Terrorism

[Palatka44]

In the early 70's a friend of mine gave me some information that disturbed me but over the years I had forgotten about her shared info. Now as terrorist activity sense 9/11/01 has increased to the point that a train blast has toppled the ruling party of Spain, her warning then is now clear.
She stated that terrorism will reach such a calamity that it will cause all nations involved, as victims, to arm the UN by giving their weapons and forces over to it and as such relinquishing their sovereignty.
She had some very compelling evidence.
What is your take on this subject?
What can we do to halt the tide if a majority party in Congress that will side with a like party President to turn our sovereignty over to the UN?

 

[Existential1]

Certainly many will reflect, that in this current difficulty, where terrorism and state-terorism have become so central and so intrusive: that what is required, is what will bring order and legal process; and for many, that law would have to reside in an international body such as the UN.
Personally, I would like to see such a thing: with the abolition of national armies, and the establishment of a global policing force; where all this were to do with the establishment of a global legal process.
What would oppose such a development, and just why, then becomes the main question

 

[SolomonVII]

Even today, all the competing voices within the UN have paralysed the organisation as an effective force against oppression. With the case of Rwanda as only the most recent example, the UN simply cannot muster the will to oppose genocides or atrocities against humanity. It is not really a question of lack of military hardware at its disposal, or the military might of the tyrants, but a question of institutional will.
It is highly unlikely that any nation will ever voluntarily cede its military power and authority to the UN. Furthermore, the ability of the UN to stop terrorism would be as limited as that of national governments. As long as officials to nuclear plants or chemical factories can be bribed or corrupted, terrorists will have an ever ending supply of weapons. A multi-headed organisation by defintion is also mutli-willed and therefore can never muster the clear resolve necessary to tackle such difficult problems as terrorism. There will always be too many competing interests.
The UN is of limited usefulness in that it now provides a forum where the voices of all nations can be heard. However, even now whatever power it exerts is through the establishment of political power blocs, that alienate those opposed their decisions as much as any form of government. A coin cannot be one-sided. To choose for one option is also to choose against another.
If terror is defined as the last refuge of the powerless, to the extent that the UN world government becomes all powerful, then terrorism become the refuge for us all.

 

[Palatka44]

Thank you Solomon, your post is most informative. However, with the recent attack in Spain and terrorist activity in Europe on the rise, an entity like the UN (if not the UN) could rise quickly from terrorist calamities. It did not take us very long to put together our Department of Homeland Security after 9/11.

 

[Existential1]

Even today, all the competing voices within the UN have paralysed the organisation as an effective force against oppression. With the case of Rwanda as only the most recent example, the UN simply cannot muster the will to oppose genocides or atrocities against humanity. It is not really a question of lack of military hardware at its disposal, or the military might of the tyrants, but a question of institutional will.
It is highly unlikely that any nation will ever voluntarily cede its military power and authority to the UN. Furthermore, the ability of the UN to stop terrorism would be as limited as that of national governments. As long as officials to nuclear plants or chemical factories can be bribed or corrupted, terrorists will have an ever ending supply of weapons. A multi-headed organisation by defintion is also mutli-willed and therefore can never muster the clear resolve necessary to tackle such difficult problems as terrorism. There will always be too many competing interests.
The UN is of limited usefulness in that it now provides a forum where the voices of all nations can be heard. However, even now whatever power it exerts is through the establishment of political power blocs, that alienate those opposed their decisions as much as any form of government. A coin cannot be one-sided. To choose for one option is also to choose against another.
If terror is defined as the last refuge of the powerless, to the extent that the UN world government becomes all powerful, then terrorism become the refuge for us all.

If you had been opposing the proposition that the 13 states could come together in federation, and under a formal and written constitution: then, with the changing of very few references; your speech need remain unchanged.
Do you deny that the USA has come about? Do you deny that it sustains legal process within its boundaries? Do you see it as paralysed, in being multi-headed and willed? Do you see the anarchism of terrorism as its prevailing citizenship?
Or, when you look around you at your great country, do you actually see something else? And if you do, could this not also indicate what the UN might become?

 

[Jeremiah the Bullfrog]

Do you want U.S. troops under the command of the PRC? I know for a fact that I do not.

 

[oldrooster]

I do not want a one world army either.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Well I don't think the proposition is neccessary. After all the UN borrows troops from other participationg nations as it is, so what we are probably going to see is a continuation of that practice.

Ghost

 

[SolomonVII]

If you had been opposing the proposition that the 13 states could come together in federation, and under a formal and written constitution: then, with the changing of very few references; your speech need remain unchanged.
Do you deny that the USA has come about? Do you deny that it sustains legal process within its boundaries? Do you see it as paralysed, in being multi-headed and willed? Do you see the anarchism of terrorism as its prevailing citizenship?
Or, when you look around you at your great country, do you actually see something else? And if you do, could this not also indicate what the UN might become?

No, I don't deny that the USA has come about.
No, I do no deny that USA sustains legal processes within its boundaries.

USA is a federation with a division of powers. There is some dispute about where states rights begin and federal authority ends, but in terms of the armed forces, the President is the supreme commander. There is only one head. The individual states have very little say in the country's foreign policy. So your analogy holds little weight.

A better analogy might be the EU. With similar population and similar wealth to the USA, nobody considers the EU to be a superpower on the world stage. Its foreign policy is muddled by too many conflicting voices. The smaller countries don't have much of a say, and France will pretty much always oppose anything that the British support just on the grounds that it is being supported by the British.

In terms of what the UN could become, like all institutions, its future form will evolve from its past form. After the spectacle at Durban, and its total inability to deal with neither the Rwandan slaughter, nor the situations in Albania and Kosovo, nor the killing fields of Cambodia, etc. etc., it has proven itself time and again to be a very ineffective vehicle for social justice.

Therefore, to cede all power to such a body appears to me as a very foolish propositon.

And in terms of the theme of this thread, there is no reason to believe that terrorism would all of a sudden just stop as a result of doing so. Differential power relationships would still exist between different groups of people. There will still be conflicts arising between neighboring ethnicities.
Of course, without American military power to serve as a counterbalance to the power bloc of third world voices in their opposition to the existence of the state of Israel, said state could be simply voted out of existence. Game , set match.
Is this the appeal of such a notion?

 

[Existential1]

Of course, without American military power to serve as a counterbalance to the power bloc of third world voices in their opposition to the existence of the state of Israel, said state could be simply voted out of existence. Game , set match.
Is this the appeal of such a notion?

Now, just where did that one come from. Not from the thread topic. Not from anyhting I said.

The purpose of considering a single constituted entity, with consensually awarded policing powers over the whole global community: is to establish the rule of law over this community; and to make all its details subject to due legal process.
We begin with the UN, because it is there, because it is respected by all but rogue states; it is the best we have to date. Beyond this starting point, everyhting is open to criticism and suggestion: many of the points you make are excellent; the idea must be to have an effective body at the heart of this.
What we must move away from is the world of warlords, be that Dostum, Bin Laden, or GWB: where things are done, and come about, simply through the number of loyal guns that can be called on; the principle of law and constitution, must become acendant.
The world could do far worse, than adopt the American models of federation, law, and constitution: wholesale and immediately; where all would become subject to what American states and individuals, have long been subject to.
It works in the USA: why could it not work for the world; and why could we not call the body it regulated, the United Nations (of the World).

 

[Palatka44]

Do you want U.S. troops under the command of the PRC? I know for a fact that I do not.

I am with you and oldrooster, I just think that this increase in terrorist activity gets us closer to a world wide governing body that will have power over the soveriengty of all nations. In other words I think that we are being set up.

 

[Existential1]

I think that we are being set up.

By?

 

[SolomonVII]

The record of the United Nations is reason enough to not agree with the abolition of a nations right to defend its citizens in lieu of the world government making that decision for all of the worlds people and enforcing such a policy with its own army. Not only would such an action leave small populations of people, such as vulnerable to the larger and often hostile populations in which they reside, but it would be no more effective at addressing terrorists and rogue states than the system that we have now. If the world community under the leadership of the United Nations had the will to address the problems of terrorism, the world community would have adressed such problems as North Korea and Iraq a long time ago. Women would be driving in Saudi Arabia, girls would be in schools in Afghanistan, and female circumsicion would be banned from all of North Africa.
The United Nations does have a code of human rights and it does possess the military power to enforce its laws, when the members that make up its ranks so will it. Obviously, political ideology takes precedence over any of its laws.

While panic overreaction to terrorist attacks could lead nations to take such steps-which in the case of the United States at least is a very unlikely proposition- there is no reason to believe that such a system could be effective in stemming terrorism. Based on past performance, the opposite is just as likely a result.

 

[oldrooster]

I just do not want to give my national soverignty to the UN, I really do not trust it as a working body.

 

[SolomonVII]

I just do not want to give my national soverignty to the UN, I really do not trust it as a working body.

I've never really trusted it either after Durban. It does have its place in world affairs, and does have it use for gathering the people of the world into one place to discuss issues, but it is so far removed from any individual citizen to be said to fairly represent anybody.

 

[TheRealityOfMan]

I think all world troops should be put under Jamaica.

 

[Lexluther]

I can't see the U.S. ever handing over it's military sovereignty to the United Nations. Nor would this be a good thing. However, I think it is high time that the UN produced a solid plan for defeating terrorism. Not a military plan, a humanitarian one- A concerted effort by the afluent nations of the world to combat the conditions that cause terrorism in the first place. Where is this peacekeeping body when it is facing its most urgent need in a decade? I admit that America's unwillingness to participate in international discussions hampers their ability to move, but wouldn't it be more effective if instead of simply saying "that won't work" they were able to produce alternate plans that would?

 

[Jeremiah the Bullfrog]

I just do not want to give my national soverignty to the UN, I really do not trust it as a working body.

No kidding. I do not want to put our military under the command of the likes of people like Kofi or the DRPK or the PRC.

 

[kurabrhm]

I think all world troops should be put under Jamaica.

Exactly how one would manage the complicated logistics involved in just giving Jamaicans authority over the entire Chinese army is too baffling!
THe Americans won't obey their Jamaican authority.
The Russians will eventually turn the Jamaicans into corrupt souls.
The British would suffer just trying to explain to the Jamaicans the sophisticated technology that they use. Oh wait a minute, Geoff Hoon forgot to supply the British with the right supplies. Forget the technology then!

 

[crystalpc]

I shudder to think of the UN as our governing body..