From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Wed Nov 27 2002 - 17:41:34 MST
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> > (Brett Paatsch <paatschb@ocean.com.au>):
> >
> > I was surprised to read in some recent posts that the UN
> > was as badly regarded in the US as it appears to be. I guess
> > its because in part its physically based there so
> > Americans or New Yorkers at least possible see it up close
> > warts n all more than the rest of us AND just recently
> > its probably represented a frustrating "go slower"
> > counterpoint to be the more popular (doubtless media
> > influenced) American reaction to the Iraq situation. I don't
> > say that negatively at all.
>
> That has nothing to do with any experience of what the UN
> actually is or does, but with the very idea in the first place.
An important distinction I think.
> Sovereign means sovereign, and Americans don't much
> appreciate being told what to do or what to think by a
> gang or Euroweenies.
I'll leave the Euroweenies comment alone : )
I don't think you could pretty safely generalise that "people"
don't like being told what to do or what to think and I sure
don't blame 'em.
> We make mistakes, but they're
> ours, dammit, and we own up to them and take
> responsibility for them and move on, trying to do
> what /we/ think is right.
Another very laudible trait.
> Abdicating responsibility to another
> group is a moral weakness in its own right.
Yes. But perhaps abdicating responsibility and as 'ol
Dirty Harry put it recognizing one's limitations are
two different things. My take on things is that the US can
hardly be accused of not doing its share, speaking
very broadly now for contributing to civilization but
it can't shoulder (and hasn't the resources to wisely try
to shoulder all the burdern alone). I think the US Govt
maybe does its own citizens a disservice (but only in the
way that most governments do) by propagating an
image that it has more control of world events than
it does. Clearly the US is a very influential player.
Economically and militarily its the big boy on the
contempory block.
This is my perception only now, but as a citizen of
a democracy that is a first world country it seems
to me that there are only two real alternatives on
offer for people to look to as symbolic models
on offer as to what the the next step forward for
civilization would be. Will the US lead? Or will the
UN?
If the US (in my view partly because it is seeped in
the traditions of Europe and the Enlightenment, partly
because it is an economic and military power and
largely because I have a lot of respect for its system
of government, its constitution and its Bill of Rights),
is to be the seed crystal for the next step in civilization
I wonder how well US citizens would take to the
notion (hypothetically) of other soverign nations
(lets say New Zealand to keep the passions down)
wanting to Federate with the US and become another
couple of States (the North and South Islands of New
Zealand say). Apologies to any incensed Kiwis reading
this. They are already nervous that some see sense
in Federating NZ with Oz).
My question is would the US citizenry take well to
extending the rights of the US constitution and the
Bill of Rights to a new couple of states such as
(hypothetically) New Zealand? Does your confidence
in your way of life and generosity (if these are the right
ways to think of it extend that far of would even
a modern democratic country with educated citizens
like the Kiwis constitute looking to join you of their
own accord concern the existing US citizenry because
of some distillation of existing rights?
>
> The UN might be a fine thing for helping struggling nations
> get economic help and feeding refugees and negotiating treaties
> among them, but to pretend that it is actually a /governing/
> body with any authority over real countries is something few
> Americans have patience for.
I think, and it may be easier to see this from
outside the US, that the appeal of the UN as a
symbol (rather than as a somewhat less than close
proximation to the ideal it is in reality), is that no individuals,
no people want to feel small and insignificant.
American's don't generally have to worry much about this
they can derive a sort of pride from the success of their
culture. By their citizenry (at least) they are part of the
biggest club.
I think the UN for most of the rest of the world, offers some
chance to also be "in the big club" as opposed to as they
must often feel being "under the big club".
Clearly the US does not have trouble finding willing
immigrant. Equally clearly (and this goes back to my earlier
point about the US for all its economic power is not all
powerful it couldn't make all the world American's immediately
even if all the world wanted to be (and a good few would
leap at the chance). Noone gets a lot of personal choice or
influence in which particular piece of ground they are born
on. There is no more or less personal merit involved
on the part of a particular baby to be born into the third world
or the first, or perhaps to win the lotto and be born into
the US.
>
> What amazes me is that people actually think the US is being a
> "bully" when it refuses to participate in stupid things like
> the mine treaty and World Court, when it's the other nations
> trying to force those things on us. At least we have the
> courage and integrity to stand up and say "this is stupid,
> and we won't sign it" rather than just doing what most other
> governments will do, which is to sign it and ignore it.
Not all "people" that talk cause they have tongues have an
equal understanding of the issues about which they talk. I think
sometime even the brighter folk (and brightness seems to be
at least in part another thing that can be an accident of birth
- who chose their genes?) can't always do much of a job
projecting themselves out of their culture and looking back
in on it from the outside.
In relation to the World Court I've read, on this list, some
good reasons for US reticence that I had not heard before,
but not everyone reads this list (poor them :) ) and so superficially
at the very least I think it should be understandable if those
who feel themselves to reside in less powerful nations of
the world do not want to feel they have to accept a lower
standard of justice (in principle and in aspiration) not just
in the present to that which is enjoyed by the citizens of the
US.
Regards,.
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:27 MST