Customer Discussions > History forum

Do we need international organizations to keep the peace?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 35 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Feb 25, 2012 8:33:10 PM PST
Rachel says:
Having studied both the history of the League and the present UN, I perceive a pattern. After a while they stop functioning as they where created to do so. If we have a Syrian in the Human Rights Commission I would say the organization is dead. Similarly NGO's who started in a fantastic way like Amnesty International then become politicized and dysfunctional.

What do you say to this statement?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 25, 2012 9:34:29 PM PST
ipsofacto says:
I don't know, if the world is still sick, isn't it logical that international organisations have the sniffles? It seems like there's no sure-fire cure for the world's ills, just like there isn't one for the common cold, but what alternative is there to providing a platform for international dialogue, ineffective as it may be?

Personally, I find it uplifting that the Arab League shows some initiative for a change. Regional organisations should be the first port of call for resolving regional conflicts.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 26, 2012 3:11:14 PM PST
John M. Lane says:
Dear Rachel,

I agree with your statement. I would add that the UN and Amnesty International are failures because of our failure to recognize the so-called "information war" being waged in the wake of the Cold War. Putin and some of his old KGB henchmen, by the way, do not consider the Cold War to be over despite the decline and fall of the Soviet Union. They still refer to the US as their "main adversary." So does China.

The League of Nations lost support under similar circumstances. Hitler and his Nazi henchmen managed to persuade the most educated, cultured people in the world that Judaism was a race instead of a religion and that it was responsible for all the troubles experienced by the German "race" including the Kaiser's defeat in 1918.

World War II was, in part, a consequence of the Nazi "Big Lie." The political isolation of Israel and its ally, the US, is a continuation of that process. The "Big Lie" is bigger than ever and its success can be seen online every day, including in these fora.

The UN has become hopelessly corrupt and impotent. So has Amnesty International. They follow the template established by those determined to bring about a world free of Jews. Hence, Israel becomes "the Lesser Satan" occupying somebody else's land with the support of the "the Great Satan" as my own country is called.

By ignoring information warfare, we risk becoming its victims. That's why I believe the truth of the past, including what is now called the "Holocaust," is important.

The truth of today's Middle East also needs to be emphasized. In other words, we need to reject the enemy's template. If we accept such terms as "occupied lands" and "wartime propaganda [to minimize the Holocaust]", we concede the high ground to our adversaries.

We should also stress the fact that no international organizations protected the Jews from Hitler. The Jewish victims of the Holocaust weren't protected by the League or any nation. One of the first things the Nazis did in their seizure of power was to deprive Jews of their German citizenship rendering that a stateless people.

International organizations failed miserably to keep the peace. They also failed to protect innocent, unarmed men, women and children deemed by Hitler to be "enemies of the Third Reich." As the magnitude of the slaughter was revealed in 1945, a consensus emerged that the Jews should have their own state to see that such crime never happened again.

At least that's how I see it.

Love,
John

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 26, 2012 3:15:55 PM PST
Ku says:
I don't see any of these purposes in the UN Charter as having outlived their usefulness.

"The Purposes of the United Nations are:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends."

But I do know what kind of people would indeed be interested in getting rid of such an institution.

Posted on Feb 26, 2012 5:48:36 PM PST
I. Dunn says:
Rachel says:If we have a Syrian in the Human Rights Commission I would say the organization is dead.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights is Navanethem Pillay a South African, not a Syrian.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 26, 2012 5:55:23 PM PST
Rachel says:
I Dunn:
Thank you for the correction, I should have pointed that is was a past chair.
Now it is a South African, but the Syrian was there for sure!
Lots of corruption instead of the idealistic goal set for these two institutions as well as NGOs.
This does not bode well for Human Rights since there are a lot of one sided decisions politically motivated

Rachel

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 27, 2012 1:53:11 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 27, 2012 4:53:49 PM PST
Rachel says:
John M. Lane:

If the UN is not working, just like the League of Nations stopped working even before the Second World War was upon us. What should we do?

I suggest several changes: The UNWRA must be modified and brought up to date.

The way the voting is by blocks must be changed.

NGOs that become politicized should be taken away their licenses to function as "neutral" observers.

May be we should brake the institution in smaller units- this way it will not be unwieldy and it might be managed better.

Politics is part of the game, but when it becomes egregious as it is now on looses respect of the institution and then nobody truly listens to what it has to say.

Love Always,

Rachel

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 27, 2012 1:53:43 PM PST
Rachel says:
KU:

Who?

Rachel

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 27, 2012 2:13:17 PM PST
Ku says:
Militarists.

Two big lessons of WW2 were that the international community would no longer tolerate acquisition of land by force.

