T Nation

Hostility Towards the UN


#1

Why are some so vehemently opposed to a multilateral organization that seeks to promote international cooperation? As humanity moves into an increasingly interdependent and complex era,it is becoming clear that traditional national security predicated upon "security against" must necessarily evolve into common security, which strives to achieve "security with."

A forum for international diplomacy to mitigate conflict among member states is a necessary step towards cooperation. What are your thoughts concerning the UN? For those of you who are opposed to the UN, how do you feel towards other international regimes, such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons? Discuss.


#2

It has to do with autonomy. Most people don’t like people from another province or state making policy that affects them, why would you want some asshole from another country doing it too?


#3

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Why are some so vehemently opposed to a multilateral organization that seeks to promote international cooperation?
[/quote]

Because, like its predecessor the League of Nations it does the exact opposite. Countries form voting blocks which they use to harm their opponents’ interests.

Does it? Common as in the whole world holding hands with John Lennon’s corpse or common as in US/Western Europe and pro-EU Eastern Europe, South Korea, Taiwan, Israel and Japan against the rest of the world? Remembering of course that these countries have their own grievances with each other that could possibly conflagrate into military belligerence.

What is this 1919? Are you serious or joking?

I don’t think they’re fit to print.

[quote]
For those of you who are opposed to the UN, how do you feel towards other international regimes, such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons? Discuss.[/quote]

Yes Kim il Sung and Ahmadinejad would be most enthused. And Russia would love to help the west contain these fruitcakes to help their US friends.


#4

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#5

[quote]Chushin wrote:
My thoughts?

Impotent, ineffective, charade. [/quote]

I’ll add corrupt to that list as well. Although, I suppose the argument could be made that it is not any more corrupt than any one government. I don’t know that I would agree with that stance, if only because the more removed a government is from its electorate the less likely you can rein it in when it inevitably oversteps, but you could certainly argue that.

Points go to Matty for the autonomy quote as well, which again has (partially) to do with distance of government from the nominal electorate, in this case the voters of any one country that is a part of the United Nations. This is a point that is not restricted to people in the US either, as Brtiain has had a history of people opposed to the EU for similar reasons (it is granted that the EU has much more meddling with domestic policies than the UN, but the general concept is similar for those critical of the organization)

The UN is a brilliant concept that is hideously malperforming.


#6

This sums it up…


#7

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Why are some so vehemently opposed to a multilateral organization that seeks to promote international cooperation? As humanity moves into an increasingly interdependent and complex era,it is becoming clear that traditional national security predicated upon “security against” must necessarily evolve into common security, which strives to achieve “security with.”

A forum for international diplomacy to mitigate conflict among member states is a necessary step towards cooperation. What are your thoughts concerning the UN? For those of you who are opposed to the UN, how do you feel towards other international regimes, such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons? Discuss.[/quote]

Because no group of humans in the history of the world have been able to benevolently cooperate even under the guise of international diplomacy or peace. Where humans are involved, you can guarantee there is going to be corruption, uncooperative actions, and clusterfucks. People do what is in their best interest for them and their own.


#8

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Why are some so vehemently opposed to a multilateral organization that seeks to promote international cooperation? As humanity moves into an increasingly interdependent and complex era,it is becoming clear that traditional national security predicated upon “security against” must necessarily evolve into common security, which strives to achieve “security with.”

A forum for international diplomacy to mitigate conflict among member states is a necessary step towards cooperation. What are your thoughts concerning the UN? For those of you who are opposed to the UN, how do you feel towards other international regimes, such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons? Discuss.[/quote]

Because no group of humans in the history of the world have been able to benevolently cooperate even under the guise of international diplomacy or peace. Where humans are involved, you can guarantee there is going to be corruption, uncooperative actions, and clusterfucks. People do what is in their best interest for them and their own.

[/quote]

It’s hard enough to get the fifty niffty United States to function as one.


#9

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Why are some so vehemently opposed to a multilateral organization that seeks to promote international cooperation? As humanity moves into an increasingly interdependent and complex era,it is becoming clear that traditional national security predicated upon “security against” must necessarily evolve into common security, which strives to achieve “security with.”

A forum for international diplomacy to mitigate conflict among member states is a necessary step towards cooperation. What are your thoughts concerning the UN? For those of you who are opposed to the UN, how do you feel towards other international regimes, such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons? Discuss.[/quote]

Because no group of humans in the history of the world have been able to benevolently cooperate even under the guise of international diplomacy or peace. Where humans are involved, you can guarantee there is going to be corruption, uncooperative actions, and clusterfucks. People do what is in their best interest for them and their own.

