Tony Blair

[Tuco]

One of the best reasons to get a satellite dish is the BBC. Best news broadcasts bar none.

This morning the BBC broadcast the debate in the English house of commons.

Let me say in advance that I don't agree with what the US and UK are doing. The UN is certainly flawed, but it is still very important to keeping a a world order. It seems illogical to wave resolution 1441 around with one hand as a pre-text for war, while giving the UN the finger with the other hand. IMO, inspections and diplomacy have not been exhausted. Capitulating to France and others in the UN, by giving another month or two to exhaust all avenues is the reasonable answer. Iraq and Saddam will still be there in 60 days.

Blairs' speach was impassioned, intelligent and made me re-consider my positon on several occasions. In short, he did everything that GWB didn't. It's a shame that George doesn't give his people credit for being as intelligent as they are, or at least I hope they are. Blair didn't use the old cliches and double talk that George always uses. It was an appeal to the intelligence of his people, in contrast to Bushs' appeal to the "nationalism" of his people.

I'll be watching the war on BBC this time mostly cause I don't want to be subjected to another patriot missle commercial by the american networks.

Tuco.

[Jimbo]

The UN is certainly flawed, but it is still very important to keeping a a world order. Yes it is doing a great job of keeping a world order now!

[Tuco]

You disappoint me Jimbo. Any insight on why world order is in turmoil?

Could it have anything to do with past and present American foreign policy?

Tuco.

[Jimbo]

Tuco if you are disappointed in me you should surely be disappointed by the UN. Could it have anything to do with past and present American foreign policy? Only insofar as when we have relied on the UN to enforce world order. When we reluctantly take matters into our own hands and suffer poor public relations in order to do what is necessary then the world benefits at the expense of our image. Some things (like popularity) are worth sacrificing for others of greater importance.

[MMMMMM]

It's doubly ironic that the U.N., when called upon to enforce it's resolutions, either: 1) can't or won't enforce them, or 2) enforces them by having the U.S. military do virtually all the work, with a few token troops of other nationalities for show.

In short: the U.N. can't enforce anything unless it uses the U.S. military to do it.

Maybe the U.N. in its current form has long outlived its usefulness.

[John Cole]

Best part is that others get to stand up, ask questions, offer comments, and sometimes engage in general looniness when the speech is finished.

[Dynasty]

The UN is certainly flawed, but it is still very important to keeping a a world order.

Statements like these always bother me.

I don't want the world order which U.N. seeks to build. In the U.N.'s world order, Libya and Khadafy are given the lead on human rights issues.

[MMMMMM]

"I don't want the world order which U.N. seeks to build. In the U.N.'s world order, Libya and Khadafy are given the lead on human rights issues."

This is a very important concept. If we are going to have any kind international body which assumes responsibility for building some kind of world order, let it from the outset be comprised of governments which derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Apparently in Tuco's world view, the governments of the prior USSR, and today's China, Libya and Iraq, have a place in building some kind of super-governing body. They certainly don't in mine.

Further, the concept of a super-governing international body is also fraught with potential peril. Right now, if one finds one's self in some country the government of which one cannot stomach, there is (for many) the chance to emigrate or to simply flee to another country. If instead there were one "world government" that chance might no longer exist.

So let's tread carefully when considering just what the U.N. is, and what it might become.

[Stu Pidasso]

IMO, inspections and diplomacy have not been exhausted. Capitulating to France and others in the UN, by giving another month or two to exhaust all avenues is the reasonable answer. Iraq and Saddam will still be there in 60 days.

I would agree with you 100% If it were 300,000 French troops sitting on the Kuwait boarder and German tax payors footing the multi billion dollar bill. What do I care if French troops have to fight in 110 degree heat wearing chem suits. Its more important for the UN to give a 1.2% extension of the total time Iraq has already recieved in the interest of finding a peaceful solution.

Stu

[andyfox]

M posted a speech by Blair a while back. While I too am in disagreement with Blair's thought on the issue, I agree that he is much better speaker than Bush, and a much less fuzzy thinker.

I don't think it's that Bush doesn't give people enough credit. I think he's policy-challenged. Just not a terribly thoughtful, well-spoken, or intelligent person.

