The Irony! (warning: this is a political post)

[srholmes]

I find it ironic that two of the principles that the West prides itself on applying domestically, and that the US and UK say they would like to introduce into Iraq, are being completely ignored internationally, namely democracy and the fair rule of law, and that as a result they are prepared to expose the world to serious negative consequences. Here is why...




Democracy:

I can think of two ways of looking at this:

1) Some member states of the UN form a council, the security council, which votes on resolutions and pass those that are supported by a majority (and that also haven't been vetoed by a permanent member). The US and UK seem happy to go to war even if the majority of voting nations do not support this action at this time.

2) Just in terms of global population, lets assume that there are 6,215 million people. Lets say we are only interested in the adult population. The best statistics I can find here are for the proportion of people <15, so that will have to do as a proxy. The percentage of global pop 15 yrs old or over are:

Global: 70% of 6,215 m = 4350.5 m
US: 79% of 288 m = 227.5 m
UK: 81% of 60 m = 48.5 m
Spain: 85% of 41 m = 35 m
Australia: 80% of 20 m = 16 m
Bulgaria: 84% of 8 m = 6.5 m

(Statisitics from the World Population Bureau )

Even if all the inhabitants of the US, UK, Australia, Spain and Bulgaria were fully in favour of non-multilateral war, that is still only 333.5 of 4350.5 people, around 7.7 %. This is nowhere near a global majority.

I know, this is rather simplisitic. There are questions regarding who is entitled to vote, how any particular democracy works in detail, how power is transferred from individuals to states and upwards. But the basic definition of democracy is (according to Webster's, for example):
"government by the people; especially : rule of the majority"

If we are to take the words of GWB at face value (some may not be so charitable!), we can assume that he is a believer in global democracy. However, his disregard for the views of the majority of global citizens makes him (and Blair etc) appear hypocritical.



Law:

Another much vaunted benefit of living in the West is meant to be the opportunity to live under the rule of fair law. This grants individuals and entities a set of rights, and a framework within which to work to ensure that those rights are upheld. It is illegal to operate outside of the law, and any decision that is made that one entity deems to be unfair or unjust, can be appealed, normally up to a Supreme Entity. This system has endowed our societies with a certain amount of stability. It would be unthinkable to decide to ignore a legal decision because one didn't agree with it.

Yet if you extend this analogy to the member states of the UN and international law, this is exactly what GWB and co. are proposing when they suggest that the decision of the UN security council is only relevant to the extent that it supports their position, and that in the event of a vote against an immediate invasion of Iraq, that it is acceptable for the US and UK to go ahead and invade anyway. That is the equivalent of for example taking a gun and shooting a convicted murderer who has been sentenced to, say life imprisonment (Don't forget that pretty much all members of the security council agree that Iraq has broken other UN resolutions, it is the method of dealing with Iraq that is at question).

Not only do I also find this ironic (breaking the law to uphold the law is a contradiction), I also think that this has severe implications for the future of the world. Effectively, we would be saying that it is ok to ignore the rulings of , and therefore completely undermine, a forum specifically established to bring stability to the world.

This is far more serious that anything that Saddam, or GWB, or anyone has done since the UN was implemented. It has no regard for the steady progression from chaotic family feuding, through revengeful Old Testament justice (or equivalent), to regional, state and international law that has fostered the hope of a stable world.

Yes, we all agree that Saddam's behaviour is undesirable and should be dealt with. But is the undermining of the whole framework within which global differences are resolved a price worth paying? Viewed with an appropriate sense of perspective, I believe the answer is no.


Edited to correct typo in calculations....

[Q Classic]

yeah, you know what? the only funny thing about this is that getting your knickers all in a twist over this war is a really silly thing.

why? because it doesn't matter what you do, the end is nigh.

[DRoseDARs]

Take a International Politics college class. You'll find it very interesting...

In more direct response to your post, I agree but we (Humanity) are still in a nation-state world. We're slooowly transitioning into a world-state, but that's unlikely to be achieved until late-century, mid-century at the earliest. Bush Jr.'s actions do seem a bit hipocritical on one hand, but those same actions fall in-line with other, contradictory things he's also said. All-in-all, he isn't helping things much in the long-term, though I really do believe he means to be doing good...

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
...the end is nigh.

At the end of the day, that's all I ask for... ...this world needs a SERIOUS reboot before it's too late...

[Dinner]

A global majority has absolutely nothing to do with right and wrong. Nothing what so ever. The Security Council, by design, cannot even pass a resolution unless the veto welding members all agree to pass a resolution; it has been a rarity in post war history that all five of the great powers agreed on the need for war. This occurred only once, after Saddam invaded Kuwait, and the other time the U.N. went to war it occurred because the Soviets walked out of the meeting and the allies passed the resolution when the Bolsheviks weren't looking.

