Solving the World's problems...

[dsm]

There has been a lot of discussion about the Iraq War here (doh!), but I haven't yet seen anyone simplify the questions it raised with respect to the rest of the world (doh! doh!). Therefore, let me try to ask the big question (ha!). [...stop that...]

The various views in this discussion seem to break down into two (basically logical) camps:


The anti-war camp stating that the US move into Iraq without UN backing opens a can of worms in international law that is yet to be addressed and, therefore, the war should not have happened.
The pro-war camp stating that the potential of weapons of mass destruction and the brutality of Saddam's regime was justification for not waiting for UN backing and, therefore, the war was needed and only the US could've pulled it off.


With this in mind, I'm asking people to look ahead and determine what sort of international rules should be put into place to ensure that the "Right Thing"(tm) is done in the future. These rules should not be specific to any one nation (ie. the US) and should be applicable in an even-handed fashion by a third-party organization (ie. the UN) to all nations.

Questions to answer:


When is the actions of one nation dangerous to other nations and, as such, open to intervention by other nations?
If the action of the nation does not require intervention by other nations, how should the people of the nation be protected from the regime in power?
Should "free" migration between nations be permitted in order to permit refugees to escape brutal regimes?
Should "inspectors" be installed in all countries having a certain level of capability?
Should particular political standards (ie. democracy) be forcefully be promoted by the central body (ie. the UN)?
...etc...

[Smalso]

Okay, I'll bite.

The existance of South Korea, with it's current form of government backed by the United States, is at odds with, detrimental to, and a danger to the government of North Korea. Does this mean that North Korea has the right to protect its national interest by invading South Korea, conquering and subduing it, and setting up its own kind of government there?

[dsm]

Originally posted by Smalso

The existance of South Korea, with it's current form of government backed by the United States, is at odds with, detrimental to, and a danger to the government of North Korea. Does this mean that North Korea has the right to protect its national interest by invading South Korea, conquering and subduing it, and setting up its own kind of government there?


Hmmm.


How is South Korea a direct danger to North Korea?
Are the South Korean people brutalized and repressed such that North Korea (and the world) need to liberate it?
Are South Koreans repressed by their government such that they cannot freely migrate to other, less repressive nations?


Basically, what rules should a third-party organization (ie. the UN) apply to the North/South Korea issue?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by dsm

With this in mind, I'm asking people to look ahead and determine what sort of international rules should be put into place to ensure that the "Right Thing"(tm) is done in the future. These rules should not be specific to any one nation (ie. the US) and should be applicable in an even-handed fashion by a third-party organization (ie. the UN) to all nations.


I actually think the U.N. is pretty good for the legislative arena, they just fall down when it comes to enforcement. I really don't understand why, after countries like Iraq violate U.N. mandates, the U.N. then has to vote on:

a: Whether they actually violated the mandate or not.
b: Whether the U.N. should should actually enforce the mandate.

I think that type of excessive policization has led us to where we are today, i.e. the U.N. is basically useless and nations have to act unilaterally to get anything done.

All I think needs to be done is for the U.N. to pass very clear, concise resolutions that set very obvious, un-ambigious tests for compliance with equally clear consequences for non-compliance. If a nation violates said resolution, then any other member nation may volunteer to enforce the resolution as dictated by the mandate.

[dsm]

Originally posted by EvilYeti

All I think needs to be done is for the U.N. to pass very clear, concise resolutions that set very obvious, un-ambigious tests for compliance with equally clear consequences for non-compliance.


Given that such clarity goes against the "desires" of many regimes around the world, are we going to have to have somebody (ie. the US) dictate the resolutions and then ram them down everyone else's throat? :eek:


If a nation violates said resolution, then any other member nation may volunteer to enforce the resolution as dictated by the mandate.


Isn't that a little like asking the Detroit Tigers to take on the New York Yankees? With Steinbrenner spending like mad to acquire the best "weapons of mass destruction", the Tigers chances of winning aren't that good... :(

[Number Six]

Any rules the UN (or any governing body...I guess the UN isn't actually a governing body though) are only relevant if they'll be enforced. Otherwise they're just words. I realize that comes off as cold and hard but I prefer to think of it as reality...it's neither good nor bad, it just is.

Everyone is scrambling to do their taxes before April 15. Why? Because they like it? Because the IRS asked them kindly to do it? Everyone "should do their civic duty" and pay taxes but the reality is that without threat of enforcement almost everyone would ignore the rule.

Without enforcement, rules by the UN don't mean anything. So what is the enforcement mechanisim? That is where the question gets really messy and political.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by dsm
Questions to answer:


When is the actions of one nation dangerous to other nations and, as such, open to intervention by other nations?
If the action of the nation does not require intervention by other nations, how should the people of the nation be protected from the regime in power?
Should "free" migration between nations be permitted in order to permit refugees to escape brutal regimes?
Should "inspectors" be installed in all countries having a certain level of capability?
Should particular political standards (ie. democracy) be forcefully be promoted by the central body (ie. the UN)?
...etc...


I'll abstain but the reason I am posting is because I think the reason why is important. We have just taken Baghdad. I think the ramifications of this war are not all revealed to us yet.

