Re: The UN

[J. van Baardwijk]

At 21:27 21-10-2002 -0400, John Giorgis wrote:

>I have always been opposed to veto power for *any* country because it gets
>in the way of the democratic process, so the answers to the above questions
>are "no" and "no".

So, in other words, the UNSC is by no means a paragon of the "democratic
principle."

QED: Throwing out the UNSC is not throwing out "democratic principle."

Wrong. While I agree that the UNSC is not a paragon of democracy, it still resembles, to a certain extend, democracy. Despite its flaws, it is still a better approach then letting one country rampage around the globe, forcing its will upon the rest of the world.

But of course, the US is in no position to use the argument of "abuse of veto power" as a reason to ignore the UNSC -- the US has done the exact same thing.

>Yes. Of course, ideally any UN decision would be made by letting every
>citizen of every member country vote on the issue (using the "one man, one
>vote" principle). However, given that this is not doable, the principle of
>"one country, one vote" is the best alternative.

This is, of course, completely consistent with your views on the electoral
college.

These are two different things. It is technically impossible for the UN to make decisions by letting every citizen of every country vote using the "one man, one vote" system. However, given the significant smaller scale, an US election *can* be done by letting every citizen vote using the "one man, one vote" system (thus making the electoral college obsolete). Such a system requires advanced technology; a large part of the world does not have that technology, the US does.

>No. By rejecting the authority of the UN, the US is choosing a form of
>dictatorship ("the US and only the US decides") over what at least to a
>certain extent is a democracy.

First off, any institution with veto powers is "democracy" by only the
crudest of measures.   Indeed, since all decision in the US Congress are
taken by a republic through democratic principles, I would argue that the
US Congress is far more democratic than an institution that gives out veto
powers,

Was the US not one of the countries that decided that some members of the UNSC should have veto power? How can a country claim to uphold democratic principles, and simultaneously support something that gets in the way of democracy?

let alone a veto power to the Butchers of Beijing.

Cut the namecalling and just refer to a country by using its name. Of the permanent members of the UNSC, the dictatorial countries are not the *only* ones with blood on their hands.

Besides, the US has consulted with its allies, many of whom, such as UK,
Australia, Italy, and Spain have supported the US in this.    Hardly
"dictatorship."

Not exactly "majority rule" either.

Neverminding the 536 elected representatives that participated in this
decision of the US.

Irrelevant. In the UNSC, the vote of the US counts as *one* vote, not as 536 votes. The voting process in US Congress is an internal matter, not an UN matter.

Which, I might add is roughly 526 more elected representatives than
participate in UNSC decisions.

Irrelevant. In the UNSC, the vote of the US counts as *one* vote, not as 536 votes. The voting process in US Congress is an internal matter, not an UN matter.


Jeroen "Voting is so much easier with Iraqi democracy" van Baardwijk

__________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com


_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l