That means every other war in the last 60 years occurred without U.N. resolutions. For a full 90% plus of all conflict in the last 60 years there was no U.N. resolution. This isn't a new thing it is more a continuation of the status quo.

[Sprayber]

What's really ironic is that this same thread has been posted about 20 times already. Ok, maybe ironic isn't the world. How about repetitive. But what do I care. Let the mods decide

[srholmes]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Take a International Politics college class. You'll find it very interesting...

In more direct response to your post, I agree but we (Humanity) are still in a nation-state world. We're slooowly transitioning into a world-state, but that's unlikely to be achieved until late-century, mid-century at the earliest. Bush Jr.'s actions do seem a bit hipocritical on one hand, but those same actions fall in-line with other, contradictory things he's also said. All-in-all, he isn't helping things much in the long-term, though I really do believe he means to be doing good...

Actually I would like to study some International Politics. I haven't had the opportunity as yet, hence my views may come across as somewhat naive, but as I am going back to uni later in the year I hope to take an elective with a focus on this area.

"I have a dream......" of a world state, surely it would make more sense, especially as many national borders are arbitrary and not even defined by geography (let alone what else). I would prefer we (Humanity) focused on eliminating poverty, living in an environmentally sustainable way and diversifying our habitation risk (ie colonising the empty planets of the solar system), than fighting each other. I know, it is idealistic etc, but never mind.

[srholmes]

Originally posted by Sprayber
What's really ironic is that this same thread has been posted about 20 times already. Ok, maybe ironic isn't the world. How about repetitive. But what do I care. Let the mods decide

Thanks for your informative post....

At least other people offered their views on the subject.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by srholmes
"I have a dream......" of a world state, surely it would make more sense, especially as many national borders are arbitrary and not even defined by geography (let alone what else). I would prefer we (Humanity) focused on eliminating poverty, living in an environmentally sustainable way and diversifying our habitation risk (ie colonising the empty planets of the solar system), than fighting each other. I know, it is idealistic etc, but never mind.

There will always be people who do not wish to be ruled by others. In my opinion, the only way any world wide goverment will come to be is if there is something found out there that distintions such as American, or Chinese become irrelevent and we think of ourselves as human. This will require something to define ourselves against. What that may be is anyone's guess. Until then, people will continue to seek means to be set apart.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by srholmes


Thanks for your informative post....

At least other people offered their views on the subject.

Damn man, a person gets tired of the same stuff. This has been done to death. The same people come in on the same side each time. After awhile a person has to do something about it or let it be.

[srholmes]

Originally posted by Sprayber


..... In my opinion, the only way any world wide goverment will come to be is if there is something found out there that distintions such as American, or Chinese become irrelevent and we think of ourselves as human. .....

I agree with this.

In terms of being repetitive, I apologise, but I haven't seen a thread looking at this with a sense of perspective before. Admittedly I have only been checking out this board intermittently, and it is a fast moving board so it is easy to miss threads.

Also, I think that this issue is becoming more serious as the crisis continues.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by srholmes


I agree with this.

In terms of being repetitive, I apologise, but I haven't seen a thread looking at this with a sense of perspective before. Admittedly I have only been checking out this board intermittently, and it is a fast moving board so it is easy to miss threads.

Also, I think that this issue is becoming more serious as the crisis continues.

No problem. I over reacted. I'm just a little stressed these days. This time next week. i'll be headed over there. I apologize

[mactbone]

First of all we've already seen that a simple worldwide majority is worthless - how many resolutions were passed in the UN by countries without the economic power to do what they voted to do? Second, the UN is represented by one vote per nation, so China gets the same amount of votes (in the General Assembly) as any other country like Guatamela.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Sprayber


No problem. I over reacted. I'm just a little stressed these days. This time next week. i'll be headed over there. I apologize

Oh...that's RIGHT...I forgot about that. Don't get killed, m'kay?

I thought that you were supossed to go a few Saturdays ago, Sprayber.



Back on-topic: I've been thinking (too much) about this subject for several years know. Not just casual dreaming, but serious thought. There really is hope for a feasible world-state system of governance, but the technical problems inherent with transitioning between that and the nation-state system makes the processes VERY rough. However, once it does happen, future expansion does become "easier" in that there won't be any "new" precedents to set, just rehashes of old ones.

[srholmes]

Originally posted by Oerdin
A global majority has absolutely nothing to do with right and wrong. Nothing what so ever. ...........

True, that is a problem with any system with a democratic element. But my point was not on the merits of democracy as a political system, it was that given that democracy is a stated aim of gwb & co, they are behaving hypocritically.