The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
>Sorry, a lot of posts from me today. Bob, the UN isn't homogeneous. In 1948, two strands came together to found it: the US State Department who founded the IMF, Security Council strands, and left wing diplomats and organizations who founded the UN Commission on Human Rights, ECOSAC strand. So -- left wings and right wings, right from the beginning. You can see that in how the US forced the split of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights into two conventions: Political and Civil rights, and Economic and Social rights, the latter implicating the just distribution of resources through the State, ie socialism. The US ofcourse has not ratified the latter, That's a brief answer, Philippa ===== Original Message From bob.steel1@juno.com ===== >On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 12:22:29 -0300 (ADT) H Sutter <citext@chebucto.ns.ca> >writes: >> >>It isn't only the "Arab world" that "no longer >>draw[s] a distinction" between the UN and the US. >>It's the whole world. At least those people in >>it who put humanity above power and money grabs. > >Is the humanitarians who see the UN as a mere puppet of the UN, or is it >the people who put power above all who draw no distinction between the US >and UN? > >I am confused. I can't figure out who/what the UN is. > >>As someone aptly put it: the UN is 'a government >>institution in a capitalist world'. And it's a > >Yes, but it is more than that. It the SC, but also the general assembly, >and the people of the world, and the charter, and the US (who can usually >control the SC when it wants). Is the UN the aid agencies? The blue >helmets which must be borrowed from member states? It seems it is all and >none of these, depending on time and viewpoint. > >>capitalist world that's on an exploitation >>rampage - prepared to stamp out all human obstacles, >>if need be with cruise missiles. The UN is seen as >>a tool in this quest. >>--- >> >>Dear List, >> >>In her article, Megan K. Stack of the LA Times >>stops just short of suggesting that the "Arab >>world" was jubilant over the attack on the UN HQ >>in Baghdad. Watch out! You are being manipulated >>again. > >Is there a time I am not being manipulated?? But as I can't decide who >the UN is, neither can I decide who the "Arab world" is, nor who the >"Iraqis" are. > >I hear that the UN was attacked because it is regarded as part of the >US/UK invaders, and there's truth in that -- but they are not identical. >As a tactic to discourage other nations or "outsiders" from being in >Iraq, the bombing looks successful, if that WAS the intent. But that's >not all to the good. > >>There is no Us vs Them. It's only like-minded human >>beings struggling against an inhuman neocon/neolib >>world. > >You are correct. There is more in common among the Iraqi "human beings" >and non-Iraqi "human beings" than among the humans and the monsters of >whatever nationality. Those who love freedom and humanity, no matter from >where, can be of help to the Iraqis, and support self-determination. >Those who hate freedom (what Bush does, as opposed to what he says) are >destructive, even if they are Iraqi. > >Perhaps I misjudged, but aside from some criticism I have read recently, >I think Vieira De Mello did have good intention. There were/are others in >the UN who are "human beings". I think I can usually tell the difference, >but bombs never can. But then, most of us are part human and part >monster. > >Killing -- even killing invaders in self-defense -- makes us a little >more monsterous. Yet, I am not a complete pacifist: I am not smart, or >wise enough to be a pacifist. How then can I criticize others for >defending themselves? How can I condemn those who bombed the UN unless I >can at least relate thorough and practical solutions to the terrorism the >Iraqis suffer under the invaders? > >Even assuming De Mello was a very good person, is his becoming >"collateral damage" less justifiable (what a word...) than the dead >Iraqis? It is a rotten situation all around, with perhaps no "good" >answers, but as for the sanctions, the invasion, the corruption of the >UN, the greed, terror, torture, and other Stations of Hell in Iraq, the >blame can be readily put on Bush, the war industries, the greedy >corporations -- "the usual suspects". The question of targets, then, >should take this into account -- not only the softness or the effect. > >In terms of public opinion and allies, but also in terms of the "moral >high ground" -- which somehow seems to have an subtle but powerful effect > -- the closer attacks are on the truly guily parties attacks, the more >effective in the long term, and the less monsterousness is created or >propagated. By way of Abraham's plea for Sodom and Ghemorrah, were there >not 10 righteous men at the UN? > > >________________________________________________________________ >The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! >Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! >Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! > >_______________________________________________ >Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. >To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss >To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk >All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk