Re. comments by Ed Wieck (UN is mainly useless) and Caspar Davis (world would be worse without UN; problems mainly arise from U.S. bullying): 1. The usefulness or uselessness of international institutions has to be judged in historical perspective. In the 1890's and even later, gunboat diplomacy could be freely engaged in for any and every reason -- e.g. a citizen (or someone who on fairly tenuous grounds claimed to be a citizen) was kidnapped in a foreign country (U.S. threats, backed by force, vs. Morocco under "Teddy" Roosevelt; earlier actions by Britain, under Palmerston, in the mid-19th century versus Greece or Turkey, I forget which); because a nation had defaulted on a debt -- British sent gunboats to various countries; boundary problems -- e.g. Venezuela, with Britain exercising the muscle, and the U.S. intervening, in the name of the "Monroe Doctrine," and arranging for the parties ot settle the dispute by arbitration; sheer economic interests -- e.g. US interventions and landings of Marines in Central America (see, on this, which is of course well known, the disilllusioned memoirs of Marine General Smedley Butler, written in the 1930's, which said that he had believed, throughout his career, in the Marine motto "semper fidelis" as representing hoonorable service to his country, but concluded, after he commanded intervention forces in Nicaragua, that he and those he commanded had become the equivalent of Al Capone's machine gunning goons in enforcing Capone's grip on his cashflow in prohibition-era Chicago). And so on, ad infinitum. The point is that we have made SOME progress (perhaps very little) since then: then, it was intervention and bullying without anyone's leave (unless one ran into a conflicting interest of a power with the same, or greater, muscle); now, it seems well established, at least for the U.S. and a few other countries, that they have to be able to claim some sort of U.N. sanction, and go through a debating process and a proces in which other parties, including the U.N. Secretary General, which sometimes limits their possibility of acting. 2. On this same point, as long as we have a system based on nation states (which seems to be what will prevail, politically, for the foreseeable future) we are going to have a system in which power politics is a pervasive reality. Saddam Hussein is a bully, and worries me, just as the U.S. is sometimes a bully, and also worries me (and I can name a whole bunch of other states whose leadership, sometimes or almost always, acts in a bullying fashion). In this kind of sysem, I prefer having a UN and other international mechanisms and groups of countries organized in some ways (e.g., sometimes the need to bring together its NATO allies in a concerted effort has led to the U.S. having to moderte its position to get some of the other countries on board) in existence, to buffer the clash of power against power, than take my chances in a world without this buffering -- as ineffective as this may sometimes be, or seem to be. 3. Politically, the UN is a place where people talk. Sometimes it seems that they talk and nobody listens. But, a relatively short time ago (25, or at most, 50 years ago) most of the world didn't have a place where their voices could be raised, in an international forum; most of the world wasn't even listened to, or thought to have a right to be listened to (often, even in polite circles, this was justified by overt or implicit racism). I believe that one of the greatest achievements iin international relations in my lifetime has been this shift. I often do not like what I hear; I often think that what I hear should be matched by action. But I am glad that these voices now are heard and have status to be heard, and forums within which they can be heard as a matter of right, not as a matter of indulgence. When I think about this, I realize that, perhaps, we are gradually creeping forward out of the primeval ooze and beginnning to approach civililzation. 4. Not everything that the UN does occurs in the realm of big political issues and confrontations. Technical assistance, work with refugees, and a host of other practical activities day-by-day -- work in the trenches of humanities struggle -- occur, multilaterally, through the UN's varied "functional programs." There are others on this list who are, or have been, more closely tied to these activities than me; they can deal with these matters, if they choose. 5. In the long run, re. both the political and the other questions, more effective international government will probably move in the direction of more direct power and authority for the UN or its successor organizations. Whether this will take some decades (say, 50 years) or a few centuries, no one can tell. Whether we will in fact make it till then, without a major disaaster of some sort, either in the area of war and peace, or through natural processes or a reaction of natural processes to social-economic overload, one also cannot tell (i.e., in terms of specific time periods, rather than overall trends -- the prospect is admittedlly a troubling one). But, if, somehow we get through various stages of problems, and if -- either as part of a continuing trend, or as a result of a catastrophe which is survived, at great cost, but which finally serves as a "wake-up call" for humankiind, wwe do get to some form of effective world government -- with the apparatus needed to pollice the peace of the world, deal with economic problems, etc., we will still have problems to deal with. To centralize that much power and authority to deal with the world as a whole will require measures of democratic control and balance. We will not want to move from a world of many small bulllies to a world of ONE BIG BULLY. We will want to deal with issues of decentraliztion (and are beginning to have to deal with these today, as globalization is proceeding at a rapid pace) and democratic controls at every level of the system, and in every aspects of its life. And we will be puzzled, confused, and arguentative over which path best to take, then as now. Sufficient unto the day are the problems thereof. Let us deal, as best we can, with the problems that confront us now. Let us try not to do things that close off options to those who come after us. And let us hope that, when they face these problems (of international government, or whatever) we will have passed on some wisdom to them, and examples that will encourage them, so that they can take on the burden and build something better than we. Meanwhile, let's not give up on the United Nations, no matter our disappointments are. In balance, for all its shortcomings, it represents one aspect of the best hopes we have for the future. Saul Silverman
