June 17, 2005
It's the UN again
Once again, the UN is in the news.
The US contributes 22% of the general operating budget of the UN and 27% of the peacekeeping budget. With these kind of numbers, apparantly Congress is of the mind that the UN will recreate itself in the Congress’ image. I’m not so sure.
Here is a link to the actual House Resolution sponsored by Henry Hyde.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./temp/~c109dvDmkP::
This resolution demands 38 specific reforms or the US threatens to withhold half of its contributions to the UN. It does provide for a grace period of about 3 years for the UN to get its collective act together.
The Republican Controlled Congress is pushing this resolution, and the Republican President urges them to drop it. Maybe I just don't get it. Shouldn't they be able to communicate? If there are differences on how we act or react to the UN between them, shouldn't they work them out before going public? As a conservative, I expect more/better.
None of us wants to hand our sovereignty over to the UN, but to expect them to model themselves after us is a little over the top too.
The true hypocracy is the demands themselves. We demand that they not spend more than they have budgeted, and not more than what they have collected. Do we? We demand that any nation with human rights violations have their membership revoked and face trade and arms embargoes. What about GITMO and Abu Ghraib? We demand that Israel be place on the WEOG board of directors. How's that look to other Arab countries we are trying to pacify? We demand that virtually no further peacekeeping missions be advanced without a virtual unanimous vote by the security coucil. Aren't we still in Afganistan and Iraq? We demand "weighted voting" governed by the amount of money the nation contributes to the general fund of the UN. Is that where we really want to go? Is that where we are headed?
I will be the first to say that the UN needs a major overhaul. Financially, it is a mess. It's reputation has been tainted by the oil-for-food scandal. It's current secretary general has not done anything to help. But, I think the extent to which Hyde goes is fightening, hypocritical, and in some cases embarrassing.
The heading I am writing this under is Republicans and Conservatives. I realize my tone is less than flattering to the Bush Administration and Republican leadership in Congress. If any group can not give constructive criticism to their own leadership, then they are doomed to accept and support anything their leaders do. Before we preach to the world about fiscal responsibility, we better do it at home. Before we condemn others for human rights violations, we better be sure our hands are clean. (That's right AP. I remember what your grandmother told you.) Before we demand that our votes mean more because we contribute more money, we better think about how the rest of the world will react.
Before we do more harm than good to the UN, we better consider the alternatives.
I’d be surprised if the Senate passes this bill and certainly the President isn’t on board.
In a democracy and a representative republic, I think it’s fine that the People’s direct representatives initiate policy. I’m not a big fan of the Imperial Presidency. So I disagree that the Republicans should have hashed out their arguments behind closed door.
The skeptics among us may say they’re having the public debate to promote Dubya as a great defender of the UN, particularly with the Bolton controversy. The Democrats had a more pacifying bill which died.
I don’t agree that our own hands must be clean before demanding the UN should measure up to a higher ideals.
Ideals, after all, are our goals; what we strive to achieve, even if we continuallyfall short. They are measures of achievement…not benchmarks of accomplishment. If we always hit our ideals, I’d hope we’d raise them.
Sorry for the poor grammar. I rattled that post off in a hurry. :-(
Posted by: Doug Overmyer at June 17, 2005 04:43 PM“Sorry for the poor grammar. I rattled that post off in a hurry. :-(“
Alright is that. Blame you not for grammar bad we will. ;-)
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 17, 2005 04:57 PMIt’s nice to read an article that addresses the issues. We need more info and less partisan rhetoric.
Thanks
Doug Overmyer:
“In a democracy and a representative republic, I think it’s fine that the People’s direct representatives initiate policy. I’m not a big fan of the Imperial Presidency. So I disagree that the Republicans should have hashed out their arguments behind closed door.”
My point is that, if they were diametrically opposed to each other, before going public and making the party look disheveled, they should have found the common ground and found a way to work together. I do not propose an Imperial Presidency. However, there is a lot to be said for projecting a unified front.
“I don’t agree that our own hands must be clean before demanding the UN should measure up to a higher ideals.”
I don’t think we need to be virgin white, but, I think in light of the recent allegation at GITMO and Abu Ghraib, this demand sounds disingenuous.
The UN is the only venue where poor countries can stand equal with rich countries. If the Rich (like the US) start to take votes away from the poor, the UN will become a place where the common man has no say at all and power is limited to a few. Kinda like in Washington.
Posted by: Aldous at June 17, 2005 05:15 PMFor anyone else looking for the bill, it’s numbered: H.R.2745 “Henry J. Hyde United Nations Reform Act of 2005”
***
Chi Chi - Thanks for the post. This is a truly foolish piece of legislation. Perhaps Hyde just wants an excuse to cut funding for the U.N., which is the U.S.’s prerogative. But to lay down ultimata to the world? Yikes.