[Cyrus]

A strong United Nations, with power to enforce its resolutions, is against United States national interests. It has always been. During the Cold War, the U.N. was important for conducting diplomacy, because the threat of world war was real. The threat of world war is much, much distant now. The United States, therefore, is interested in keeping up the barest possible form of legitimacy through steering, whenever possible, the U.N. towards the right path -- and away from the wrong path, e.g. Israel's flagrant disregard for anything the U.N. ever voted. The world community, as UCLA prof Perry Anderson remarked, is another term for American hegemony.

The peripheral world powers, such as Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, et al, only now realize that it has been to their interest to have in place an enemy superpower, such as the USSR was, opposing their "ally", the United States. In fact, if those powers could, they should have propped up the dying Soviet regime! Now they are as necessary to the conduct of Washington's world affairs as Indonesia. If not less.

So, expect to see a United Nations even more defangled in the near future, moreover bearing the onus of "not living up to its responsibilities" towards the "Iraqi threat".

..Dare we expect a wiser leadership in Washington in the bargain, any time soon? Are we stuck with one out and all in?

[Cyrus]

"If we are going to have any kind international body which assumes responsibility for building some kind of world order, let it from the outset be comprised of governments which derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. In [some people's] world view, the governments of the prior USSR, and today's China, Libya and Iraq, have a place in building some kind of super-governing body. They certainly don't in mine."

The concept of stability among nations is not new, for pete's sake. Nations that have opposing interests, and consider each other to be Evil, have found ways of arranging things, in order to have a respite (at least) of peace between wars. Alliances and arrangement between nations are not formed on the basis of some moral order but rather on national interests.

It was to the interest of both the Soviet Union and the United States that the threat of world war should be just a wee bit displaced, at the very least. Hence, the various arms agreements. Hence, the many secret agreements and the recognition of spheres of influence. Hence, the backing down from Cuba by USSR. Hence, the frozen non-reaction by the U.S. when Czecholsovakia was invaded.

Do we doubt that the USSR was a regime much worse than Saddam's? Of course it was. We cannot, if we want to remain serious about it all, be suggesting that only "governments of our liking" or "democratically-elected governments" shall be acceptable in the new World Order. This is a patently unworkable concept.

The tough road is working with your enemies or your ideological opponents towards stability. It's a road that includes having to shake the hand of the Chinese dictator or rotating the Libyan dictator into an important UN position. (Have you looked at the human rights record of some of the countries currently rotated into the Security Council? Much worse than any Libya.) That is, of course, if it's not war we wanna have every decade or so. Even a lil 'un.

'Cause those mothers, y'know, some time, tend to get outtahand quite nasty !..

[MMMMMM]

Having to shake China's hand and doing deals with it is one thing. Allowing it a major say in some super-governing body is quite another.

[MMMMMM]

I don't think it was to our allies' net benefit to have the USSR's presence on the world stage (if that is what you are saying). I think the USSR hurt just about everyone in some way.

Europe doesn't need an enemy--neither do we.

France seeks to contain America. (What fools the French be). America helps France. And France won't be able to contain America.

[Cyrus]

How about Soviet Union, as I said, instead of China? The United States have accepted the Soviet Union in the United Nations Security Council, which is as good a "super governing body" as it gets. And worked with the Soviets in numerous instances and forums and ways. It's a little something called realism.

Having Libya as nominal head of a simple U.N. commission, which, as most of the U.N., has little enforcing power without the Security Council green light, looks to me a little less dangerous or abhorrent as an idea, I would say. But it's now convenient to be horrified at the thought of any country that we disagree with, having the right to exist, let alone speak up.

The end of Cold War must have made everyone much more intolerant, instead of tolerant. Great..

[Cyrus]

"I don't think it was to our allies' net benefit to have the USSR's presence on the world stage (if that is what you are saying). I think the USSR hurt just about everyone in some way."

Why ? Think about it. If you are a Great Power, even a not-so-Great Power like the European democracies, you were indirectly benefitting from having a common enemy :

The western countries were forced to work together militarily, and hence diplomatically and, moreover, economically. The Soviets were never a real, great threat -- and everybody with half the CIA's ability knew that.

