The UN

This isn't very TCK-related, but it's essentially an international topic and it cracks me up. I found an article entitled "Why the United States just doesn't get the United Nations". The article's kind of interesting, but what caught my attention was the second comment, at the bottom:

All very flowery, but why would we (the US) want to support an organization that is blatantly anti-American and works unceasingly to strip all countries of their sovereignty?

I like the American way of life and I resent any organization that tries to strip my rights from me, especially if it’s not an organization over which I have any electoral sway.

The UN displays in innumerable ways its contempt for this country, its people, and our beliefs.

I’m glad that you feel so passionately about the UN. I also feel passionately about it. I think it should be forced from our shores. Let someone else give them a home, but keep them out of our country, out of our politics and out of our lives.

It’s bad enough the control the US government has over our individual lives. Let’s multiply that by 1000 and have a one-world government.

Thanks, but I’ll pass.

As you can see, it's the first sentence that stood out for me. First of all, what, exactly, has the UN ever done that has "stripped the US of its sovereignty"? But more importantly, it's the anti-Americanism claim that bugs me.

Let's use an example. Say you want to go scuba-diving. You don't know how to, so you decide that the best way to do so would be to join a club. So you go along to the club, use the equipment, go on trips that they organise - but you don't pay. Not the membership fee, not for equipment rental, not for transport for trips. So, realistically, how do you expect anyone to respect you, care about your opinion or treat you the way you want? It's the same situation with the US and the UN. They treat it with total disdain, they do not use it as a tool on the international politics stage. As far as I'm concerned, if they don't pay their dues, they shouldn't be allowed to be a member any longer. Sadly I doubt they'd care.

Now it's true that the UN has it's flaws - like any person or organisation. They have had some serious failures, when you look at for example their withdrawal from Haiti in 1993, mistakes in Rwanda in '94, etc. But despite their problems, inefficiencies and oversights, the UN has served a purpose - such as the election in Cambodia in the early 90's (or was it the late 80's?). Or look at statistics. Since the Cold War (which really hindered their work) there has been a huge drop in the number of deadly conflicts and genocides. And as the article above points out, politicians now have an arena where they can discuss and argue about issues around the world. That alone is a reason to say that the UN can succeed.

Mind you, the rest of the author's comment was a fairly impressive display of ignorance as well. Since when has the UN threatened the American way of life? How does it display contempt for the American people and their beliefs? Basically the comment just represents the opinion of an ignorant American who resents the fact that despite being a superpower the rest of the world still holds them responsible for their actions and expects them to abide by a simple human decency that, sadly, doesn't seem to be innately engrained in our souls. Sorry, but that's not how it works. Even if you have more nuclear weapons than the rest of us, you don't have a complete carte blanche to do whatever you want in the rest of the world.

What next - Iraq in the EU??

I originally posted this on another blog of mine, but I figured that it wouldn't be completely irrelevant on this one either.

This is slightly old news, but a few weeks ago David Miliband, the UK's foreign secretary, gave a speech in Bruges about his view on the future of the EU. One of his points was that he thinks that the expansion of the EU is key and that the border of the union shouldn't be geographical. There is already debate about allowing Turkey into the EU since part of the country is in Asia Minor, but he's talking about having Israel as a member, as well as other Middle Eastern and North African countries. Now I'm all for diversity and the breaking down of political boundaries and barriers, but since when has Europe (that's the thing the E in EU stands for, Mr. Miliband) included North Africa and the Middle East? I have no problem with having trade links and economic ties with countries in the respective regions, but having them as member states of the EU brings in a whole host of other issues - mainly financial and security.

He said the goal "must be a multilateral free-trade zone around our periphery". This would be a "version of the European Free Trade Association that could gradually bring the countries of the Mahgreb, the Middle East and Eastern Europe in line with the single market, not as an alternative to membership, but potentially as a step towards it".

First of all the majority of these countries, albeit far from the poorest in the world, are not as rich as Western European countries. Citizens in the current EU would therefore have to pay more in taxes for these countries for development, farming subsidies, etc. It's all very well giving countries aid, but I get the impression this would be taking things a bit far. I know that the EU does have entry requirements, some of which may be financial or economic, but by 2030 I doubt a country like Iraq or Libya would be able to reach a Western European level of wealth, unless they get some Chinese-style economic growth going on some time soon.

Secondly, as member states of the EU their citizens would have the right to travel freely within the EU. Given a certain war against terror, this doesn't seem like one of the brightest ideas I've ever heard, especially for the UK and their involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. On top of that, given the current tensions between Christianity and Islam, mixing it all up could just make matters worse (not that I'm promoting the idea of complete separation) - just look at India and Pakistan and the issues between Islam and Hinduism there. Obviously it's a different situation, but there are some similarities. You just have to look at our history to know that religions do not co-exist easily. Will people never learn from our past mistakes?

Having said that, Miliband does have some sense at least and some of his suggestions like greater European military co-operation sound like good ideas to me. He's one of the few British politicans who actually believes that the EU has a use to the UK - he's not a pompous, self-important, "Rule Britannia" politician at least.

What does worry me though is that I mentioned this speech to a guy I know (a Brit) and he, completely seriously, without even giving it much thought (judging by his response time), nodded and said "I think that's a good idea". The thing is he's one of these people who loves the idea of globalisation, with everyone living together. Sadly that's an unrealistic utopia - I don't believe it could ever happen peacefully, at least not in the beginning. He bases his opinions and ideas on this ideal without seriously thinking about the consequences. And my main argument against this global mixing of cultures is that it defeats the very point of doing it. At the moment we have a vast array of cultures with very different societies and values. If you put them all together, within a few generations the world will essentially be one society with one common culture (with a few pockets of exceptions, but the number of which would decrease with time). Soon there wouldn't be cultures to mix, and the variety of cultures is one of mankind's most intriguing facets in my opinion.

This phenomen of deculturisation and loss of national identity is already happening in a number of regions. European countries are becoming more generally European for example. Or recently there was this article about the loss of languages in Mexico, linguistically one of the richest countries in the world. According to the UN one language disappears every two weeks. The same thing is happening in South East Asia as well, although it gets far less media coverage. Countries like Thailand and Malaysia have developed relatively rapidly in recent years and are far more developed than some neighbouring countries such as Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia and Burma. Some of these countries, such as Laos, are beginning to catch up though, and the cause? Bridges. A number of borders are defined by rivers like the Mekong (between Laos and Thailand) or to a lesser extent the Salween between Burma and Thailand. Bridges facilitate the transfer of people and money from neighbouring countries, who go in and spread their culture and values. Yes they bring economic advantages and can help to give the people a better quality of life, but it all contributes towards the deculturisation of the world, which would be a tremendous loss to man. And it's basically all in the name of capitalism. No, I'm not a communist, it just seems that more and more people live for the bottom line, for the money that they could potentially make out of something, rather than what's actually best for people or the region.

All of this makes me think that maybe Bhutan's approach is the right one. First of all they limit the number of foreign tourists and business that are allowed to enter the country. They also just the happiness of the people with the Gross National Happiness index, first established in 1972 by King Jigme Singye Wangchuck. It essentially aims to build an economy that serves the people and culture based on Bhuddist spiritual values - certainly in theory a real commitment to safeguarding their unique culture.