Posted by: Chops at June 17, 2005 05:30 PMChops:
“For anyone else looking for the bill, it’s numbered: H.R.2745 “Henry J. Hyde United Nations Reform Act of 2005”
Sorry if my link was not working. It worked for me.
I agree—bad legislation. Bad idea. Bad timing. Bad PR.
Posted by: Chi Chi at June 17, 2005 05:51 PMThe UN is hopelessly flawed. In my opinion, the US should simply pull-out and allow the UN to implode.
I am embarrased that my country is a member of so corrupt an organization.
Longstreet
Posted by: Longstreet at June 17, 2005 05:58 PMThe only direction the US needs to go with the UN is OUT OF IT. And the only direction the UN needs to go is OUT OF BUSINESS.
…
Ok, the main problem I have here is that we have no idea how the UN is handling the money. As long as we know things are being done efficiently and that there isn’t any corruption, I’m all for giving them more money. The world needs more good will. However, the possibility that money is being wasted, or that it is not being used for what it should be remains a very real possibility.
Posted by: Zeek at June 17, 2005 07:13 PMWasted money at the UN. Gee, where can we start. The money pays expenses for UN officials and employees to go to Africa and rape the local citizens. That is galling enough. Or the oil for food scandal. Of course that is only how many million. The UN is a bad idea and should have been topled into the East River long, long, ago.
Posted by: tom at June 17, 2005 08:05 PMZeek:
If we have some guarantees, I agree. This bill asks for more than guarantees on how the money should be used. It makes a ridiculous number of demands that we don’t even abide by ourselves. It’s bad public policy and terrible legislation.
For those who say the UN should just be disbanded, I ask what will take its place? If you say not to replace it, you’re living in an isolationist world and not dealing with reality. The reality is that the UN or some organization like it, will probably always exist and will be viewed by the world as the last avenue to turn to when injustice or tragedy occurs in the world. I think you better figure out a way to get along with the idea and the organization or you’ll make the US be the little kid sitting in the corner all by himself. If we are careful and find a representative to the UN that the world can respect, the UN can work very much to our advantage.
Just a quick comment. The only alternative worth considering is leaving the UN and asking it to get out of American soil. This organization is a parasite, and we do NOT need them.
More harm to the UN? Bring it on.
chi chi
How old are you? The UN has never kept the peace. Some of the countries where the UN interfered and tried to enforce the peace are since 1989:
Angola, Namibia, Nicaragua, Western Sahara, El Salvador, Cambodia, Yugoslavia (with all the break-off states), Samalia, Mozambique, Georgia, Liberia, Haiti, Twanda, Tajikistan, Guatemala, Siera Leone, Kosove, East Timor, Democratic Republic of Congo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Macedonia, Chad, Ethopia. I probably didn’t get them all. In all these cases the UN was a dismal failure. By the way the UN Charter refers to the UN as a peace enforcer not a peacekeeper. Ask yourself the question, why were two of the American representatives and signatories of the papers at Dumbarton Oaks, Yalta, and Bretton Woods Harry Dexter White and Alger Hiss?
That alone is enough for me to me opposed to the UN.
I forgot to mention to Zeek that there is a difference between isolationism and noninterventionism. Our founding fathers wisely cautioned against foreign entanglements.
Those of us working to enlighten others as to the dangers of this world body are very much living in reality. We see our independence and sovereignty eroded, see our countrymen die and our money go down the toilet.
For a body that has NOT stopped all war.
Has NOT eliminated poverty.
Has NOT cleaned the enviroment.
Has not stoppped crimes against humanity.
This is reality, and endind an idea bad to its very core principle is a realistic solution.
This waste of money and life can and should end now, and that is reality.
Bob,
Our founding fathers wisely cautioned against foreign entanglements.
Ah, but they did not live in a time when isolationism (or even noninterventionism) was nearly impossible. Whether or not the U.S. officially gets involved in anything doesn’t mean that American corporations and American people won’t. Times have changed and we are all beginning to rub shoulders (outsourcing of jobs is an example). You can pretend we aren’t affecting or getting involved in foreign entanglements if you’d like but you’d be kidding yourself.
Posted by: Zeek at June 17, 2005 11:15 PMBob and Ron,
I think it is refreshing to hear from someone in the conservative side that agrees that “some type” of world organization needs to exist to handle global problems. I do agree with both of you that the UN has problems that need to be corrected and they need to make their mission more specific. BTW, do you guys know who organized and held the “democratic” elections in Iraq and gave it a face of legitimacy to the rest of the world?
The US will not always be the most wealthy nation in the world. I hope we will, but it is very doubtful. Our economy is now global and becoming more and more dependent on China and other Asian nations. Our debt is rising very, very fast. It’s not rocket science….high debt loads result in high interst rates. China is growing at unreal rates while we are clipping along at 3-4% (respectable, but not like China). Why all this talk about wealth? Wealth is power. Right now we are the most powerful nation in the world. Let’s not be so arrogant when we are on top.
Bob said: “For a body that has NOT stopped all war.
Has NOT eliminated poverty.
Has NOT cleaned the enviroment.
Has not stoppped crimes against humanity.
This is reality, and endind an idea bad to its very core principle is a realistic solution.
This waste of money and life can and should end now, and that is reality”
I ask this question…have we done any better within our own boarders and outside? Improvement begins with identifying the problems and coming up with a plan to improve. It’s not much different in manufacturing, medicine, engineering or any other field. We use to use leaches to “bleed” from people that were ill. This was a bad practice. Did we get rid of the entire medical field as a result? No, we identified problems, came up with solutions and over the years improved and re-improved. The UN needs to do the same (or at least a similar body to the UN). If you think we can sink back into isolationism and let the UN implode and expect it won’t affect us, I think you may be mistaken. We will not likely always be on top and when we aren’t we may find a “world body” useful to us. We’ve been around over two hundred years. It’s been great and we are truly the greatest nation to ever exist (In my opinion). However, compared to the length of other reigning world powers throughout history, we are infants.
Why did our founding fathers caution against foreign entanglements? It had a lot to do with our condition at the time. We were heavily in debt (sound familiar) and not a world power….by any means.
Posted by: Tom L at June 18, 2005 12:09 AMtoml
using the medical analogy, the UN is a cancer; remove the cancer if the body (the world) is to be healthy again.
Man, you little whitebread punks sound just like the crooks that you try to protect with this tripe about how great the US is.
[rest of comments deleted by WatchBlog Manager]
Posted by: A Common Man at June 18, 2005 02:54 AMA Common Man,
Your comments are no longer welcome here due to your failure to observe our policy clearly posted in the header of each column. Insulting name calling is welcome at a host of other sites, so please take them there.
Posted by: WatchBlog Manager at June 18, 2005 03:17 AMTom L.,
You posted ;
” We use to use leaches to “bleed” from people that were ill. This was a bad practice. Did we get rid of the entire medical field as a result? No, we identified problems, came up with solutions and over the years improved and re-improved.”
I hate to break the news to you, leeches are still used in the finest hospitals in America and its proven that Nothing manmade can replace them!
Posted by: Beagle at June 18, 2005 09:20 AMBeagle,
You are correct that we still use leaches. However, they aren’t seen as a cure all for things such as pneumonia and TB like they were in the past. We also use maggots to clean out certain wounds, but not always. My point is that medicine learned when to use certain tools and for what. It’s a game of learning from your mistakes and making better decisions going forward. We didn’t “throw the baby out with the bath water”, so to speak.
I’m not defending the recent UN problems. They are numerous and need to be dealt with. I suppose the question(s) would be posed better like this:
Do we eliminate the UN and make a new world body, or do we eliminate the UN and not worry about a world body, or could we work to fix the UN as the existing world body?
If we eliminate all world bodies as connected as the world is now, do we plan on handling all problems ourselves or try to become isolationist?
These are questions that need to be addressed before we toss the baby out with the bath water.
Posted by: Tom L at June 18, 2005 10:05 AMThe UN building in NYC is in bad need of repair and about to fall( likely from the weight of unpaid parking tickets).
I vote we tear it down and move them closer to their work. Send them where the conflicts are really going on so they can get some firsthand knowledge.
Any of the turd-world countrys in Africia or the Mideast would make for a good outpost for them.
Just think of the saveings they could enjoy, It must be a cheaper C.O.L. there, Little there to steal which removes that temptation,unlimited free parking, and a steady supply of poor children to rape and molest.
We don’t need to tell them what to do, but, as the worldleader, perhaps we can offer some direction on where to do it?
Posted by: Beagle at June 18, 2005 12:15 PMbeagle,
I would support the UN building being relocated. Yes, we are the world leader. Will we always be? Should we be responsible for arbitrating disputes between countries and setting up elections? I’m sure the answer is no. What if those elections or hostilities between countries could greatly affect us here….especially financially? There is a reason for a world body and the United States can’t be the “world body”. If for no other reason because the rest of the world dislikes us because of our wealth, power, and arrogance.
I agree the UN should be placed where cost is less and if the UN is maintained, it should be overhauled and improved. ALL of those with tarnished records should be banished from serving on any world body.
Posted by: Tom L at June 18, 2005 12:33 PMI am of a mixed mind about this subject.
One the one hand, the agrument for Isolationism is very seductive. After all, the arguement goes, if we didn’t have to be “policeman of the world”, we could solve a lot of problems here at home. Homelessness, skyrocketing health care costs, environmental pollution of our lakes, streams and air…and so many other internal problems.
But then there is the other side of the arguemnt. The side that makes much more sense to me. The side that each and every one of you…sitting here on the internet communicating with hundreds of people you don’t even know… cannot deny.
When you eyeball your “enemy” and communicate with them, you understand what they are saying and feeling. When you communicate, you know who your “enemy” is and who is not.
When the League Of Nations was formed by Woodrow Wilson, we (the US) declined to participate. We were still in the Isolationist mode…even though Wilson tried to drag us kicking and screaming out of it. It was our shining moment to begin communications with the rest of the world…and we resoundingly rejected it.
Now we have the United Nations. Are we to scrap it and denounce it as merely a tool of despots, anarchists, dictators, mass murderers, genocidal maniacs and the morally degenerate?
Yes, there is slavery in Africa. Yes, there is slavery in China. Yes, there was genocide in Cambodia. Yes, there was genocide in Rawanda. Yes, there was genocide in Sudan. And yes, the UN sat around with their collective finger in their collective butt.
But are we willing to give up the world forum…the forum that gives us the right to agree to disagree? Are we willing to give up the ability to be able to expose to the world those very same despots, anarchists, dictators, mass murderers, genocidal maniacs and the morally degenerate?
While I do long for an Isolationist policy, I also realize that in today’s global economy that that simply isn’t possible or feasible. And while I agree that the UN is not perfect, I submit to you…what in life is?
Jim,
Yes, there is slavery in China.
O_o?
Where did you get this from?
Posted by: Zeek at June 18, 2005 04:09 PMJim T,
Great post.
Zeek,
If you look at the forced child labor in China you’ll find it is nothing more than slavery. Remember that the next time you buy your sneakers and look inside to see “Made in China”. It’s funny that America so abhores the acts of many of the governments we single-handedly help support by purchasing and consuming their products because it will save us $10.00 or so. Wake up America. Either stop consuming and purchasing so much from these inhumane governments or stop bitching about how they treat their people! I prefer to shop for the ever-elusive “made in the U.S.A” tag. If I can’t find one then I’ll at least shoot for Canada, England, or some other country that can at least respect human rights.
Sorry to get off topic. As far as the UN goes…let’s roll our sleeves up get in their and fix it while we are still the most powerful country and can do something about it. It may serve us one day if we can make it something it isn’t now…respectable, honest, with integrity and with a clear mission.
Posted by: Tom L at June 18, 2005 05:10 PMTom L,
If you look at the forced child labor in China you’ll find it is nothing more than slavery.
It’s hardly slave labor. Most of the people I know in China would be glad to have any job.
Posted by: Zeek at June 18, 2005 06:58 PMThat may be a fair statement Zeek, but when a child of 10 to 12 years of age is forced to work 16 hour days….that’s slave labor. Maybe all of the people in China that you know can’t find a job because of the child labor issues…either way, we can’t compete with them because of it and WORSE…it’s just wrong.
When a child od 10 - 12 is forced to work 16 hours a day….that’s slave labor.
I wish someone would’ve told my daddy that.
However, if they’re getting paid it’s not slavery.
I agree it might be cruel but it’s not slave labor.
Your daddy probably fed, clothed, and loved you. That’s not what most of these corporate entities are very concerned about with these children. Most are fortunate if they make enough in a month to be able to eat, to hell with clothing, education, and any form of creature comfort.
It may not be slavery….but it ain’t right either.
Posted by: Tom L at June 18, 2005 10:16 PMCall the labor in China what you may. Child labor and adult labor is what I believe it to be. The factory worker is getting around 7 to 8 cents an hour. That savings for the American businessman sure is not passed on to the comsumer.
Posted by: tom at June 18, 2005 10:46 PMTom L, if it isn’t slave labor you shouldn’t have confused me by saying it was. Sure, it’s unfair, but life isn’t fair is it?
By the by, I know that the kids doing the labor are not happy, you don’t have to tell me that. But honestly, what do you expect them to do? China doesn’t have a strong enough public education system for all of them to go to school and there aren’t really any decent jobs available for youngsters.
I think with all the talk of how China is a rising power people forget just how many people are under the Chinese wing. There are living conditions there I wouldn’t wish upon my worst enemy, but again, how can you criticize them for having a weak infrastructure? Building those sort of things takes time, and before that time China will still be employing children as a part of its cheap labor force.
Remember, it was not too long ago that the U.S. used children for cheap labor. We can’t expect everyone to be keeping up with our standards.
Posted by: Zeek at June 18, 2005 11:07 PMGood point Zeek.
But should we continue to consume their goods to such an extent that we off-shore our jobs to those children who work for next to nothing? I suppose as long as we continue to purchase their cheap goods it will be the case.
Once again I’ve successfully gotten us off-topic….apologies.
Posted by: Tom L at June 18, 2005 11:37 PMTom L,
But should we continue to consume their goods to such an extent that we off-shore our jobs to those children who work for next to nothing?
“Our jobs?” Since when has “our jobs” included making shoes, shirts, etc.? The only jobs we are off-shoring are jobs no one wants. In any event, if we stop consuming “their goods” it won’t be helping the children any. Once they’re out of work they’ll either be reduced to crime or begging, and either way it is a step-back from what they have right now.
I suppose as long as we continue to purchase their cheap goods it will be the case.
I disagree. Abusive labor laws were eventually changed in the U.S. and have changed in other “modern” countries as well. The demand for cheap labor never really went away, society just got to a point where it wouldn’t tolerate such injustices any longer. While I’m not proposing we do nothing, I believe the problem will run its course in China as it has in the U.S. and other first-world countries.
Once again I’ve successfully gotten us off-topic….apologies.
Blah, where’s the fun in life if everything is predictable and as it should be? :D
Posted by: Zeek at June 19, 2005 12:29 AMThe only jobs we are off-shoring are jobs no one wants.
This is not true. Many high-tech and R&D jobs that pay at least 50k/yr with full benefits in are being outsourced to both India an China for cost savings.
Here are a couple of links I found with little effort.
Here’s a link for Software Design.
If your employer finds someone with the same skills as you in another country, there’s a good chance it’s going to be cheaper to employ them instead of you. Why should they employ an American? Patriotism? HA!
Unfortunately, there is no easy answer to this problem. Starving corporations by boycotting their products will just starve them for capital and force them to cut costs. The result will be jobs disappearing faster.
The best solution I can see is to use the corporate tax code and use tariffs to penalize the use of off-shore labor. If your “American” company actually employs no Americans except the CEO and CFO, you should go into the deepest circle of tax hell and your product gets a 200% tariff.
I have no idea if this would work, but the solution has to involve economic advantage of the outsorcing option.
my $0.02
-Dave
Nicely stated Dave.
I couldn’t agree more.
Posted by: Tom L at June 19, 2005 09:56 PMDRA,
Many high-tech and R&D jobs that pay at least 50k/yr with full benefits in are being outsourced to both India an China for cost savings.
I see… and 10-12 year old kids are getting these jobs? Because if you look closely, that’s what this tangent was about… the “forced child labor.” I’m guessing the adults who get those 50k/yr jobs are VERY happy and do not feel forced at all.
If your employer finds someone with the same skills as you in another country, there’s a good chance it’s going to be cheaper to employ them instead of you.
If that “someone” is a 12 year old, I think you deserve to have your job outsourced.
The best solution I can see is to use the corporate tax code and use tariffs to penalize the use of off-shore labor.
What? Why? Corporations will just find a way around that. Your suggestion would just waste everyone’s time. I think you’re also missing the fact that the corporation has to be based in the U.S. for us to tax them. If they are paying taxes in, say, China, they would basically be avoiding American taxation laws. Of course, you could put a tariff on certain items, but then, that would raise the price of ALL goods of a certain coming into you, and that would likely hurt your trade.
In a nut-shell, I’m saying that trying to screw over the corporations is really just a waste of time. Outsourcing is here to stay and people need to learn to deal with that.
Posted by: Zeek at June 19, 2005 10:28 PMZeek,
I wasn’t talking about child labor, more off-shoring and oursourcing in general and taking this thread further and further off-topic. Sorry for dragging this even more astray. I was just taken aback by your comment that we don’t off-shore good jobs and felt compelled to comment.
Personally I’d be in favor of having some of our CEO’s replaced with low-cost CEO’s from developing nations. Imagine the savings!
I’m not in favor of screwing over corporations, just giving American companies incentives to employ Americans using the tax code.
I have to wonder what jobs will be left for people if everything can be done cheaper elsewhere.
Maybe the UN can figure it out. Miracles happen. (See, I did find a way to get close to the topic!)
I guess I’m up to $0.04
-Dave
Posted by: DRA at June 19, 2005 11:40 PMDRA,
I was just taken aback by your comment that we don’t off-shore good jobs and felt compelled to comment.
Sorry, I guess I was relying too much on the context of my words. I was saying that we don’t off-shore good jobs to 10-12 yr olds.
I’m not in favor of screwing over corporations, just giving American companies incentives to employ Americans using the tax code.
Americans are significantly (as in 3 times) more expensive to employ than foreign workers. If you were to punish corporations for out-sourcing you would severely cut their profit margins. Maybe you don’t see that as screwing them, but I’m sure a lot of corporations see it differently.
I have to wonder what jobs will be left for people if everything can be done cheaper elsewhere.
Again, it isn’t our responsibility to be worrying about everyone else’s employment.
Posted by: Zeek at June 20, 2005 10:40 AMIf you want a really good read on this and other financial blunders buy the US and it’s allies read:
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins
I am a conservative but this book makes me wonder a bit about the Republican party in general.
It is a great read everyone should take a look
Joel,
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John PerkinsI am a conservative but this book makes me wonder a bit about the Republican party in general.
It is a great read everyone should take a look
Joel, do you work for John Perkins by any chance? ;P
I’m just kidding. I’m sure it’s a wonderful book that you have every right to advertise :D
Posted by: Zeek at June 20, 2005 02:13 PMZeek,
I’m sure it’s a wonderful book that you have every right to…….
Not advertising just thought that if people were interested in the state of UN and the World Bank that they might be interested in educating them selve on it….. Of course if you have a hard time with big words and prefer to only read chat board postings then so be it…
Posted by: Joel at June 20, 2005 02:51 PMJoel,
Of course if you have a hard time with big words and prefer to only read chat board postings then so be it…
Ah… comeon, Joel, I was just kidding around… no need for you to get so hostile :_-(
Posted by: Zeek at June 20, 2005 05:09 PMSince the UN has been founded in 1945, there have been 140 wars. That’s more that the previous 100 years. So much for a peaceful world with the United Nations.
Posted by: Ben at June 20, 2005 07:27 PMSo much for a peaceful world with the United Nations.
Well, that’s an illogical statement and an impossible standard. First, where’d you get the numbers? Further, the world has many more independent countries now than it had before World War II. Before World War II, only about three countries in Africa weren’t colonies. The situation was similar, though not as extreme, in Asia and South America. So, there’s are many more possible wars now than there were before.
Finally, your quick analysis of the numbers doesn’t say anything about whether the U.N. has increased or reduced the number of wars, just that the number has increase (if that’s true).
You know, the rate of murders in the U.S. correlates nicely to the rate of ice cream consumed. Does that mean that mean that ice cream causes homocide? By the correlation-implies-causation standard you used, then yes. In fact, it’s not true. Both just happen to increase during the summer.
Posted by: LawnBoy at June 21, 2005 02:18 AMLawnboy,
Nice try. It’s impossible to tell how many wars the UN has supposedly stopped by being around. I say more wars in 60 years than 100 previous, would be called an increase.
EUROPE
BOSNIA 1992-1995 civil/ethnic/political war & aftermath
BRITAIN 1969-1998 political violence & aftermath
CROATIA 1991-1995 civil/ethnic/political war
GREECE 1945-1949 civil war
HUNGARY 1956 civil war
MACEDONIA 2001 ethnic/political armed struggle
MOLDOVA 1992 ethnic/separatist war
ROMANIA 1989 political violence
RUSSIA 1994-1996 separatist war
1999- renewed separatist war
TURKEY 1984- ethnic/separatist conflict
YUGOSLAVIA/KOSOVO 1998-1999 ethnic/separatist/NATO war
1999- ethnic/separatist violence/NATO war aftermath
ARGENTINA 1955 military overthrow of government
1976-1979 ‘disappearances’
1982 interstate war
BOLIVIA 1952 revolution
BRAZIL 1973 right-wing terrorism
CHILE 1973 military coup
1974 government executions
1987 political violence
COLOMBIA 1949-1962 political violence
1986- civil war
COSTA RICA 1948 civil war
CUBA 1958-1959 civil war
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1965 political violence
EL SALVADOR 1979-1990 civil war
GUATEMALA 1954 civil war
HAITI 1991-1994 political violence
HONDURAS 1969 interstate war
JAMAICA 1980 political violence
NICARAGUA 1978-1979 civil war
1981-1988 civil war
PANAMA 1989 invasion
PARAGUAY 1947 civil war
PERU 1983- civil war declining
SURINAM 1986-1992 civil war
VENEZUELA 1992 civil war
x ALGERIA 1954-1962 war of independence
1992- civil war and civilian unrest
x ANGOLA 1961-1975 war of independence
1975- 2002 civil war, power struggle for natural resources
x BURUNDI 1972 massacre
1988- ethnic conflict continuing despite peace process
CAMEROON 1955-1960 war of independence
CHAD 1980-1987, 1990-1995 civil war and factional struggles
x CONGO-Brazzaville 1993-1995, 1997- ethnic violence and aftermath
x CONGO DR 1960 - 65 political and ethnic violence
1998 - civil war, some moves towards peace
DJIBUTI 1991 regional civil war
x ERITREA 1998-2002 interstate war
x ETHIOPIA 1998-2002 interstate war
ETHIOPIA and ERITREA 1998-2002 interstate war
GHANA 1981, 1994 ethnic disputes