The West was not "hurt" by the existence of communist parties. Those parties were never a threat either. As to the loyalty of Third world countries, those countries were never fond of the Soviet model. It was the West that pushed countries to the Eastern Embrace, after WWII, at every occasion. Including Cuba and Vietnam.

The Arab countries, for example, were it not for the unqualified support always given to Israel by the U.S., would have been the strongest American allies ever. They have always been anti-communist to the core.

"Europe doesn't need an enemy"

You'd be surprised if you were to overhear the European diplomats. They are of the opinion that they already have one...

"France seeks to contain America. (What fools the French be)."

France is not acting on a caprice. Isn't containment of United States' complete supremacy, at least economically, the idea behind the whole European Union ? The EU started out as a means to have peace in Europe -- and that has already been achieved. It's here to stay. From then on, it is a matter of standing up on its own feet, economically as well as diplomatically, with the usual suspects, the British, behaving as they have since De Gaulle's time. (Like a prick at the side of the old continent.)

[MMMMMM]

Except in the area of certain trade issues (such as protection of a few specific markets) the US and the EU both benefit from the other's economic strength and growth. Free enterprise tends to work very well with free enterprise. So the principle of an economic counterweight is not, I think, what should truly matter to either party. In other words if the US keeps growing economically and so does France, both benefit. Who really gives a damn--or should--if someone else is getting richer faster than you as long as you if you are getting significantly richer too. If overall efficiency is improving, and growth and innovation are present, everybody tends to do better.

[MMMMMM]

The problem I have with nations such as China or the USSR having a say in some super-governing body are these:

1) They aren't elected representatives of their peoples,

2) their interests often run counter to ours--which is fine for negotiations--but bad for enacting meaningful laws or resolutions (vetos for the sake of thwarting alone).

Negotiating with them is fine and dandy but giving them a legal say in our affairs is quite another.

The problems I have with any super-governing body, a la the U.N. today, even existing are these:

1) It doesn't derive its just powers from the consent of the governed

2) There are no inalienable rights in its Charter; within the Charter all human rights are subjugated to the goals of the U.N.

3) Our Constitution should not be overrridden by an outside power

I'm all for tolerance but that is a different matter than the USA losing sovereignty.

[Cyrus]

"The problem I have with nations such as China or the USSR having a say in some super-governing body are these: ..."

There has never been a "super governing body" in the planet, save for the will of the super powers. Now there is only one of them. So, "world community" is a euphemism for American hegemony.

As to China and the USSR, the U.S. has been accepting them in the U.N. and worked with them, in order to promote a kind of world stability, even though their regimes were much, much more abhorrent than Saddam's ever was. Now that the Cold War is over, the sole remaining super power is less toleranmt than ever. We'l see how this plays out.

Maybe the U.S. has found a way of cheating History.

"I'm all for tolerance but that is a different matter than the USA losing sovereignty."

The USA is not interested in following absolutely any rule save for its own national interests, as they are defined every time. The USA adhers to the barest vestige of legitimacy only for decorum and in order not to alienate more than need be the rest of the world. The example of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, which the US strove to create and then excused itself from its jurisdiction, is very educational. The US simply shrugged off the Court's jurisdicion. ("National sovereignty" and all that. But 120 countries around the world did ratify the Court's jurisdtiction over their citizens.)

Folks like Oliver North would have been on trial for crimes against humanity, if it were up to such a far-reaching court.

Oliver North and the Cocaine Democracies (http://www.oss.net/extra/news/?module_instance=1&id=886)

[Pot-A]

No country is interested in following rules contrary to its national interest. The difference is the US has more means at its disposal to influence other countries (of which military power is probably not the most potent)

The International Criminal Court, if allowed absolute jurisdiction, will simply become another arena for grandstanding by anti-US interests.

I'm starting to think we should kick the UN out of New York and lets somebody else pay for the largely useless enterprise.

[Pot-A]

The UK has, in my opinion, produced a long line of excellent orators and strategists to occupy 10 Downing St.

