FW: Re: In the interests of peace...
"Douglas P. Wilson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Like all of us, I have my blind spots, and I may well have wasted your time on a silly idea, I just don't know. If so, I'm sorry. I honestly thought it worth posting. I still think it was -- but what about the rest of you, the other people on this list? I welcome your comments, even the one's that sting a bit. I think it's a damn good idea, and I don't see anything simpleminded about it at all. It is certainly a bit off topic for this group, but I'm prepared to tolerate a brief digression. I wouldn't want to see it turn into a month long debate, though. My only reticence about it is I feel it's probably too late to be used effectively in Kosovo, as at this point it would just look like NATO backing up another step and drawing another line in the sand after the Serbs have stepped over the twenty or so drawn before. As a principle for dealing with military responses to national aspirations, I think it has great merit, though I would suggest that many nations might fear that the support of it would be against the interests of their own territorial integrity. However, it is an idea whose time has really come. The UN and other treaty organizations such as NATO have done a lot in the last 50 years to end wars between sovereign nations, so now most mass violence is confined to within the boundaries of states. Up til now, the international community has been reluctant to step in to `internal' affairs, but in the last few years, without major internation conflicts to command attention, the desire is growing to develop a mechanism whereby the security of groups under persecution by their state can be sanctioned by the world community. Your proposal offers such a mechanism. Knowing how world consensus proceeds, I expect it would take several years for this concept to gain acceptance, but I suspect it would find some champions immediately. We in Canada, with our own minority perennially considering devolution, have come, I think, to accept that the only mature way to handle this issue is by democratic choice, negotiation and compromise. I see it as part of the continual advancement of the "goalposts" of civilized behaviour. As peace becomes more widespread in the world, expectations of peaceful behaviour become stronger. -Pete Vincent
Re: FW: Re: In the interests of peace...
Recognizing independence unqualified is not a good idea - though you probably are aware of this, it can be the start of wars rather than the end. The hasty recognition of Croatia by Germany and then the West, without any guarantees of minority rights, started the whole damn yugoslav war. Whether the aim is to blackmail a bully or not, this is important. Eva I think it's a damn good idea, and I don't see anything simpleminded about it at all. It is certainly a bit off topic for this group, but I'm prepared to tolerate a brief digression. I wouldn't want to see it turn into a month long debate, though. My only reticence about it is I feel it's probably too late to be used effectively in Kosovo, as at this point it would just look like NATO backing up another step and drawing another line in the sand after the Serbs have stepped over the twenty or so drawn before. As a principle for dealing with military responses to national aspirations, I think it has great merit, though I would suggest that many nations might fear that the support of it would be against the interests of their own territorial integrity. However, it is an idea whose time has really come. The UN and other treaty organizations such as NATO have done a lot in the last 50 years to end wars between sovereign nations, so now most mass violence is confined to within the boundaries of states. Up til now, the international community has been reluctant to step in to `internal' affairs, but in the last few years, without major internation conflicts to command attention, the desire is growing to develop a mechanism whereby the security of groups under persecution by their state can be sanctioned by the world community. Your proposal offers such a mechanism. Knowing how world consensus proceeds, I expect it would take several years for this concept to gain acceptance, but I suspect it would find some champions immediately. We in Canada, with our own minority perennially considering devolution, have come, I think, to accept that the only mature way to handle this issue is by democratic choice, negotiation and compromise. I see it as part of the continual advancement of the "goalposts" of civilized behaviour. As peace becomes more widespread in the world, expectations of peaceful behaviour become stronger. -Pete Vincent
FW: Re: In the interests of peace...
Bob McDaniel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pax vobiscum. What do Jay Hanson, Thomas Lunde and Douglas P. Wilson have in common? The common sense to realize that things can't go on the way they're going, and we can either choose our new vision of the future, or have it forced upon us by events? For a clue visit: http://www.dynamist.com/ Sorry, I see nothing there but a new skin for the old ceremony. "Douglas P. Wilson" wrote: Thanks very much for your comments, Pete. You've done wonders for my morale. Good! And I liked your social technology page. Bob et moi aussi. -Pete Vincent
