Pax UN
Armed conflict is in decline all over the world, and one the principal reasons is the success of the United Nations in preventing war, according to the Commission on Human Security, an institute Co-Chaired by Sadako Ogata, former UN High Commissioner for Refugees and Amartya Sen, Nobel Laureate and Master of Trinity College, Cambridge in a report entitled War and Peace in the 21st Century. (Hat tip: Shrinkwrapped)
The key points are summarized in the report's overview:
- The number of armed conflicts around the world has declined by more than 40% since the early 1990s
- armed secessionist conflicts are at their lowest point since 1976
- Notwithstanding the horrors of Rwanda, Srebrenica and elsewhere, the number of genocides and politicides plummeted by 80% between the 1988 high point and 2001
- International crises, often harbingers of war, declined by more than 70% between 1981 and 2001
- The dollar value of major international arms transfers fell by 33% between 1990 and 2003. Global military expenditure and troop numbers declined sharply in the 1990s as well.
- The number of refugees dropped by some 45% between 1992 and 2003, as more and more wars came to an end
- Five out of six regions in the developing world saw a net decrease in core human rights abuses between 1994 and 2003
- The period since the end of World War II is the longest interval of uninterrupted peace between the major powers in hundreds of years.
- The number of actual and attempted military coups has been declining for more than 40 years. In 1963 there were 25 coups and attempted coups around the world, the highest number in the post–World War II period. In 2004 there were only 10 coup attempts—a 60% decline. All of them failed.
- "International terrorism is the only form of political violence that appears to be getting worse, but the data are contested"
The BBC notes that "The report credits intervention by the United Nations, plus the end of colonialism and the Cold War, as the main reasons for the decline in conflict." Not everyone agrees that these were the causal factors. Owen Greene, director of the Centre for International Co-operation and Security at Bradford University "cast doubt on its praise for the United Nations, saying the international body had been more successful at preventing conflicts from resuming than starting in the first place. 'Its record in preventing large-scale conflict has been rather poor'" he said.
Shrinkwrapped thinks two major factors are responsible for what is, by historical standards, an epidemic of peace:
- the fall of the expansionist, imperialist, communist, USSR; and
- the ascendance of a non-expansionist, non-imperialist power "despite the desperate claims and hysterical charges from the left"
The Commission on Human Security notes that the media has been remarkably oblivious to this surprising trend towards peace. That's not surprising given that probably nowhere has the process lauded by the Commission on Human Security been more in evidence than in Afghanistan, and more studiously ignored. The UNHCR itself admits that "more than 3.5 million Afghans have returned to their homeland since the end of 2001", one of the most remarkable reversals of refugee flows in history -- and then gives the credit to the United Nations -- "when the Bonn Agreement set Afghanistan on the long and bumpy road to political stability and socio-economic development." But what else happened in that time frame? Inquiring minds want to know.
Kofi Annan has recently made it known that he was for elections in Iraq all along. The restoration of constitutional rule in Iraq is destined to become yet another feather in the cap of the World Organization.
"The secretary-general pays tribute to the courage of the Iraqi people and congratulates the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq, as well as the thousands of Iraqi election workers and monitors, on having organized and carried out the referendum in such challenging circumstances," said the spokesman, Stephane Dujarric. The world organization had an electoral assistance team in Iraq to help with preparations leading up to the voting and continuing through the tally.
A Korean professor of Peace Studies published a syllabus in 2005 outlining the principal lessons underlying the remarkable spread of world peace.
1. Diplomacy, Negotiations and Conflict Resolution
2. Peace through Strength?
3. Disarmament and Arms Control
4. International Organizations
5. International Law
6. World Government
7. Ethical and Religious Perspectives
8. World Peace Model
9. World Peace through Pax UN
posted by wretchardthecat at 10/18/2005 12:27:00 AM
74 Comments:
Ronald Reagan once said, "You can accomplish anything as long as you don't care who gets the credit." This is what he meant.
But the lies underlying all these make me uneasy. Orwellian doublespeak at its finest.
