leejo

When that uppity member is the host, pays 22% of the budget and provides the bulk of every serious security operation, are they being uppity or acting like major shareholders?

SmokingTarpan

Acting like a defiant teenager who will do what he wants despite how wrong he is and how many people tell him that, actually. But uppity is shorter.

I don't really care if the US paid 100% of the cost, provided 100% of the troops and gave out free ice cream on Saturdays. Founding an organization on the premise of following a majority decision/goal, then giving the finger and doing your own thing when that decision isn't what you want does nothing but undermine your credibility. I also think it's funny how people like to point out that countries like Iran are defying the UN when the US has been doing it for some time.

Honestly, I feel safe in assuming that most of us agree that the UN is broken and useless, despite having differing opinions on how it got that way. Why not just up and leave it, make agreements with the few countries that see it our way, and put a park where the UN building is? We're just wasting time and money on something we don't even want to work the way it was originally designed. And the city could definitely use more park land.

__________________

[squadl]
"I am the prettiest african-american, vietnamese..cong..person." -SugarNCamo

AMosely

Am I the only one observing the double standard being illustrated here? Or do we need to apply the logic that because the U.S. is considered a 'major stakeholder' the laws of fairness do not apply.

Which is the better example for a superpower to set within the framework of the U.N., that of selfish, half-heared diplomacy followed by dictation or that of multilateral consideration and diplomacy above all else? We have already demonstrated that we will go to war when and with whomever we choose, with or without approval from the United Nations.

How can one expect other countries to abide by American interests and said terms when we show no indication of even considering their interests? If we stick with Bolton's defiant attitude, we can expect more defiance, and we can expect more war. Like it or not, the World is showing less and less signs of bowing down to America's demands.

leejo

OK well I challange you to find an example of an organization in which the person or group who do all the work and pay all the bills don't call all the shots. It just works out that way. It may piss some people off but us workers and bill-payers don't mind the model at all.

AMosely

Are you sure you meant to say 'organization' and not 'corporation?' Because the model you present fits profit-oriented businesses, corporations and companies. It does not fit educational institutions - private schools and public universities alike. Charitable trusts. Non-profit organizations. Governmental organizations, non-governmental organizations. Governments themselves. And yes, the United Nations.

Organizations are typically designed to serve the interests of the groups they serve, which are often by design NOT the groups that fund the organization itself. The goal of an organization is to achieve sustainable funding through sustained efforts - the belief that some those who they help today will in turn fund the organization in the future. It's a good concept, and it works.

CingularDuality

I believe that you are delusional. Or naive.

That is, if you believe what you just wrote...

It doesn't matter what organization you're talking about, the dude with the money controls it.

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

leejo

These organizations you cite exist at the pleasure of the businesses and business people who fund them. Ipso facto loopty-loo, they operate by the same rules, albeit with a buffer that tempers the more direct pressures those of us in the business world encounter daily.

But you seem to suggest that even if the US funds the UN the most or even completely according to SmokingSOMETHING and even if the US provides all the muscle, we should still submit to the will of others when we do not perceive that it supports our best interests.

Uh....wha? How so, and why, and wtf? And how might we get out of that peachy deal?

AMosely

I'm neither, and don't appreciate the comment. I'm being idealistic, because we are in the process of having an idealistic debate about the function of the United Nations and the role that the US has in that function - at least that's the way I see it.

Except when there is no 'dude with the money.' There is a legitimate need, idealistic or not, for this type of organization (one without central control or power) to exist in a civilized society.

That's not what I am suggesting. I'm not talking about submission. I'm talking about diplomacy, and role that ambassadors play in diplomacy. Diplomacy is far more complicated than simply dictating policy or submitting to dictation of others. It's about debate, negotiation, and the preservation of interests. Every member of an organization such as the UN has a right to preserve their interests - it is how they go about it that is in dispute. I am trying to argue that brazen arrogance is not a good way to go about it.

That's actually a good tie-in to what this thread is really supposed to be debating, which is the arrogance toward US and International law that Guantanamo represents. It was categorically designed to take advantage of loopholes and to avoid legal precedent wherever possible. Placing the facility on foreign soil, refering to captives as 'enemy combatants,' interrogations carefully engineered to avoid certain legal precedent and the use of a psuedo-military judicial system which has no legal authority in the country that it supposedly represents, all the while operating under a veil of secrecy under which not even the congress has full knowledge - these are all tactics of avoidance and deception, and they were designed that way on purpose. As a tax paying citizen of the country operating the facility, I want some answers to these policy decisions other than 'we fighting a new kind of war.'

SmokingTarpan

Missing my point. Preaching democracy (everyone gets a vote, then we do what the majority says) while practicing despotism/oligarchy (we do only what I want to do because I'm the big cheese) undermines your integrity. We'll rail against Iran because it won't bow to the UN authority, while simultaneously ignoring the UN's decision not to invade Iraq. Of course other countries like Iran aren't going to follow UN decisions. Why should they? They see a shining example of one of the founders outright disregarding policy.

Practice what you preach, or change your preaching to match what you practice. Don't sit there and claim to be against eating meat while downing a Triple Big Mac. It's obvious that the US will just do whatever it wants to do regardless of what the UN decides, so why even bother being part of the UN anymore? Leave it, take our allies with us and form a new organization that works the way we want it to, and move on.

__________________

[squadl]
"I am the prettiest african-american, vietnamese..cong..person." -SugarNCamo

Switchcraft

Ah, yes, the famous UN decision not to invade Iraq! Citation please?

Kerostasis

You're completely missing the point. We don't get mad at ANYONE for refusing to bow to UN authority. We don't care about that at all.

However, when we DO get mad at someone, for some completely unrelated reason (manufacturing nuclear weapons for instance?), we often go the UN to try to get some support. Not that it helps any. The UN has been remarkably reluctant to provide any support to the US for some time now, which is why the US is becoming more and more reluctant to provide support in return.

The UN is really better thought of as a meeting ground, where different nations can all get together and talk, than any kind of organization of its own. It has no power. It has members, and the members have power--but they don't lend that power to the UN anyway. If you want something done, you have to convince each member nation individually, just like always. The UN is just a place to go do the convincing.

__________________

CingularDuality

I was referring to your statement that I quoted. It was beyond idealistic.



There's always a dude (or dudes) with money. Always.

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

AMosely

US Applies Geneva Conventions to Military Detainees
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon has acknowledged for the first time that all detainees held by the U.S. military are covered by an article of the Geneva Conventions that bars inhumane treatment, according to a memo made public on Tuesday.

USN_Squid

What's the story here exactly? That they are entitled to humane treatment? That's already US policy. If it's just that we agree that article 3 coincides with our existing policy then it's kind of a non-story isn't it? Unless of course you're trying to show that we were not treating them humanely because we didn't acknowledge the Geneva convention specifically applied to detainees.

__________________

AMosely

I'm trying to show that the US had not been treating these detainees humanely or applying any established judicial process to them. This looks like an attempted course correction with regard to treatment in an effort to reach approval for the judicial procedings (the military tribunal).

Edit - if there's no story here, why write the memo? Just for fun? And why now, and not at the onset?