GUINEA-BISSAU 1962-1974 war of independence
1998-1999 civil war and aftermath
IVORY COAST 2002 civil war
KENYA 1952-1963 war of independence
1990- ethnic violence
LIBERIA 1985-1988 coup reprisal killings
1990-1996 civil war and aftermath
2000- rebel insurgency and cross-border conflicts
LIBYA 1996 civil war
MADAGASCAR 1947-1948 war of independence
MALI 1990-1995 regional civil war
MOROCCO 1953-1956 war of independence
MOZAMBIQUE 1965-1975 war of independence
1981-1992 famine and civil war
x NAMIBIA
NIGER 1991- regional civil war
x NIGERIA 1997 - recurrent ethnic, religious and political conflict
x RWANDA 1956-1965, 1992,
ethnic conflict and aftermath
1994-1995 ethnic conflict and aftermath
x SENEGAL 1960-2001 separatist conflict
x SIERRA LEONE 1991-1996, 1997- 2001 civil war and aftermath
x SOMALIA 1988- civil war and factional struggles
SOUTH AFRICA 1976 civilian uprising
1983-1994 political violence
SUDAN 1963-1972, 1984 - civil war
TOGO 1991
TUNISIA 1952-1954 war of independence
x UGANDA 1966 ethnic unrest
1971-1979 brutal dictatorship
1981-1987 civil war
1990- rebel/ethnic violence
WESTERN SAHARA 1975-87 unresolved war of independence
ZAMBIA 1964 ethnic and political conflict
ZIMBABWE 1972-1979 political conflict
1983 - 1984 political and ethnic violence
SOUTH ASIA
AFGHANISTAN 1978- civil war; recurrent international involvement
BANGLADESH 1971 political war
INDIA 1946-1948 civil/sectarian/political war
1947- recurrent territorial dispute in Kashmir
1962 border war (China)
1971 border war (Pakistan)
1983- ethnic/sectarian/political violence
KASHMIR 1947- recurrent territorial dispute
PAKISTAN 1947- recurrent territorial dispute in Kashmir
1990s ethnic/sectarian/political violence
SRI LANKA 1984- civil war
CENTRAL ASIA
ARMENIA 1988-1994 separatist/interstate war (ceasefire only)
AZERBAIJAN 1988-1994 separatist/interstate war (ceasefire only)
GEORGIA 1992-1994 separatist wars (ceasefire only)
1994-2001 continuing conflict
TAJIKISTAN 1992-1997 ethnic/political civil war and aftermath
SOUTH-EAST ASIA
BURMA 1948- political and ethnic struggle
CAMBODIA 1970 -1979 civil and interstate wars
CHINA 1946 - 1989 political and interstate wars
INDONESIA 1945 - 1949 war of independence
1965-1966 suppression of coup
INDONESIA : ACEH 1980s independence struggle
NDONESIA: EAST TIMOR 1975 - 1999 independence struggle
INDONESIA: IRIAN JAYA (WEST PAPUA) 1969 - independence struggle
INDONESIA: MOLUCCAS (MALUKU) 1999 - 2002 sectarian violence
KOREA 1950 - 1953 civil/political war
LAOS 1960 - 1973 civil/political war
MALAYSIA 1948 - 1957 civil/ethnic war
PAPUA NEW GUINEA 1988 - 1997 secessionist war
PHILIPPINES 1971- civil/sectarian war
TAIWAN 1947 - 1949 civil/political war
TIBET 1950 - 1951, 1956 - 1959 political war
VIETNAM 1946 - 1954 independence war
1954 - 1975 civil/political war
1978 - 1979 interstate war
1987 interstate border war
MIDDLE EAST
CYPRUS 1974 civil war; invasion and aftermath
EGYPT 1956 interstate war
1967-1970 interstate war
IRAN 1978-1979 political violence
1980-1988 interstate war
IRAQ 1959 ethnic conflict
1961-1970 ethnic conflict
1980-1988 interstate war
1988 ethnic conflict
1990- interstate war; ethnic conflict
ISRAEL 1948-1949 interstate/ethnic/political war
1956 interstate war
1967-1970 interstate war
1973 interstate war
1982- interstate war; political/ethnic violence
JORDAN 1970 political war
KUWAIT 1990 interstate war
LEBANON 1975-1990 civil war
1992- 2000 icivil war/interstate war
SYRIA 1982 political war
YEMEN 1962-1969 civil war
1986-1987 civil war
1994 separatist war
How many is that I lost count?
Here are some links you might want to check out.
http://www.ppu.org.uk/war/facts/warsdecades.html
http://www.ppu.org.uk/war/facts/www00-95a.html
Posted by: Ben at June 21, 2005 11:29 PMLawnboy,
I though the UN was suppose to stop war and bring togethera more peaceful world.
Posted by: Ben at June 21, 2005 11:31 PMI say more wars in 60 years than 100 previous, would be called an increase.
Again, where do you get your numbers? I followed your links, and they don’t support this central assertion. Look at the graph on http://www.ppu.org.uk/war/facts/warsdecades.html. The number of wars per decade since about 1850 has been relatively constant. Ho you infer that there have been 140 wars since 1945 and fewer from 1845 to 1945 based on that informatino is beyond me. So, your whole premise seems flawed.
