Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ratex.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!ratex!mck
From: mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: The UN as a World Forum -- Reply to Kelly
Message-ID: <1006@ratex.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 27-Mar-85 17:26:33 EST
Article-I.D.: ratex.1006
Posted: Wed Mar 27 17:26:33 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 28-Mar-85 03:19:24 EST
Organization: Squids R Us
Lines: 70


Lines marked '>' are from Mike Kelly.

>I made what I thought was a fairly non-controversial statement:
>The U.N. is the  world's political forum.
>
>To which  mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan) replies:
>
>>NO!  NO!!  NO!!!  The U.N. is NOT the WORLD's political forum; it is a
>>forum for the OPPRESSORS of the world!
>
>Now, there are somewhere around 145 member countries of the U.N.  Included
>in these are certainly some pretty ugly characters.  But it seems pretty
>silly to describe an organization which includes as members virtually every
>nation in the world as a "forum for the OPPRESSORS of the world."  So they
>get to spout rhetoric in New York; our ambassador does that every now and
>then, too, you know.  

First, Kelly continues to make the mistake (thru-out his posting) of
confusing governments with nations.  Even if we accept democracy as a
legitimate form of representation (I don't), few-if-any governments are
legitimate agents of their nation (as an example, compare the military
policy espoused by the US ambassador with the desires of most Americans).
Second, while I object to the implications of Mr Kelly's 'Torture is
torture.' (made in an earlier posting), I would regard any nation which
systematically tortures peaceful people as oppressive, AND I WOULD
CHALLENGE MR KELLY TO FIND ONE THAT DOES NOT!  Third, it should be noted
that, even in relative terms, the over-whelming majority of member states
are oppressors, and the presence of a handful of less-oppressive states
hardly off-sets this.  Fourth, Mr Kelly may have an ambassador to the UN;
I do not, and I will not accept responsibilty for the rhetoric of Kelly's.

>Ignored in this is the good work the UN does.  It attempts mediation of
>world conflicts.  It does a lot of transnational research that only an
>international organization could do.  It funds relief efforts all over
>the world.

Virtually an institution can be shown to have done (or attempted) some
good.  None of these (attempted) accomplishments requires a UN; all could
be better accomplished with radically different structures.

>If we are to have a world forum, we must include at it all the nations of
>the world, even those the rest of us don't like very much.

This is either a vacuous tautology, or a non-sequitur (depending upon
interpretation).

>                                                            If you are
>against having a world forum, then you should say so.

I'm not for or against a world forum (per se); such a thing is, however,
technologically impossible.  I AM against confusing a forum of governments
with a forum of nations.  And based largely upon the record of the UN, I am
against a forum of governments.

>                                                       There are many in the
>U.S. that like the approach of "Look, we're the United States and you will
>listen to us, not the other way around.  If you don't like it, we'll just
>blow you away."  Personally, I think the UN, although clearly very limited
>in its abilities *because nations are unwilling to surrender any significant
>sovreignity*, is a better approach to mediating world problems.

As I pointed out in the posting to which Kelly responds, this is like
arguing that nails should be driven by fist, because it would be worse to
do it by eyeball.  Mr Kelly would apparently like to argue for the UN
against an Imperialist; however, I do not intend to oblige him by becoming
an Imperialist, so he will have to look elsewhere.  Life is tough.

                                        Back later,
                                        DKMcK