I've often wondered if there were any way to get the same quality leaders here in the US. Tony Blair is a more cogent thinker and orator than any president we've had in a century.

[Cyrus]

"No country is interested in following rules contrary to its national interest."

We agree. The rest is mostly smokescreen.

"The difference is the US has more means at its disposal to influence other countries (of which military power is probably not the most potent)."

Well, I would dearly like to know what is more potent than military power. And the threat of using it. Japan has an economy that is tremendously strong, perhaps the second strongest in the world, but that's all it has, an economy. The European Union has many strengths, such as cultural strengths, but not a military one. Hence, relative impotency.

"The International Criminal Court, if allowed absolute jurisdiction, will simply become another arena for grandstanding by anti-US interests."

This still fails to explain why the U.S. has always been in favor of such a world court --- but only for others! And that particular Court doesn't have any kind of unlimited authority or "absolute jurisdiction". There are checks and balances, and fair representation of western democracies, with a liberal tradition, and due process, the implementation of all of which has proven to be, by most measures, satisfactory : we are now seeing, for instance, the Albanian war criminals in the dock, alongside the Serbs and the Croats.

But will we ever see an American being tried there ?

I guess American war criminals are an imaginary creature.

"I'm starting to think we should kick the UN out of New York and let somebody else pay for the largely useless enterprise."

I would also welcome such a move. It would speed things up. The rest of the planet would realize sooner rather than later that the United States are on a world of its own.

[ACPlayer]

It seems that the UN was doing its job. There was clearly a difference of opinion on how to do the job.

The US decided to ignore the view of the majority of the sec council and the majority of the world's government and proceed with its plans.

Whether the US was justified is individual opinion, not fact. Clearly on this forum there are well entrenched opinions all of which are correct.

[MMMMMM]

"The rest of the planet would realize sooner rather than later that the United States are on a world of its own."

Not too inaccurate, given that for the most part, any other country is from 10 years behind the U.S. to centuries behind the U.S. depending on which comparison you choose to make.

[brad]

world court has no juries! the cornerstone of our whole system of government!

[Cyrus]

"World Court has no juries! The cornerstone of our whole system of government!"

Being judged by a jury of one's peers has been discounted in the cases of war criminals ever since the trials at Nuremberg. That court is all about crimes against humanity and not your ordinary armed robbery.

Besides, the system of the Int'l Court of Justice was put in place with the United States, among many nations, having provided legal advice and guidance as to its best possible procedural laws. The only problem is, of course, that as soon as the Court was up and running, the U.S. excluded itself and its citizens from the Court's jurisdictions. A hundred and twenty countries, already having pledged to accept that jurisdiction, felt the slap in the face quite painfully.

All in all, I would rather have a system without a jury rather than a system whereby lawmaker, jury and police are one and the same.

[brad]

from what i understand 'hate crimes' can be prosecuted as well, which leads to ... and on and on

[Cyrus]

"From what I understand 'hate crimes' can be prosecuted as well, which leads to ... and on and on"

This is not so. Things are much more clearly defined than you think. "Hate crimes" is a novelty that's added to a "regular" crime in the U.S., usually when bigotry is involved. But the crimes judged at the ICC are not yer "average" running over a coupla black folks in Mississippi. Unlike the Int'l Court of Justice, which handles disputes between nations, the Int'l Criminal Court is empowered to indict and prosecute individuals, such as for instance Slobodan Milosevic or Col. Oliver North, on charges of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes of aggression. Sexual violence, forced pregnancy, rapes and other crimes against women are mentioned by name, alwatys when committed as a crime against humanity and not by your local rapist.

I'm surprised that a web bloodhound like you could not locate what the ICC can and what it cannot do.

Anyway, I humbly believe that you should settle on a specific argument: either the ICC is "too vague" or not organized right (and therefore no country should have anything to do with it, we should dismantle it) -or- the ICC is OK (and therefore the U.S. should honor President Clinton's signature in the Treaty and accept the Court's jurisdiction). Bush thinks this all about Judge Roy Bean (http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa050602b.htm?iam=savvy&terms=).


The International Criminal Court (http://www.un.org/law/icc/)

[brad]

ok ill post on it later