[/quote]

It’s hard enough to get the fifty niffty United States to function as one. [/quote]

Hell it is hard enough to get a small city to function.


#10

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Why are some so vehemently opposed to a multilateral organization that seeks to promote international cooperation? As humanity moves into an increasingly interdependent and complex era,it is becoming clear that traditional national security predicated upon “security against” must necessarily evolve into common security, which strives to achieve “security with.”

A forum for international diplomacy to mitigate conflict among member states is a necessary step towards cooperation. What are your thoughts concerning the UN? For those of you who are opposed to the UN, how do you feel towards other international regimes, such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons? Discuss.[/quote]

Because no group of humans in the history of the world have been able to benevolently cooperate even under the guise of international diplomacy or peace. Where humans are involved, you can guarantee there is going to be corruption, uncooperative actions, and clusterfucks. People do what is in their best interest for them and their own.

[/quote]

Western Europe after the Second World War is empirical evidence of embedded trust among nation states, which is beyond the continent cooperation you maintain has never transpired. As early as 1951, with the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community, the example of post war Europe strongly contradicts your theists. It is not an an example of collective security (think alliances) , but a realization of a mature security community that has actually transcended the security paradox. You maintain that it is impossible for human communities (states) to beyond the logic of fear, while there are numerous concrete examples of cooperation, and a salient example of trust embodied in the European security community. You also make the mistake of ignoring the role the time that identity plays in formulating interests. Identities are not static and are constructed intersubjectively. In the example of Europe, once synonymous with war and Realpolitik, parallel "Is"became “we.” The development of the European security community is a remarkable event in history which profoundly and directly contradicts the fatalistic classical realism your argument is based upon.


#11

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Why are some so vehemently opposed to a multilateral organization that seeks to promote international cooperation? As humanity moves into an increasingly interdependent and complex era,it is becoming clear that traditional national security predicated upon “security against” must necessarily evolve into common security, which strives to achieve “security with.”

A forum for international diplomacy to mitigate conflict among member states is a necessary step towards cooperation. What are your thoughts concerning the UN? For those of you who are opposed to the UN, how do you feel towards other international regimes, such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons? Discuss.[/quote]

Because no group of humans in the history of the world have been able to benevolently cooperate even under the guise of international diplomacy or peace. Where humans are involved, you can guarantee there is going to be corruption, uncooperative actions, and clusterfucks. People do what is in their best interest for them and their own.

[/quote]

Western Europe after the Second World War is empirical evidence of embedded trust among nation states, which is beyond the continent cooperation you maintain has never transpired. As early as 1951, with the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community, the example of post war Europe strongly contradicts your theists. It is not an an example of collective security (think alliances) , but a realization of a mature security community that has actually transcended the security paradox. You maintain that it is impossible for human communities (states) to beyond the logic of fear, while there are numerous concrete examples of cooperation, and a salient example of trust embodied in the European security community. You also make the mistake of ignoring the role the time that identity plays in formulating interests. Identities are not static and are constructed intersubjectively. In the example of Europe, once synonymous with war and Realpolitik, parallel "Is"became “we.” The development of the European security community is a remarkable event in history which profoundly and directly contradicts the fatalistic classical realism your argument is based upon. [/quote]

You seem to have forgotten the Soviet Union , East Germany etc


#12

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Why are some so vehemently opposed to a multilateral organization that seeks to promote international cooperation? As humanity moves into an increasingly interdependent and complex era,it is becoming clear that traditional national security predicated upon “security against” must necessarily evolve into common security, which strives to achieve “security with.”

A forum for international diplomacy to mitigate conflict among member states is a necessary step towards cooperation. What are your thoughts concerning the UN? For those of you who are opposed to the UN, how do you feel towards other international regimes, such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons? Discuss.[/quote]

Because no group of humans in the history of the world have been able to benevolently cooperate even under the guise of international diplomacy or peace. Where humans are involved, you can guarantee there is going to be corruption, uncooperative actions, and clusterfucks. People do what is in their best interest for them and their own.