Sure, the doers might not care about the credit, but when the UN and its supporters start believing their own lies, they might not be happy to find their worldview crashing down amidst the death of thousands.
yeah, lets not forget about the yankee hamburglars; hopefully all iraqis can feel the freedom that is the dollar menu.
mechanistically, what is more influential than the iraqis themselves? was mr annan wrong to construct this recent bit of history and history in the making in such a way? perhaps he should give a "holla" across the atlantic and sing praises until guts cease to spill over belts and instead retract into a pleasing european slenderness? while this mention of aesthetics may seem non sequitor, i feel it apt to remind one that what isnt mechanichal in nature, is likely just super-sized window dressing bs
Seriously, this is good news. A lot of people grew up wondering 'when is my generations World War 2 going to happen' and it didn't. We are living through the longest period of general peace in modern history. The fact has been observed. The explanation for it is contentious.
Yet like most things that are generally true, it is not exactly true. Families are separated, men are maimed, young men are buried -- in smaller number than before it's true -- but buried nonetheless so that the general peace can continue. Each day that begins normally, with children going off to school and people worrying about whether they are late for work, are days of blessing. Yet fain should we remember those who gave with no expectation of gratitude. "When you go home, tell them of us and say, for your tomorrow, we gave our today."
It's Pax all right
Pax Americana
Rat,
Read you last comment on the previous thread. Nice one. Still laughing.
Frankly, this report is rather scary for the massive self-delusion that allows such bold disconnects with the real causes-and-effects of the real world.
"Pax" Americana, like "Pax" Anything, exists by reason of the threat of the use of force. The fact that "terrorism" likewise works by way of threats ("present killings augur future killings, therefore you better do what I want") means that both "peace" and "war" are fluid in their interrelationships.
The U. N. report, it seems to me, is a top-heavy, lumbering repetition of the "hypostatizing" or essentializing of the meaning of 'PEACE.' It's as if "peace" were a fixed, real and physical entity, like some buried treasure which once sought after and found, could then be put in the bank; and not what it is in fact--a complexly dynamic set of relations among many competing interests, desires, phobias including the means to enforce the pursuit of all of these.
This is the kind of quasi-allegorical thinking that makes possible Kucinich's notion of a new U. S. cabinet office, the "Secretary of Peace." What would such an office do, what would it produce and what would what it produced look like? "Give Peace a Chance," as if peace and war were physical solids, and once you got the second out of your basement you could then have room for the first.
The notion that the present situation in Afghanistan is due to the really, truly heads-up thinking and quick action of bureaucrats is consistent with the bureaucratic delusion that they in fact , e.g., create wealth, make the world a better place to live in. It's a form, in short, of self-praise, because such burearcrats have all the phone numbers, and can make things happen. They know, for instance the phone numbers of the militaries of those member nations in the U. N. that still have operative militaries, and they can "make things happen" by getting these militaries to put boots on the ground and lives on the line. Bureaucracies, of course, never put boots on the ground, and few bureaucrats die in action.
Simply another sign of a bureaucratic organization in the midst of an unstoppable process of implosion.
Who's imploding exactly?
The decline of formally declared wars has resulted in genocide all over the planet, but at least the millions of dead people were not killed in a war, thank god. One could really reach and stretch and conclude, somehow, that the UN presence in Rwanda for instance prevented a war - hell, Canada maybe for all we know wanted to invade - but at least no standing army was wielding the machetes and clubs that butchered 10s of thousands. That much we can all be thankful for and the UN can rightfully thump its chest.
True, this is longest period of peace in modern history. But if we want long-term peace we need to go Roman:
When Octavion becomes emperor with his victory over Mark Antony and Cleopatra (of the line of Greek Ptolemaic Pharaohs) the period of peace which follows is known as Pax-Romana, lasting 300 years. It is the longest period of peace in the history of Greece.
The Roman emperors Nero and Hadrian take a special interest in Greece. Nero begins work on the Corinth Canal, using slave labor.
http://www.ahistoryofgreece.com/roman.htm
"Notwithstanding the horrors of Rwanda, Srebrenica and elsewhere, the number of genocides and politicides plummeted by 80% between the 1988 high point and 2001"
I would imagine if you allow genocides to proceed as far along as these did, there would not be a need for more by the perpetrators.
We must be winning if someone else is trying to claim the credit.
#1 (Sammler)
You are right on target. Of course, Dale Carnegie said it a long time before Ronald Reagon.
