----- Original Message -----
From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: The UN
> At 17:59 21-10-2002 -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> > > >Do you believe that the principle of "one country, one vote" is a
> > > >democratic principle?
> > >
> > > Yes. Of course, ideally any UN decision would be made by letting
every
> > > citizen of every member country vote on the issue (using the "one
man,
> > > one vote" principle). However, given that this is not doable, the
> > > principle of "one country, one vote" is the best alternative.
> >
> >Why?
>
> Why not? To get a picture of the opinions of people around the world, the
> most accurate results would come from asking every citizen of every
member
> country for his/her opinion. Do you have a better way to obtain that
level
> of accuracy?
The why was not adressed to that part of your statement. It was adressed
to whether letting governments vote is the next best thing.
>
> >IIRC, the majority of countries in the UN are still not representative
> >governments. I know 20 years ago that was a certainty.
>
> I do not know if that is still the case, and I really do not have the
time
> to do a background check on all 191 member countries.
> >Why should dictatorships be able to dictate their will to representative
> >governments.
>
> In the UN (with the exception of the UNSC), no dictatorship can dictate
> their will to other governments.
No, but the governments of dictatorships, when they comprise the majority,
vote to ensure that resolutions favoring dictatorships pass the UN. You
surely know how they stack the Human Rights commisions with representatives
of dictators who commit gross violations of human rights. Given the number
of people who have actual authority in these dictatorships, it would be
fair to say that the representatives of 100,000 people could have passed a
UN resolution supporting their interests. That's a very poor
representation of the world.
>
> > > No. By rejecting the authority of the UN, the US is choosing a form
of
> > > dictatorship ("the US and only the US decides") over what at least to
a
> > > certain extent is a democracy.
> >
> >No, it is choosing the freedom of a soverign state to act as it deems
best.
>
> If the consequences of "acting as it deems best" would only affect the
US,
> then I would probably not have a problem with it. However, going to war
> against Iraq is an act that has an impact not only on the US, but on the
> rest of the world as well, and therefore such a decision requires the
> majority support of the international community. No majority support, no
war.
Where in the UN charter does it say that a country
>
> When the US launches a war against Iraq, the fundamentalists in the
Middle
> East (and elsewhere) will see this as yet another act of aggression by
the
> Evil US, and will no doubt strike back with terrorist attacks. When that
> happens, US cities will not the be the only cities in the world where
bombs
> will start going off.
So, its much better to do whatever terrorists will want, and hope that its
the US they hit first, and you'd be spared? That's gutless. I can see
arguing that the war in Iraq isn't wise. I'm not really a strong supporter
of it; there have been thoughtful people who have argued that the negatives
outweight the positives. But, arguing that the UN should walk away from
its promises because you are afraid that terrorists will get mad if it
doesn't is not a reasonable suggestion.
> And quite frankly, I do not really like the idea of being blown up in The
> Netherlands because a warmonger in the White House wants to enforce his
> will on the rest of the world.
So, your suggestion is to wait until millions die in the US from a WMD, and
then you would then graciously allow us to fight back? Considering the fact
that your country kept its representative government only because the US
was willing to put NY and Washington on the line to protect it, and
considering the fact that you are part of the military of the Netherlands,
that is reprehensible. Unfortunately, it adds verisimilitude to the idea
that standing aside to keep safe and letting the Bosnians that y'all
promised to protect die was no accident. I still don't really believe that
because I know a sample of one is too small to make a judgment on, but
still.
Dan M.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