[/quote]

Western Europe after the Second World War is empirical evidence of embedded trust among nation states, which is beyond the continent cooperation you maintain has never transpired. As early as 1951, with the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community, the example of post war Europe strongly contradicts your theists. It is not an an example of collective security (think alliances) , but a realization of a mature security community that has actually transcended the security paradox. You maintain that it is impossible for human communities (states) to beyond the logic of fear, while there are numerous concrete examples of cooperation, and a salient example of trust embodied in the European security community. You also make the mistake of ignoring the role the time that identity plays in formulating interests. Identities are not static and are constructed intersubjectively. In the example of Europe, once synonymous with war and Realpolitik, parallel "Is"became “we.” The development of the European security community is a remarkable event in history which profoundly and directly contradicts the fatalistic classical realism your argument is based upon. [/quote]

You seem to have forgotten the Soviet Union , East Germany etc
[/quote]

Read again. My post leads with Western Europe, which began to transcend the security paradox in 1951 with the establishment of the ECSC, which fused German and French industrial resources essential for waging war. That goes far beyond the fatalism of the logic of fear or of continent cooperation, and marks the beginning of embedded trust among nation-states, something that Thucydides or Hobbes thought to be impossible.


#13

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Why are some so vehemently opposed to a multilateral organization that seeks to promote international cooperation? As humanity moves into an increasingly interdependent and complex era,it is becoming clear that traditional national security predicated upon “security against” must necessarily evolve into common security, which strives to achieve “security with.”

A forum for international diplomacy to mitigate conflict among member states is a necessary step towards cooperation. What are your thoughts concerning the UN? For those of you who are opposed to the UN, how do you feel towards other international regimes, such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons? Discuss.[/quote]

Because no group of humans in the history of the world have been able to benevolently cooperate even under the guise of international diplomacy or peace. Where humans are involved, you can guarantee there is going to be corruption, uncooperative actions, and clusterfucks. People do what is in their best interest for them and their own.

[/quote]

Western Europe after the Second World War is empirical evidence of embedded trust among nation states, which is beyond the continent cooperation you maintain has never transpired. As early as 1951, with the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community, the example of post war Europe strongly contradicts your theists. It is not an an example of collective security (think alliances) , but a realization of a mature security community that has actually transcended the security paradox. You maintain that it is impossible for human communities (states) to beyond the logic of fear, while there are numerous concrete examples of cooperation, and a salient example of trust embodied in the European security community. You also make the mistake of ignoring the role the time that identity plays in formulating interests. Identities are not static and are constructed intersubjectively. In the example of Europe, once synonymous with war and Realpolitik, parallel "Is"became “we.” The development of the European security community is a remarkable event in history which profoundly and directly contradicts the fatalistic classical realism your argument is based upon. [/quote]

You seem to have forgotten the Soviet Union , East Germany etc
[/quote]

Read again. My post leads with Western Europe, which began to transcend the security paradox in 1951 with the establishment of the ECSC, which fused German and French industrial resources essential for waging war. That goes far beyond the fatalism of the logic of fear or of continent cooperation, and marks the beginning of embedded trust among nation-states, something that Thucydides or Hobbes thought to be impossible. [/quote]
Despite the ECSC and subsequent treaty of Paris the Eastern block remained a hostile totalitarian state throughout the Cold War. That’s why so many foreign troops were stationed there. That’s why they spied on each other continuously. That’s why the Eastern block harboured, armed and trained Bader Meinhoff and the PLO resulting in the murders of German civilians, police and the Munich Olympics attack.


#14

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Why are some so vehemently opposed to a multilateral organization that seeks to promote international cooperation? [/quote]

Because I have enough power hungry elitist leftist trying to tell me how to live, because I’m somehow not good enough for self determination in my own home town, home state, and more so in my Federal Government.

I certainly don’t need unelected, international “daddies” telling me how to live my life on top of that.


#15

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Why are some so vehemently opposed to a multilateral organization that seeks to promote international cooperation? As humanity moves into an increasingly interdependent and complex era,it is becoming clear that traditional national security predicated upon “security against” must necessarily evolve into common security, which strives to achieve “security with.”

A forum for international diplomacy to mitigate conflict among member states is a necessary step towards cooperation. What are your thoughts concerning the UN? For those of you who are opposed to the UN, how do you feel towards other international regimes, such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons? Discuss.[/quote]

Because no group of humans in the history of the world have been able to benevolently cooperate even under the guise of international diplomacy or peace. Where humans are involved, you can guarantee there is going to be corruption, uncooperative actions, and clusterfucks. People do what is in their best interest for them and their own.