I would point to the policies of Reagan, Democracy, Capitalism, and the eventual defeat of communism as to the reason for the decline of wars. The UN has done little heavy lifting when it comes to keeping the peace.
(semi) OT: Saddam's Trial will start tomorrow.
Saddams's Trial
At the meal with journalists, Al-Jaafari quoted classical Arabic poetry and praised the ideas of America's founding fathers. He also thanked the United States for ridding Iraq of Saddam, supporting the country's transition to democratic rule and its leadership of the war on terror.
"Saddam is gone and we are moving ahead while he is part of the past," he said. "His case doesn't belong to just one nation, but the whole world. Iraqis would like to see justice done."
Al-Jaafari said he was puzzled, though, by what he described as the long time it took the Iraqi Special Tribunal to compile evidence against Saddam in the Dujail case.
"If we are to do a research project on Saddam's crimes, it will take a century to complete," he said.
"perhaps he should give a "holla" across the atlantic and sing praises until guts cease to spill over belts and instead retract into a pleasing european slenderness?"
Do Europeans have so much trouble getting enough food, then?
My question is, how much is this really a decline in wars, as opposed to some kind of blip. The time period talked about, approximately 15 years, is extremely short by historical standards. Like Wretchard, I'll take any good news I can get, but I am a bit uncomfortable calling it a long-term trend already.
Unfortunately, one of the side effects of the larger peace is terrorism. The losers realize that are losers and react with the same logic as teenagers kicking over mailboxes. And due to the larger peace we can't just go initiate the required disposal actions. The problem with being in a state of peace relative to big wars is that it makes so many indifferent to the small wars.
P.S. As near as I can tell, nigelhuffy is actually some sort of SPAM program. Makes as much sense, anyway.
Democracy, peace, the people decide.
I read a good part of the report last night.
The report lays out a distinct disdain for the 'The War On Terror' (their quotes) and rationalizes that the UN as catalyzed the decline in war. It makes the claim that the reason for terror being up is the US.
But it also states that the reason that the UN has been so successful is its credible willingness to use force.
I found those two bits of reasoning a bit at odds with each other.
Further, there is mention of the success in use sanctions and other "coercive, non violent" tactics as important to the UNs success.
The report is good for the numbers and trends it identifies. The conclusions conveniently ignore a great many factors such as Oil for Food / Palaces and the word 'Jihad' is absent from all of it. And the conclusion that the UN has catalyzed democratization throughout the world is a real joke.
Does anyone out there seriously think the UN in its present incarnation (or at all) will still be around in ten years? Or even five years?
If you've got no UN to flaunt these stupid reports, then what difference does it make what they choose to write?
I suppose we should remember that smaller wars are killing people in the same vicious way for the same apparently tangential, remote strategic objectives arising from the same inscrutable folk core of rivalries, symapthies and superstitions, but really - doesn't this UN report, epitomizing the current phase of the post-Monarchical socialist liberalism, only underscore the fact that what needs to be weeded out with some ruthlessness is precisely this kind of ultimately petty sentimentalism that smaller souls allow to distract them from a big, obvious, happy, merciful picture - which is by the way the only point of all these supposedly malicious intrigues among the Powers and their at least tacit clients? The fact that Ahmed the Smack Grower may lose his goat-herding livelihood and not have enough dowry to buy his third teenage bride or whatnot is honestly something I could give a sh*t about: burn it. Burn it all. They grow it up, burn it down again. They rise up with their AK47s, gun them down in the streets. Grow wheat, squash and apples like every other goddamn farmer in the world, you fools.
Oughtn't we to stop, correct the Babyboomers, reprimand the New York Times and Europe, call Russia a gigantic smacktard and declare its opinion self-obsolescent, congratulate India and Japan for their turn towards modernity - and allow everyone to get settled so we don't have another idiot fiasco like the Iraqi "insurgency" whose media credibility weapon was only created because of European public intransigence?
This is how mistaken historical interpretation does real, profound damage. Ultimately we will prevail, but this did not have to be this way. If it went more smoothly Iran would not be so impudent - or, if it was, it would look far more transparently ridiculous. But, again, European official opinion provides the press their plausible deniability and so on and on.
If they can get Mr Trump to do the renovation on the building the UN will still be hanging around in another decade.
