I do not disagree with W.-Robert Needham on the progressive nature of much of the best that defines the UN.
The UN, despite all things that can be said against it, stands as clarifying institution in many regards. One its primary charter derived from the real aspirations of the millions who suffered from WWII, it still resonants because it represents unfinished business. The other aspect when one considers many of the regimes involved in the UN, is that as improbable as it seems, good sense does seem to flow from such an internationalism and inspite of all its obvious limitations. I do not believe that we should trail after UN charters, but when they are so much in accord with social needs, it is a great pity they are not used more in the forefront of political struggles, rather than as dusty documents footnoted obscurely. One thing is for certain, we must struggle with what is on hand. The socialist movement casts itself into the role of an international, the UN occupies that capacity (warts and all) in historical reality. It seems straight-forward that we should treat the UN as the international state in emergance, but it has proved embarrassing to do so to an idealisied conception of interanationalism. The UN is certainly not the all-round-solution for all the difficult questions as some proponants suppose (that is not what is suggested in the post), nor is it some bouregois accessory which is ignored until its says something we like or does something we dislike (the defacto position of the movement). The thing is that if the UN did not exist we would be at the forefront of calling for it, the fact that it is not an ideal vehicle is not the issue, that it exists is important, that it needs revamping and reform is important, that its best decisions put most if not all its member states to shame is a contradiction which needs also to be pushed. If there is to be a workable political platform, then the role of the UN, criticism of its present position and propagation of its best decisions has to be the central hub of real internationalism. I doubt, there is a socialist platform in the world which makes such a conscession to the UN as such, yet its absense points to a deep-seated duplicity in our movement. Greg Schofield Perth Australia --- Message Received --- From: "W.R. Needham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 11:11:44 -0500 Subject: [PEN-L:19697] Re: Re: Re: Socialism Now Greg Scoflield has raised interesting issues. I am more pessimitic than he. But there are some optimistic predetermined milestones. If one defines a democratic socialist society as one moving in the direction of equality of citizenship and equality of human rights then, from the Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 [http://www.udhr.org/UDHR/default.htm] through to the various covenants (see below), there seems to have been international agreement (moral principle and legal status) on the progressive advance of human rights and to be achieved consistently, that is without backsliding. But it is notable that the United States, that one-time great leader in the advance of human rights is now a follower! One illustration serves. The Convention on the Rights of the Child was ratified or acceded to by 191 of 193 nations. There are two hold-outs, Somalia and the United States! [See Stephen Lewis, The Rise and Fall of Social Justice, http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/ECON/needhdata/Lewisprog.html ] What the hell goes on in that country? It does not bode well for the establishment of a full-democracy of human rights and the realization of Scofield's optimism. I should quickly note that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Canada's record has not been the most commendable. Indeed, filled with hypocrisy. [But see the commendable part of Canada's involvement with the creation of the Declaration http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/ECON/needhdata/humphreyref.html Neoliberalism and neoconservatism and the likes of Thatcher, Reagan and Mulroney have been consistent in backsliding on human rights. The organization "Low Income Familes Together" or LIFT,located in Toronto, had the temerity in 1998 to write a wonderful report titled The Ontario People's Report to the United Nations on Violations of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the Province of Ontario. I understand that since then funds for LIFT have been difficult to obtain. See also: Bruce Porter, Social Rights and the Question of the Social Charter. Presentation to the Symposium on the Social Union, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, September 18, 1998. http://www.equalityrights.org/cera/social.htm. I think Greg Schofield idea can be furthered by the academy if they/we first reflect and then act on the moral obligation outlined in the premable to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Following various important whereas statements the preamble includes: "The General Assembly proclaims This Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction." and article 30 states: Article 30 Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein. LIFT is clearly acting consistently with the progressive advance of human rights. The problem, taking LIFT as an illustration, is not with the people, it is first with the corporate sector and the unthinking ill-advised governments that support capitalist goverance in the denigration of democracy and the advance of human rights. How many university teachers teach human rights? How many economists think of constraining their models so as to be consistent with the Declaration and related Covenants? Generally we take the system as given and, sadly, in doing so human rights are left to the market. Cheers, W.-Robert Needham