I think that to answer your question best, I should wait for the smoke to clear and the answers to reveal themselves.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by dsm
There has been a lot of discussion about the Iraq War here (doh!), but I haven't yet seen anyone simplify the questions it raised with respect to the rest of the world (doh! doh!). Therefore, let me try to ask the big question (ha!). [...stop that...]

The various views in this discussion seem to break down into two (basically logical) camps:


The anti-war camp stating that the US move into Iraq without UN backing opens a can of worms in international law that is yet to be addressed and, therefore, the war should not have happened.
The pro-war camp stating that the potential of weapons of mass destruction and the brutality of Saddam's regime was justification for not waiting for UN backing and, therefore, the war was needed and only the US could've pulled it off.


With this in mind, I'm asking people to look ahead and determine what sort of international rules should be put into place to ensure that the "Right Thing"(tm) is done in the future. These rules should not be specific to any one nation (ie. the US) and should be applicable in an even-handed fashion by a third-party organization (ie. the UN) to all nations.

Questions to answer:


When is the actions of one nation dangerous to other nations and, as such, open to intervention by other nations?
If the action of the nation does not require intervention by other nations, how should the people of the nation be protected from the regime in power?
Should "free" migration between nations be permitted in order to permit refugees to escape brutal regimes?
Should "inspectors" be installed in all countries having a certain level of capability?
Should particular political standards (ie. democracy) be forcefully be promoted by the central body (ie. the UN)?
...etc...


All excellent questions, and ones that need to be answered. As I am in the anti-war camp, my peeve is that I wonder if GWB has asked himself these questions. I also wonder if the US would ever submit to the obligations it feels others shoule submit to.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Number Six
Without enforcement, rules by the UN don't mean anything. So what is the enforcement mechanisim? That is where the question gets really messy and political.

If you (or your country) formally accepts the rules, then you buy into being (part of) the enforcement process. If the rules are not well-crafted and well-understood, then your (or your country's) commitment to being (part of) the enforcement process is likely to be ill-defined and, therefore, easily slipped out of at "tough" times.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by dsm

Given that such clarity goes against the "desires" of many regimes around the world, are we going to have to have somebody (ie. the US) dictate the resolutions and then ram them down everyone else's throat? :eek:

No, we can use the current process to generate the resolutions. I'm just suggesting the process should be streamlined, clarified and armed with some sort reasonable enforcement clause. The resolutions will still be voted on.

Isn't that a little like asking the Detroit Tigers to take on the New York Yankees? With Steinbrenner spending like mad to acquire the best "weapons of mass destruction", the Tigers chances of winning aren't that good... :(
No, its like asking the rest of the league for a team to volunteer to take on the Yankees, with the help of the best players from whatever teams want to help. The odds are alot better then!
There are other means of enforcement besides war. Nations could be temporarily suspended from the U.N. or subjected to a forced trade embargo. I understand that threats of force against the U.S. won't work, but that is just a reality the rest of world is going to have to live with.

[dsm]

Originally posted by corplinx
I think that to answer your question best, I should wait for the smoke to clear and the answers to reveal themselves.

Chicken? ;)

(Of course, I haven't answered the questions either, but that's the advantage of asking them. :p )

[Denise]

Why are the questions relevent, and why do you think they are?

[dsm]

Originally posted by EvilYeti

No, we can use the current process to generate the resolutions. I'm just suggesting the process should be streamlined, clarified and armed with some sort reasonable enforcement clause. The resolutions will still be voted on.


Hmmm. Yeah, just like we get clear and simple laws from the Congress. Just let them vote on the resolution after all the backroom wrangling. :rolleyes:

:D

[dsm]

Originally posted by Denise
Why are the questions relevent, and why do you think they are?

They're relavent because similar situations like the one with Iraq are likely to happen again in the future.

Those who forget or ignore the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them in the future.

[Denise]

Originally posted by dsm


They're relavent because similar situations like the one with Iraq are likely to happen again in the future.

Those who forget or ignore the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them in the future.

Just like the poll takers your questions are subjective. They are important because you feel they are important. Whether or not they are important is no clear. At least to me.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Denise


Just like the poll takers your questions are subjective. They are important because you feel they are important. Whether or not they are important is no clear. At least to me.

They are important because they are all related to the current war. And if history teaches us one thing, it is that war leads to massive tragedy and suffering. It would be nice, if there is a choice of whether to have a war or not, as there just was in this current one, that there are good reasons for having it, and processes to avoid having one. No war is always better than having a war if there is a peacful alternative to the violent one.

[Denise]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


They are important because they are all related to the current war. And if history teaches us one thing, it is that war leads to massive tragedy and suffering. It would be nice, if there is a choice of whether to have a war or not, as there just was in this current one, that there are good reasons for having it, and processes to avoid having one. No war is always better than having a war if there is a peacful alternative to the violent one.

And sometimes war leads to less casualties than no war. Can you think of some examples? I know you can.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Denise


And sometimes war leads to less casualties than no war. Can you think of some examples? I know you can.

I am not saying there aren't. I made the point that if there is a peaceful solution to a problem and a violent solution, the peaceful one is obviously the preferable one.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Denise
Just like the poll takers your questions are subjective. They are important because you feel they are important. Whether or not they are important is no clear. At least to me.

You're also missing the forest through the trees by focusing on my list of questions rather than on the main question I asked. More than being subjective, that is meant to begin a dialogue that we should all be undertaking with the example of the Iraq war and what led up to it fresh in our minds.