I am currently taking a summer course on the United Nations. A lot of my work is done through the internet in simulations. I am part of a universe. I am Venezuela -although I had asked to be one of the members of the Security Council. At least I have oil. And part of the Amazon. Our discussion for this week is based on speculating the role and influence of the UN in the Twenty-First Century. The other 'nations' that belong to my universe frequently aggrandize the role of U.S. (which is appropriate). However, oftentimes the U.S. is spoken of in a very dim light, regularly before or after adjectives and phrases such as "evil" "axis of evil" "Bush is evil" "rich white fat terrorists" (the latter is a direct quote). This elegant method of critiquing is typical of naive students of Political Science. In any case, we offered our cases for how the UN should be restructured. One guy said that the UN should be divided into two entities: one inclusive of the U.S. and the other sans U.S. Another went so far as to deem termination the fate of the UN. I offered suggestions that would encompass a more unified vision of the UN that may be able to offer it sustenance deep into the Century based on Baha'i publications. Thus far, no one has argued against it. But no one is convinced by it either. It seems the notion of global governance and global integration has not yet gained momentum in the heart of the international community. My 'universe' for example, is so intent on focusing on current politics that it looses sight of possible solutions that exist outside of the current interface of international relations. They are more ready to point their fingers and accuse people ("rich white fat terrorists") than to act on the very things they believe in. And I am not talking about someone believing that there are rich white fat terrorists. I am talking about their deeper beliefs. What is at the root of them concluding a statement like that. I am talking about the morality behind it. The human rights behind it. The saving-the-environment behind it. You can choose to express your discontent. Or you can choose to find a solution to the factors behind the factor that causes a person or nation to act in a way that is unpleasant. The United Nations role in the Twenty-First Century will be more influential than the UN of the Twentieth Century only when it is backed by a more genuine community of nations.
Belief is the inner will for collective goodness. Pointing fingers is simply an exercise of an individual's kinetics.
Posts
9 comments:
Venezuela is a pretty cool country to be. They are oil rich, as you mentioned; but most interesting is perhaps their leader, Hugo Chavez, who is setting the stage to become the next Fidel.
If I were you I would suggest a heavy anti-capitalist policy and mandatory flag burning in schools, but then again, I don't know how that would fit in to your bigger picture ideas.
oh how easy it is to point the finger and be bitter... people get so vocal and animated. Ask them for solutions and ... you get nothing constructive! its the way things go i suppose. If you want the UN to work, it has to have more power than its members. As I see it now, the US "uses" the UN when it needs to and has "BF (Bitch Fit)" when things go the other way. When you are the most powerful nation you can afford to do that without any problems. In order to keep nations in check the UN needs power. You can negotiate all you want with a more powerful person he probably wont take you seriously unless he has something to lose.
i'm not sure mo, i think what is needed is moral responsibility... i mean we all have seen star wars right power corrupts and more power is not the UN needs i think... what the UN and the US for that matter needs is moral responsibility to make the right choises for the good of all in all circumstances.
-P
Yet again you delight my soul with your eloquent exposition of global reform.
I think the world is like a sick person. Pointing the finger at certain aspects of its illness is like saying, "hey, this is all Nose's fault for being such a stuffy bastard" or "Nah, the problem is with Butt, if he didn't have his stupid rash, we would all be sitting a lot more comfortably."
the people just hafta realize it's a virus, and instead of scratching and picking all the time, let's all listen to what Doctor has to say, and take our bloody medicine.
Dear Payou,
yes in a perfect world moral responsibility would be the solution. but we both know that is impossible in the real world. People are greedy for power, once they have it, they dont look back on all those they crushed on their way up and feel sorry for them.
you guys don't know what you're talking about...
Ms. Majid you are not on that list.
can you please explain it to me then? if im completely out of it?
no
I was told I was being sour for saying no to a perfectly good question. So I will apologize and answer…
Power and moral responsibility are big words but before we can use them, we have to understand what exactly it is that we are dealing with. It’s too easy to point out the strong are strong because they can crush the weak and vulnerable and only moral responsibility will usher in accountability and rescue humanity from all its ills. It’s too easy to say that power is the most effective instrument of accountability. I am oftentimes aghast and dismayed when people offer one-two-step solutions to an issue of such perplexity.
If you think any of these ideas presented in the previous posts are acceptable approaches to the UN or a like-body in this century, I am sorry to say, you may be very disappointed. Neither is acceptable alone.
Today scholars of international relations champion competing perspectives on what is known as global governance. There are four main theories (approaches) to governance (although there are several others): (1) Realism, (2) Neomedievalism, (3) Liberal Internationalism, and (4) Transgovernmentalism. Each are interesting hypotheses, but none can be taken as fact or even foreshadow what our future world, our future UN will look like.
There are many actors on the international scene. Not just powerful people and individuals, not just institutions that churn out international laws, not just leaders and united nations, but also non-governmental organizations, Transnational advocacy networks (TNAs), RNGOs, IGOs ---actors that promote non-political causes, human rights, watchdogs that report on abuses to the environment, to labour laws, ---a force of very alert, very present, very watchful people moving throughout the entirety of the earth’s expanse. They are a phenomenon that everyone in political science is baffled to explain. But they are there and they will not go away. These are organizations with devoted adherents that are acting, doing things, making motions, not sitting around to play with big words. They are dealing with the big world. How do you explain this?
We live in truly exciting times.
Post a Comment