The need to have a world forum has been seen as important,by US, for about 100 years, now. That need will not disolve, regardless of the bile that is produced.
We need to better manage how US monies are spent by the UN. We have mismanaged our 'power of the purse' for quite a while.
cntaylor,
I don't think anybody is calling it a long-term trend just yet but with more and more people becoming free throughout the world and the way information can travel throughout the world faster and faster you would have to say tomorrow is a better day than today and so on and so on. It's a compounding factor. We are truly on the threshold of a new dawn. Standby. It is going to be both exciting and glorious. Grab a beer, plant yourself down in front of the plasma and behold the exciting and happy new times coming. We are living in extremely important times right now. Lucky for us! Are children are truly fortunate.
To give substantive credit to the UN for any significant geopolitical event is like thanking Richard Chamberlin for medical advances wrought in the 60's as he played Dr. Kildare.
Iowahawk pegged the UN in this brutally funny depiction of the UN in action after the Tsunami of last year.
But as others have observed, something must be going right if bureaucrats with 20/80 hindsight now want to claim credit. Perhaps German history books will show how a brave Chancellor Schroeder, arm in arm with Kofi Annan and Jaques Chirac, pushed the US to stand up to its responsibility and bring representative government to Iraq as another UN victory (only if it is a big success of course).
Salve Pax Americana!
I would imagine if you allow genocides to proceed as far along as these did, there would not be a need for more by the perpetrators.
Bingo! We have a winner. There does not need to be a single cause but the obvious physical one of exhaustion. Just look at Africa, if you can stomach it; after colonialism, came the rise of the strongmen, military coups, civil wars and repeat as needed. If peace is there, it is because every other option has been tried and, frankly, the 'others' ready for slaughter have either left or already fill graves.
In other words, the world is now 'stable' because it hit rock bottom in the 20th century; it would almost be unthinkable to have a situation more conducive to small war than the Cold War, so we don't have it now.
The general, worldwide decline of the young male demographic might be the real reason for the corresponding decline in conflict. On the other hand, the relative abundance of this cohort in many Muslim countries would suggest that maybe unemployment, repressed sexuality, despair over attaining status can explain the violence emmanating from these sinkholes of humanity. As to the UN taking credit for any worldwide macro trends towards peace, they are obviously just the rooster taking credit for the dawn. Only in this case, the rooster never actually crowed. There were, of course, years of exhaustive discussions of crowing with other roosters in the only recognized, legitimate rooster forum. In the end they settled for a non-binding resolution underscoring the importance of crowing to the sunrise.
pd quig
The decline is not "worldwide".
Population decline is occurring in the "west".
Check the UN fact book for Iran. average age is still around 22+/-, Uzbeckistan is about the same. Across Central Asia young men abound.
Look at Mexico, there you may well find a shortage of young men, only because they have infilitrated north into US.
The Dr Erlich's "Population Bomb" was not taken seriously in South America and Mohammedan countries, while it was a quasi-religious text when I was in High School.
Words count and ideas matter.
Well of course words count and ideas matter, rat. But not to the illiterate which essentially include vast swaths of the troubled countries. There what matters more is tribe and opportunity. Remove, kill, an offending tribe, no genocide.
The ideas that emerged from the 60's took greater hold in Europe then here. The more "educated" and "civilized" the Society, the further down the road to self neutering they've traveled.
The Europeans regard US as uncivilizd oafs, we regard the "tribal" as being illiterate. The Romans held the Northern Europeans in contempt.
Beware the Barbarians
Civil war in third world countries must not count.
The combatants in these affairs lack many of the accoutrements of conventional armies but it is warfare nevertheless.
Should the UN apologists be allowed to define it otherwise?
Drat, I and many others feel no need for an organization such as the UN. I feel that some other organization with many fewer members (maybe about 3) might be helpful sometimes, but the ability to move swiftly is lost if even one other entity has to be consulted, that is the problem with all organizations of this type. By the way the US started as such an organization, I think and one of its major problems is moving fast enough even after the degree of evolution that has occurred.
Obviously the fall of the Soviet Union, has been a major benefit towards peace (fewer AK-47s and RPGs provided gratis to murders in the developing world). Globalization hasn't hurt either (war is bad for business). Pax Americana has obviously been a major driver.