Another major flaw is the definition of war you’re using. The UN Charter defined the primary goal of the U.N. as creating international peace, not internal peace. Stopping civil wars is simply out of the scope of the U.N. Sometimes they get involved when it gets really bad, but the majority of the wars you cited were internal conflicts out of the scope of what the U.N. handles.
Also, I’d object to the characterization of many of these as wars. Look at these:
BRITAIN 1969-1998 political violence & aftermath
HUNGARY 1956 civil war
ROMANIA 1989 political violence
ARGENTINA 1976-1979 ‘disappearances’
UGANDA 1971-1979 brutal dictatorship
Your really stretching your credibility by calling the internal overthrow of Ceauşescu a war and blaming the U.N. for it. Or blaming the U.N. for Idi Amin or the Argentinian disappearances and labelling them wars.
These were bad things that happened, but war? How odd.
I though the UN was suppose to stop war and bring togethera more peaceful world.Yes, that’s basically the goal. It’s an impossibly goal, but they try, and my guess is than the world is more peaceful because of the U.N. that it would have been otherwise. I can’t provide numbers to prove my belief because one can’t prove a counterfactual.
The problem with the quick analysis (besides the problems I’ve already listed) is that you’re assigning all effect to a single cause. That doesn’t work because there is no control here. We don’t see the world with the U.N. vs. the world without the U.N. We see the world from 1845 to 1945 to the world since 1945. There are many substantial differences between those two timeframes, from technology, to the fall of colonialism, to the collapse of the post-Napolean peace, to the Cold War, to a rise in Nationalism, to…
Ascribing all the change in a war count to one cause and deriding the U.N. based on that is just faulty logic. Particularly when the change itself doesn’t have a logical basis.
Posted by: LawnBoy at June 22, 2005 02:12 AMI got the stats at a peacenik website. I not blaming all the wars on the UN, what I’m saying that in the 60 years since the inception of the United Nations there have been 140 wars. The United Nations was formed to bring the world together in peace and to avoid another world war. It has failed and has become a haven for anti-Semitism and dictators.
Posted by: Ben at June 22, 2005 05:32 PMUnless one holds the U.N. to the impossible standard of perfection, one cannot from this data conclude that the U.N. has failed its mission to promote peace around the globe.
It’s possible that there would have been 40 wars without the U.N., or possibly 240 - it’s impossible to say.
what I’m saying that in the 60 years since the inception of the United Nations there have been 140 wars.
Is that a lot? Is that shockingly low? You don’t know, so how can you draw conclusions?
Posted by: LawnBoy at June 22, 2005 05:54 PMWhy was the UN created?
Do you have a specific point here? I have a feeling you’re trying to set a trap for me, and I don’t want to fall into it.
Why don’t you tell me why you think it was created, and what relevance that motivation might have towards the point you’re trying to make? It’ll save a whole lot of time.
Posted by: LawnBoy at June 23, 2005 03:10 AMI’m just asking a question.
I think it was created to make a one world government. now you?
Posted by: Ben at June 23, 2005 06:30 AMHere’s the Preamble of the U.N. Charter:
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINEDto save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
AND FOR THESE ENDS
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,
HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS
Nothing about one world government.
Posted by: LawnBoy at June 23, 2005 08:07 AMThe Goals of the 115 member state United Nations from the UN site are :
1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
2. Achieve universal primary education
3. Promote gender equality and empower women
4. Reduce child mortality
5. Improve maternal health
6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
7. Ensure environmental sustainability
8. Develop a global partnership for development
What does this sound like to you?
What does this sound like to you?
It sounds like a good list of goals that would improve the human condition.
What does it sound like to you?
Posted by: LawnBoy at June 24, 2005 02:42 AMNow answer my question.
Why was the UN created?
Posted by: Ben at June 24, 2005 06:42 AMBen,
Why was the UN created?
I already answered that question at June 23, 2005 08:07 AM by quoting the preamble.
I’m amazed that you think having the goal to Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases sounds like a One-World Government to you. Does that mean that Doctors without Borders, the Red Cross, the American Medical Association, etc. are trying to create one world governments?
Do you actually have anything to say? Or do I again have to wait for someone to call you on your illogical argument for you to present your actual position?
Posted by: LawnBoy at June 24, 2005 07:54 AMEverything in the UN Charter, they have failed to do. American Taxpayer money should only go to all American taxpayers not certain groups and foreigners.
Posted by: Ben at June 25, 2005 07:09 PMThe only way you can conclude that they haven’t done their job is if you hold them to the unreasonable standard of perfection. They have reduced many of the problems they desire to fight. That’s better than nothing, we’re better off for having them.
Posted by: LawnBoy at June 26, 2005 03:28 PM