And that they wouldn't tolerate the transfer of populations.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 27, 2012 4:49:13 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 27, 2012 4:54:33 PM PST
Rachel says:
KU:

I am reading about the transfer of populations done after the Great War to Hitler. It is mind boggling. This was only in Europe. This book is from 1942 Canadian and has incredible maps. Most were done to satisfy Hitler's demands. Actually there were many Sudeten that did NOT want to transfer at all and Hitler made them. Polish transfers to work in Poland was not an isolated incident, but also from every country that Hitler touched. Many were not put to work for war industry because of the fear of their becoming spies. The numbers transferred are truly mind boggling and that is without counting Hews at all.

See that: Postwar Population Transfers in Europe 1945-1955 it still happened afterwards too. So how did the UN stopped this?

I think the way decolonization went in Africa made it for living people who don't really like one another within the same borders;, hence the killings. Wouldn't it be better to have population transfers instead of massacres?

Rachel

Posted on Feb 27, 2012 4:56:12 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 27, 2012 4:58:21 PM PST
You can argue the details all day long, but in the end it comes down to this. You can only make people do things or abstain from doing things by having the use of force as a possible option to coerce them. Within a country, the various levels of police authority provide this.

In the international setting, there is no such thing. To the extent that some countries are willing to use force to achieve certain ends (normally those ends that align with their national interests of course), this provides the "international policeman". The UN and other international bodies will always be somewhat impotent and ineffective due to not having their own organic military power.

However, I strongly believe that the alternative of giving the UN or similar bodies their own dedicated military forces is a BAD IDEA! The cure would be worse than the disease, as this power (if it were actually a strong enough entity to accomplish anything) would be subject to being co-opted by a dictator or oligarchy at some point, and would then engender the very thing it was set up to prevent.

I prefer a world where the US has hegemony, and there is no competing superpower that is anywhere even close. I realize that this is an unpopular idea in much of the world (especially those countries that see themselves as peers or near peers and would like to have equal status), but I don't really care. A strong international body is a recipe for future world domination by that very strong international body. I am no conspiracy theorist, and I don't believe in all the various secret world government plots that a lot of people think are out there (NWO/Bildergerger/Trilat/etc/etc) in the sense that I don't think there is a coherent conspiracy to create such at this time. However, I do think that there are people out there that would like to see a more powerful international type governmental organization, which would necessarily subordinate national governments to it. This would result in a weaker and less influential USA compared to the rest of the world, and I don't think that would be a good thing.

Posted on Feb 27, 2012 4:59:38 PM PST
I would however like to see regional alliances start taking more responsibility for taking care of matters in their parts of the world. If the Arab countries would truly step in and apply pressure to Syria for instance, that would be far preferable to the US having to get involved. I just doubt that they will be able to do so effectively.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 27, 2012 5:12:31 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 28, 2012 5:22:44 PM PST
Rachel says:
Dan:

During the cold war we had a bipolar power world. Now it is unipolar. I hope, like you, that the USA can keep its upper hand, by being independent and not tied like the European union is economically. If one goes down they all go down.

I would not want to see the UN armed , that in agreement too.

Every regional alliance that has been done in Latin- America, has not worked, partly because of themselves and partly because the USA wants to kep the upper hand. Yes, NAFTA, but no Cono- Sur. The USA interfered.

As far as Arab countries acting in unison, you most know that they don't work that way, there is a dis-union of Arabs, more than a union. The only time they do agree is to go to war because GD forbid one country ends up with more land than another. In the Armistice 1949, Jordan took without the UN part of Jerusalem, and Egypt took Gaza. Aza in the Bible. So they do what the want and that will not work effectively as you stated.

The Syrian elites are protectin Bashir and there are so many issues there that we are just watching and the killings continue without respite. The UN is helpless in that one. This is what made me think of putting this forum.

Did you see, my response to John M. Lane? What do you think?

Rachel

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 27, 2012 5:40:03 PM PST
Ku says:
"people who don't really like one another within the same borders;, hence the killings. Wouldn't it be better to have population transfers instead of massacres?"

You're thinking about the Israeli-Arab dispute.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 27, 2012 5:44:05 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 27, 2012 5:44:48 PM PST
Rachel,

I agree with much of what you say. The UN is obviously a dysfunctional organization as it currently exists, although in some ways that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

I think most everyone agrees that the chartered goals are noble ones, and worthy of being dealt with. I think we all also probably agree that there is a certain "realpolitik" involved that causes many of the disconnects between stated goals and reality. The reality is that you have to work with countries to some extent, even if they are involved with various unsavory activities, or they will just take their toys and go home. The question then becomes, where do you draw the line?

How much is too much when it comes to human rights violations, free speech issues, religious persecution, etc.; before you kick countries off of various commissions and committees?

What I would like to see is some measures taken to make various UN organizations more accountable, so the worst abuses are curbed in terms of financial waste and such. I would like to see mechanisms in place where members can be kicked off various commissions (such as the UNCHR) for abuses. And I would like to see a recognition that all countries are not created equal. Powerful countries that pay most of the budget (like the US) should have more influence. I realize that this sort of exists in terms of the de facto veto authority wielded by the permanent members of the Security Council, but I would like to see it advance beyond that even. The idea that a bloc of very small Caribbean nations for instance could in some respects wield more power in UN voting (since they all get one vote) than the US or China is ridiculous. One last thing on the Security Council. I dont think I would be opposed to seeing Brazil and India added to the permanent members of the Security Council.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 27, 2012 5:44:47 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 27, 2012 5:46:30 PM PST
Rachel says:
No Africa! My intent is NOT to make another forum with this eternal crisis.

Rachel

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 27, 2012 5:52:25 PM PST
Ku says:
Ethnic cleansing is a war crime that can't be justified in any way.

There are 192 countries but thousands of peoples. If everybody either wanted their own country or was removed by the majority, there'd be anarchy in international relations.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 27, 2012 5:57:02 PM PST
Rachel says:
Dan:

You hit the nail with the issue of Human Rights violations.

Since 1648 after Westphalia we have the first baby steps: Turkey agreed to take care of Christians who lived in its borders. Hey! no dhimmis. I don't thin that was truly successful. Given that the Janisseirs were Christians kids kidnapped from Vienna,for a long long time.

The second attempt was during the League of Nations with the so called Minorities Treaty that was imposed on the new nations that were created after the Great war, and reborn Poland. Retrospectively we know that they did not work as they should have despite the best intentions.

Poland said that if they put again a minority treaty in the UN period it would not belong to it.
So two things came about that are still in the ideal despite so much talk about International Law: Individual Human Rights, and the Genocide Declarations. That was in December 10, 1948, and we are now 2012 and facing extremely similar issues.

I am truly surprised at the respect of sovereignty that is being given to Syria and allow the killings that were stopped at Sbrenica.

The issue truly is a better definition of what is and what is not sovereignty.
The second is limits to politicization of NGOs.
Yes, in agreement a better voting system.
Never again a Syrian as head of Human Rights that was ridiculous.
Even grosser was Zionism = Nazism that, of course was egregious.

Rachel

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 27, 2012 6:51:11 PM PST
@rachel

it was unipolar

now we will have a large number of medium sized powers
since the usa pizzed away all its advantages

usa jumped the shark in 1950
all downhill ever since

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 27, 2012 7:54:47 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 28, 2012 9:52:40 AM PST
Rachel says:
Whomper:

Are you sure?

Can you fill me in the details? Forget the Depression now you are already talking about when I was a teen! Doesn't sound right to me. :-)

Rachel

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 28, 2012 6:51:08 AM PST
Run

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 28, 2012 9:53:51 AM PST
Rachel says:
On ignore? Or what doe that mean?
. Not relevant to the discussion.
You want to insult go someplace else.

Rachel

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 28, 2012 3:34:29 PM PST
@ku

so were the ancient israelis that wiped out whole towns in a quest to take the land they owned a war crime ?

is there a statute of limitations on war crimes ?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 28, 2012 3:38:22 PM PST
@rachel

not sure the connection in your mind
are you talking about the one in the 1930s or some later one
your mind is pretty sharp for someone who is 95 if you meant the 30s

i wrote a paper on the elements of power for the national war college
most of those elements where we had been strong are now weak
overall we no longer have the ability to impose our will on the world

and a massive world wide depression is looming
you aint seen nothing yet

followed by plagues pestilence wars on top of natural disasters
the excitement is just beginning

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 28, 2012 3:55:28 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 28, 2012 3:57:10 PM PST
Ku says:
There are two or three issues with this subject.

The first is that the archaeological record doesn't really support the invasion and genocide thesis. Or I haven't read anything of that nature.

The second is that the Bible speaks of the following in Judges 1:27

"Neither did Manasseh drive out the inhabitants of Bethshean and her towns, nor Taanach and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Dor and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Ibleam and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Megiddo and her towns: but the Canaanites would dwell in that land."

The third issue is that the problem lies in people today looking at the Bible for guidance and possibly wanting to apply those unpleasant passages by analogy. That would not be a good thing.
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  8
Total posts:  35
Initial post:  Feb 25, 2012
Latest post:  Feb 28, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions