Bells:
I think I understand where Lucysnow is coming from too. Thanks for the references, though. I will be interested to read them when I have some time.
Lucysnow:
But James that's just my point, the U.N cannot protect others from the greatest military and economic might in the west and other member nations are aware of this, they are also aware that they cannot override the United States when it counts the most, not without suffering the consequences.
Yes, I know that. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world. Perhaps with an election coming up this year, the US people should consider changing their President for somebody with more respect for international law.
And what happens when they refuse? What happens when Iraq refuses? If the U.N sets one standard and then the U.S does what it wants then the U.N has no power over the U.S or ability to make these standards stick. Think about it? What difference do those standards make in reality?
In reality, the US cannot completely ignore the UN. Other countries are watching what the US does, and they exert pressure on it in subtle and also more obvious ways. The US cannot exempt itself from the world community, however much it may want to. It has to trade with other nations, and therefore the opinions of other nations have an impact on its actions. The UN as a body acts as at least a small brake on the US's (and other countries') ability to adopt a total "might is right" international policy.
The U.N has member dues and guess what the United States is the only country to not pay U.N dues, they simply refuse. There isnt anything the U.N can do about it because it is helpless against the mighty. The mighty of course being the U.S and what the U.S wants as opposed to all the other countries of which we refer to as the third world. This is why I say the U.N is a pyramid where western nations at the top dictate to the majority of members below, if the majority of members below disagree with those on top and set a standard, that standard is ignored. The standards are adhered to arbitrarily by those who have the power to resist without retribution. Iraq was never mighty and what might they did have was given to them through arms and finance by the U.S government.
True.
The U.N polices for the West, we cannot deny this, its a thin veil hiding global imperialism.
No. I would argue it is actually a small counter-weight <b>against</b> global imperialism.
Well this is where I disagree with you. These mother's themselves have been circumcised. How are you going to 'educate' them when the entire culture supports this ritual. The ritual may peter out over time and the culture revolutionize itself over time, but from the inside out, not at the insistence of the west.
Exactly. What you do is get alternative ideas into the culture, and let them propagate by themselves. You can't really impose these things by force. You have to provide people with information, and eventually they will come around to the right choices themselves - most of the time, anyway.
It is obnoxious and in the spirit of the missionary for us to say we are going to 'educate' those poor unknowing africans. Can you not see why so many have a viceral resistance towards this attitude?
Of course I can see, and I take your point. None of this is news to me, Lucysnow. As I said before, I think we agree about much more than you think.
PM is educated in the West. There are many conservative muslims who have been born and educated in the west and adhere to a conservative image of woman.
Yes, but I'm not talking of individuals specifically here, but progressions in societal attitudes. These things are gradual.
Yes, even often unaware that there may be an alternative.
Do you say the same about Mormons in Utah who practise polygamy?
I'm not sure if polygamy is necessarily a bad thing. Where's the harm?
Why don't we assume that these men and women are not educated? why don't we send 'teams' to show them the light? What about orthodox jews? Many of their marriages are arranged.
Again, it is difficult to argue generically that all arranged marriages are bad. You can't really compare these things to something like rape, which is universally agreed to be a bad thing.
Women cut their hair and cover it as a sign of modesty, it is law for them (try renting the israeli movie Kadosh), they sometimes mistreat their wives. Do assume they are unknowing and uneducated about womens rights or do we just accept them as living a religious life and leave them be?
There are multiple layers here. When you talk about mistreatment of a wife by her husband, many factors could be at work. Possibilities include:
1. The wife believes such treatment is acceptable.
2. The husband believes such treatment is acceptable.
3. The wife is educated about women's rights, but has no escape from her situation due to the nature of her society or particular cirumstances.
4. The husband is aware of women's rights in the abstract, but believes his own whims take precedence, for whatever reason (perhaps religious reasons, perhaps pure selfishness or disregard for others).
5. The husband is aware of women's rights in the abstract, but does not accept them as valid for religious reasons.
How do we deal with these possibilities? In some cases, education may help. In others, the finger should be pointed at the society or laws which condone the immoral behaviour.
That last point is important. Making something legal does not make it moral. Laws should always be judged by whether they are morally right.There is actually a moral duty to disobey an immoral law. How do we decide what is moral or immoral? The only defensible way is through <b>reason</b>. Religion is authority-based, and authority is the very thing we're examining when we look at law. Reason is the deeper, more fundamental, level here.
What about western domestic violence? We do not say its because they are uneducated no, then we say its because of jimmy's childhood or the woman suffers from low self esteem, but we do not chalk it all up to lack of education and say we have to now 'teach' them.
Jimmy's childhood cannot excuse Jimmy's violence, even if it partially explains it. Education may help Jimmy to recognise his propensity to take out his frustration in a violent manner. Of course, the normal reaction to domestic violence (if there is a reaction at all) is to simply lock Jimmy up in jail, where if he learns anything it will probably be how to be a better criminal. Maybe we should re-think our approach, don't you think?
I also don't believe that all homophobes are 'fearful' they just don't like them and it is their right to dislike whomever they please just like its the right of a racist to not want to associate with blacks or whites or whomever.
A person can dislike whomever they like, for whatever reason they like. We don't have thought police. It is only where that dislike leads to an impingement on the freedom or rights of another person (such as a member of the disliked group) that we need to take action.
Yes it is because the only way to pull it off is to globally police and set up a global judicial branch, override national sovereignty and set up a global education system overriding local cultural and religious institutions.
I think that's an extreme. But, if it comes to that, then I would certainly advocate overriding national sovereignty if it meant that the citizens of that nation get to live according to the standard of human rights they would wish to have were they given free choice in the matter.
And before you respond to this by saying "what if they want a religiously oppressive society", ask yourself whether it can ever be said people really want that. In such situations, it is always particular group who benefits from oppression at the expense of another group.
And in case you are wondering I am against that. I think its time for the West to mind its own business, they tend to create more problems than they solve.
I agree that the US, in particular, should stop blundering into other countries without first attempting to learn about the culture they are dealing with.
We are so quick to underestimate how, when, and in what way other people solve their own problems. You don't see african blacks having panels on how to solve the problems and re-educate americans on the issue of racism, you don't see the danish sending dignitaries to the States to show them how they can offer health care to all their citizens or take better care of the environment. If you don't see what I am getting at then I don't know what else to say.
Well, to use your examples, actually there is much condemnation from other countries of the US on issues of racism, lack of universal health care, and neglect of the environment. I suspect the difference you really have in mind here is backing up the condemnation with physical force. Clearly, the Danish cannot attack the US if it does something Denmark doesn't like.
I think the U.N should be dissolved. I think that the United States needs to bring its troops home and intervene only upon request and willingness of the american people (no drafting and no sending boys to war without full consent of the u.s citizens).
At least US citizens get a say at each election.
I think that Asia and Africa should create separate leagues with their own neighbors to perform the task of solving human rights problems within their own areas.
Such organisations already exist.
I think that people need to take responsibilty for their own nations and not demoted to begging hands.
I agree, but I would also like to see a more even distribution of wealth among nations. The world as a whole could easily end starvation globally if the will was there.
If we look at hunger we know that war is a factor in hunger, especially in Africa, but food aid creates dependency. Read Collins and Lappe World Hunger: 12 Myths this was their assessment:
1. A poor farming family considers children a source of labor in the fields
and social security for their parents' old age.
2. In spite of technological advances such as irrigation projects, new
improved seeds, and machinery the poor farmer is not much better off.
3 There is enough grain to provide everyone in the world an adequate diet
(3000 calories/day).
4. Food aid is only a temporary solution.
The issue of hunger is not a competition between developed and
developing countries.
5. Consumers and farmers in both rich and poor countries suffer from high
food prices and the expanding role of large corporations in food
production.
6. Poor farmers in developing countries need to be given an active role in
decisions about the land and the type of crops to be grown.
7. Land which could be used to grow food for the population of a developing
country has been converted to cash crops by large landowners.
8. When families are able to have food, security and good health care, many
will choose to have fewer children.
9. Overpopulation is not the cause of hunger; hunger is one of the causes of
overpopulation.
10. In 1991, the UN Food and Agricultural Organization reported a record
world production of staple foods.
11. The problem is not the supply of food; it is unequal distribution of food.
Sending food aid creates dependency and fosters paternalistic attitudes.
12. Large multinational food corporations control much of the world's food
trade.
13. The modem methods require more investment, something only rich
landowners can afford
This supports my point.
A world in chaos helps boost Western business: Excerpt from House Armed Services Committee article
"...the United States, by far the world's largest weapons exporter with $15 billion in annual business. Britain, Israel, Russia, France, Germany, China and Sweden are among other major players."
Sad, but true. This is the age-old problem of putting selfish interests ahead of humanitarian concerns.
The truth is that hunger, war, poverty and injustice are big business . The west cannot cause trouble with one hand and then pretend to want to solve it with the other and expect outside nations not to notice the hypocrisy.
You'll get no argument from me about that.
