is *not* called "Robert Fisk" - although
there *is* a such with that first name too, mainly read by
some people in the "West", I believe - but just "Fisk", as a
signature. This misunderstanding of yours was another small
strangeness in your posting.
>... said, "I agree- [USA] and Israel!
>The two nations that continually vote against peace and
>progress!"
>
>I will like to add another name: India.
Well, Tariq, that was one thing which you wrote that was
*completely out of character* for any *genuine* Pakistani
Leftist. But a typical one for a stupid reactionary US
bourgeois person, such as the inveterate "cyber ghost" in-
ventor Thomas P. Murray, to try to *make people believe* a
Pakistani Leftist might write.
>PS 2. If you lay your hands on the article, "The United
>States versus the World at the United Nations'' by Willium
>Blum, please let me have its copy throug e-mail.
And that was another thing too that was not too smart of you,
I must say. That article of course was forwarded by me (as
reproduced by Fisk, who added to its subject line, "Kick the
USA out!") precisely at the same time as I posted that thing
which you replied too. You must have seen it on the same
mailing list, not too far from this. Or else, it would have
been somewhat of a coincidence if you had thought of that
particular article in this context.
It's pretty clear, I think, that you (or Murr-Murray, in case
you're another invention by him) already have that article.
So I won't bother sending you another copy.
Although this "further support" of the call, as coming from
you Tariq, thus must be said to be of somewhat doubtful
nature, I hope that other readers may have some use for the
arguments presented in the discussion above.
Rolf M.
Malmö, Sweden
============================
----- Original Message -----
From: Rolf Martens
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 7:45 AM
Subject: [MaoZeDong] Support for kicking the USA out
of the UN (#01)
>> Support for kicking the USA out of the UN (#01)
>> [30.06.02]
>>
>> In reply to my "UNITE! Info #173en: Kick the USA out of the
>> UN!" on Friday, 28.06.2002, the signature Fisk, who manages
>> the Socialism and Communism Forum at
>> http://www.pwrhouse.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=272,
>> wrote, likewise on 28.06, to the Forum mentioned:
>>
>> >I agree- and Israel!
>> >The two nations that continually vote against peace and
>> >progress!
...
* * *
---------------------------
ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST
==^================================================================
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.bacIlu
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================
