tomder55
Oct 5, 2007, 04:08 AM
U.N. envoy reports on Myanmar as China opposes action | International | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN0438880620071005?pageNumber=1)
They are using the non-interference in internal affairs gambit .
Beijing's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya told reporters, "There are problems there in Myanmar but these problems still, we believe, are basically internal. No international-imposed solution can help the situation," Wang said. "We want the government there to handle this issue."...
Wrechard at Belmont Club makes the following grim asessment of the UN
The UN has become a place where totalitarian regimes block any possibility of change by invoking "national dignity" and "noninterference". At the same time the UN insists it is the only "legitimate" venue to discuss political affairs, an assertion with which a large number of "patriots" agree.
With national unilateral action de-legitimized and international inaction guaranteed, the only way forward against the Burmese tyrants appears to be a networked resistance of private individuals in whatever legal ways this can be attempted. This is the bitter fruit of so-called transnationalism: a world paralyzed by the veto of tinpot strongmen; a world where all licitness is vested in an organization which has decided, as a matter of principle, to hoard it and do nothing further. The "international system" is so rotten that perhaps it can no longer be saved. The UN may be beyond reform.
The Belmont Club: The UN and Burma (http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2007/10/un-and-burma.html)
Do you agree ? Certainly when Ambassador Bolton was there he was vigorously pushing for the type of reform the organization needed. Short-sighted opposition to him by Administration critic derailed what may have been the last best hope for the UN.
When Wrechard says that the only way forward against the Burmese tyrants appears to be a networked resistance of private individuals in whatever legal ways this can be attempted; I would point out that people only began to pay attention to Darfur when the killings became genocidal in nature. We already know from the last decade that when offered a chance to stop the massacres of 100s of thousands in Rhwanda ;the world body chose to collectively sit on their hands.
I for one am in favor of the formation of an organization of free nations larger that NATO . But where I disagree with Wrechard is that there are parts of the UN that are salvageable ;perhaps not in the organization itself ,but within the framework of an "international community" .
They are using the non-interference in internal affairs gambit .
Beijing's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya told reporters, "There are problems there in Myanmar but these problems still, we believe, are basically internal. No international-imposed solution can help the situation," Wang said. "We want the government there to handle this issue."...
Wrechard at Belmont Club makes the following grim asessment of the UN
The UN has become a place where totalitarian regimes block any possibility of change by invoking "national dignity" and "noninterference". At the same time the UN insists it is the only "legitimate" venue to discuss political affairs, an assertion with which a large number of "patriots" agree.
With national unilateral action de-legitimized and international inaction guaranteed, the only way forward against the Burmese tyrants appears to be a networked resistance of private individuals in whatever legal ways this can be attempted. This is the bitter fruit of so-called transnationalism: a world paralyzed by the veto of tinpot strongmen; a world where all licitness is vested in an organization which has decided, as a matter of principle, to hoard it and do nothing further. The "international system" is so rotten that perhaps it can no longer be saved. The UN may be beyond reform.
The Belmont Club: The UN and Burma (http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2007/10/un-and-burma.html)
Do you agree ? Certainly when Ambassador Bolton was there he was vigorously pushing for the type of reform the organization needed. Short-sighted opposition to him by Administration critic derailed what may have been the last best hope for the UN.
When Wrechard says that the only way forward against the Burmese tyrants appears to be a networked resistance of private individuals in whatever legal ways this can be attempted; I would point out that people only began to pay attention to Darfur when the killings became genocidal in nature. We already know from the last decade that when offered a chance to stop the massacres of 100s of thousands in Rhwanda ;the world body chose to collectively sit on their hands.
I for one am in favor of the formation of an organization of free nations larger that NATO . But where I disagree with Wrechard is that there are parts of the UN that are salvageable ;perhaps not in the organization itself ,but within the framework of an "international community" .