[/quote]

Western Europe after the Second World War is empirical evidence of embedded trust among nation states, which is beyond the continent cooperation you maintain has never transpired. As early as 1951, with the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community, the example of post war Europe strongly contradicts your theists. It is not an an example of collective security (think alliances) , but a realization of a mature security community that has actually transcended the security paradox. You maintain that it is impossible for human communities (states) to beyond the logic of fear, while there are numerous concrete examples of cooperation, and a salient example of trust embodied in the European security community. You also make the mistake of ignoring the role the time that identity plays in formulating interests. Identities are not static and are constructed intersubjectively. In the example of Europe, once synonymous with war and Realpolitik, parallel "Is"became “we.” The development of the European security community is a remarkable event in history which profoundly and directly contradicts the fatalistic classical realism your argument is based upon. [/quote]

I’m not saying you’re wrong here, but is it really prudent to take a region so effected by significant warfare as a prime example of the point you’re trying to make?

I mean, should it not be taken with a grain of salt? Because if you remove WWII from the equation, does it still happen to this degree? If America isn’t an industrial power at the time, does it still happen to this degree? If the collective “governments” of the leftist states doesn’t have the foothold over their neighbors that it did, does it still happen?

I don’t know the answers to those questions, maybe you do, FP isn’t a strong suit of mine, but I can’t help but think those actions were a reaction and not really proactive, which doesn’t defeat your point, but rubs it with the preverbal grain of salt.


#16

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Why are some so vehemently opposed to a multilateral organization that seeks to promote international cooperation? As humanity moves into an increasingly interdependent and complex era,it is becoming clear that traditional national security predicated upon “security against” must necessarily evolve into common security, which strives to achieve “security with.”

A forum for international diplomacy to mitigate conflict among member states is a necessary step towards cooperation. What are your thoughts concerning the UN? For those of you who are opposed to the UN, how do you feel towards other international regimes, such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons? Discuss.[/quote]

Because no group of humans in the history of the world have been able to benevolently cooperate even under the guise of international diplomacy or peace. Where humans are involved, you can guarantee there is going to be corruption, uncooperative actions, and clusterfucks. People do what is in their best interest for them and their own.

[/quote]

Western Europe after the Second World War is empirical evidence of embedded trust among nation states, which is beyond the continent cooperation you maintain has never transpired. As early as 1951, with the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community, the example of post war Europe strongly contradicts your theists. It is not an an example of collective security (think alliances) , but a realization of a mature security community that has actually transcended the security paradox. You maintain that it is impossible for human communities (states) to beyond the logic of fear, while there are numerous concrete examples of cooperation, and a salient example of trust embodied in the European security community. You also make the mistake of ignoring the role the time that identity plays in formulating interests. Identities are not static and are constructed intersubjectively. In the example of Europe, once synonymous with war and Realpolitik, parallel "Is"became “we.” The development of the European security community is a remarkable event in history which profoundly and directly contradicts the fatalistic classical realism your argument is based upon. [/quote]

You seem to have forgotten the Soviet Union , East Germany etc
[/quote]

Read again. My post leads with Western Europe, which began to transcend the security paradox in 1951 with the establishment of the ECSC, which fused German and French industrial resources essential for waging war. That goes far beyond the fatalism of the logic of fear or of continent cooperation, and marks the beginning of embedded trust among nation-states, something that Thucydides or Hobbes thought to be impossible. [/quote]
Despite the ECSC and subsequent treaty of Paris the Eastern block remained a hostile totalitarian state throughout the Cold War. That’s why so many foreign troops were stationed there. That’s why they spied on each other continuously. That’s why the Eastern block harboured, armed and trained Bader Meinhoff and the PLO resulting in the murders of German civilians, police and the Munich Olympics attack.

[/quote]

Again, I am discussing the mature security community that developed in Western Europe. The heb transcended the security paradox, a remarkable achievement.


#17

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Why are some so vehemently opposed to a multilateral organization that seeks to promote international cooperation? As humanity moves into an increasingly interdependent and complex era,it is becoming clear that traditional national security predicated upon “security against” must necessarily evolve into common security, which strives to achieve “security with.”

A forum for international diplomacy to mitigate conflict among member states is a necessary step towards cooperation. What are your thoughts concerning the UN? For those of you who are opposed to the UN, how do you feel towards other international regimes, such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons? Discuss.[/quote]

Because no group of humans in the history of the world have been able to benevolently cooperate even under the guise of international diplomacy or peace. Where humans are involved, you can guarantee there is going to be corruption, uncooperative actions, and clusterfucks. People do what is in their best interest for them and their own.

[/quote]

Western Europe after the Second World War is empirical evidence of embedded trust among nation states, which is beyond the continent cooperation you maintain has never transpired. As early as 1951, with the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community, the example of post war Europe strongly contradicts your theists. It is not an an example of collective security (think alliances) , but a realization of a mature security community that has actually transcended the security paradox. You maintain that it is impossible for human communities (states) to beyond the logic of fear, while there are numerous concrete examples of cooperation, and a salient example of trust embodied in the European security community. You also make the mistake of ignoring the role the time that identity plays in formulating interests. Identities are not static and are constructed intersubjectively. In the example of Europe, once synonymous with war and Realpolitik, parallel "Is"became “we.” The development of the European security community is a remarkable event in history which profoundly and directly contradicts the fatalistic classical realism your argument is based upon. [/quote]

Just give it time. And how corrupt is that entity already?

Maybe your faith in humanity is much higher than mine.


#18

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Why are some so vehemently opposed to a multilateral organization that seeks to promote international cooperation? As humanity moves into an increasingly interdependent and complex era,it is becoming clear that traditional national security predicated upon “security against” must necessarily evolve into common security, which strives to achieve “security with.”

A forum for international diplomacy to mitigate conflict among member states is a necessary step towards cooperation. What are your thoughts concerning the UN? For those of you who are opposed to the UN, how do you feel towards other international regimes, such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons? Discuss.[/quote]

Because no group of humans in the history of the world have been able to benevolently cooperate even under the guise of international diplomacy or peace. Where humans are involved, you can guarantee there is going to be corruption, uncooperative actions, and clusterfucks. People do what is in their best interest for them and their own.

[/quote]

It’s hard enough to get the fifty niffty United States to function as one. [/quote]

Contingent cooperation and eventual long-term trust sufficient to transcend the security paradox does not require political integration. France and Germany are very much still nation-states.


#19

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Why are some so vehemently opposed to a multilateral organization that seeks to promote international cooperation? As humanity moves into an increasingly interdependent and complex era,it is becoming clear that traditional national security predicated upon “security against” must necessarily evolve into common security, which strives to achieve “security with.”

A forum for international diplomacy to mitigate conflict among member states is a necessary step towards cooperation. What are your thoughts concerning the UN? For those of you who are opposed to the UN, how do you feel towards other international regimes, such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons? Discuss.[/quote]

Because no group of humans in the history of the world have been able to benevolently cooperate even under the guise of international diplomacy or peace. Where humans are involved, you can guarantee there is going to be corruption, uncooperative actions, and clusterfucks. People do what is in their best interest for them and their own.

[/quote]

It’s hard enough to get the fifty niffty United States to function as one. [/quote]

Contingent cooperation and eventual long-term trust sufficient to transcend the security paradox does not require political integration. France and Germany are very much still nation-states. [/quote]

So we are talking just cooperating at the level to where we are not invading each other and constantly killing each other? I think we have split off into two different tracks.

Cooperating to merely get along and stay out of war is far from benevolent good for the entire human race. It still boils down to selfishness and watching out for your own best interests. If those interests were to change, you can bet your ass here comes war or at the very least cooperation would cease.


#20

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Why are some so vehemently opposed to a multilateral organization that seeks to promote international cooperation? As humanity moves into an increasingly interdependent and complex era,it is becoming clear that traditional national security predicated upon “security against” must necessarily evolve into common security, which strives to achieve “security with.”

A forum for international diplomacy to mitigate conflict among member states is a necessary step towards cooperation. What are your thoughts concerning the UN? For those of you who are opposed to the UN, how do you feel towards other international regimes, such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons? Discuss.[/quote]

Because no group of humans in the history of the world have been able to benevolently cooperate even under the guise of international diplomacy or peace. Where humans are involved, you can guarantee there is going to be corruption, uncooperative actions, and clusterfucks. People do what is in their best interest for them and their own.

[/quote]

It’s hard enough to get the fifty niffty United States to function as one. [/quote]

Contingent cooperation and eventual long-term trust sufficient to transcend the security paradox does not require political integration. France and Germany are very much still nation-states. [/quote]

So we are talking just cooperating at the level to where we are not invading each other and constantly killing each other? I think we have split off into two different tracks.

Cooperating to merely get along and stay out of war is far from benevolent good for the entire human race. It still boils down to selfishness and watching out for your own best interests. If those interests were to change, you can bet your ass here comes war or at the very least cooperation would cease.[/quote]

Hi!