This laughable self congratulation by the UN could end pretty quick if Iran arms itself with ballistic missiles carrying nuclear warheads. Likewise, if al Qaeda succeeds in killing Musharraf and Pakistan falls to Islamic screwballs then regional nuclear war with India would be probable.
The peace that we are enjoying now is a bit like the "peace" between World War One and World War Two.
These numbers support the fact that the Soviet Union, and the wars they waged against the US by proxy, were, eventually defeated, or yet, whose ruinous policies succeeded in destroying themselves. Such a convenient era, 88-03.
In the days where ruling might was obtained at the end of a sharp stick, there were many contenders. The advent of bronze upped the ante for war making technology and created the edge required to form nations and states. From bronze to smart weapons technology has found ways to contain those who would openly wage warfare. Like pressing on a balloon, retrospectively, terrorism is the logical bulge when all avenues are impeded.
The war to end all wars only ended those in the past. Let the UN administer peace while braver men create it. May the word go forth, that shall ye evil dictators who shall taunt and demand attention, that men with guns will come knocking down the door, pulling them by the scruff of the collar out into the street to a jeering mob. Iraq was said by some to become a Stalingrad, it has instead become a poignant message to those who would make threats to a nation thought to have no will. We will.
dave h
I do not totally disagree, the President does, though.
Every President since Wilson has advocated for a World Forum. We designed the UN, it is a child of US birthing at the Fairmont Hotel in San Francisco. It may have grown wayward, perhaps, but our child none the less. Even today it is the allowance we provide that allows the UN to operate.
Much like a disruptive teen we are left with few good choices. Tough Love seemingly the best. Hopefully Mr Bolton is there to provide some. It seems we should pursue that course with the UN, as niether Mrs Clinton or Mr Giuliani are likely to remove US from it, after '08.
Yes, yes, yes, the barbarian at the gates and all...but that handily ignores that barbarians, barbados, actually existed (do exist now). 'Civilization' actually means something, rat, it's not some feel-good multi-culti expression. Put another way, through a million people into a pot and a civilization they do not make. The inner face of a state, its laws, is what defines a civilization. Care to argue? Go to the Congo and tell me all about the Congolese 'civilization.'
And it also brushes under the table that yes, illiteracy is a major feature of the third world. They can't argue over Huntington, Scheur, the neo-cons, and the left, because they have never heard of them. No, they go to war because, well, war is fun. Its the only way for a miserable bachelor to drag off a pretty girl, for a loser to command other men, grab property, an old vet to exercise his skills, and often war is the only world boys, men have ever known. Because some men are killers, born and bred, and they lead other killers, dupes, and innocents.
Democracy to tribalists is like home to the professional soldier; a myth. There are other things in play here.
Precisely Dan. This is why we shall need to go to war again, and soon. May we be more brutal to the quislings who attempt to filch the US of the respect it merits? Next time they think, the Left will bring ‘em down. War is inevitable.
Once upon a time, we were all slapping each other on the back over the inexorable march of the enlightenment and the unprecedented gains in liberalism that were witnessed in the latter half of the 19th century and the first part of the 20th, and then the entire thing came crashing down and a new century of fascism and horror was born.
I mention this not as a prediction, but as a warning. Man has never lived in a world of such peace, so there is literally no data available to tell us what to expect. Whenever we enter the unknown, we enter dangerous times. What happens when we start to believe in a world with no cost? What happens when our people subscribe to a world of rational behavior? What happens when we get our manageable world?
We should be wary of who mixes our drink. Ideas, once drunk, can cause unconsciousness, and in this new century of peace we cannot afford to be impaired.
If the American dream ever dies, it will die in its sleep. Be suspicious of who wants to put us there.
OT:
for anyone on the East Coast USA interested in signit intel during the cold war, the Center for Cryptologic History at the NSA is hosting "Three Days of Cryptologic History"
26, 27, 28 October 2005 at
Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory,
Kossiakoff Center. Its open to the public. Registration will be available until 10/20.
http://www.nsa.gov/cch/cch00020.cfm
The 27th will deal mainly with new information derived from the Venona cables. the 28th will deal with operations during the viet nam war. the cost is $35@ day but you can opt to attend only one day. I'm going on the 27th. I've got an email into the public affairs office about what rules pertain to reporting the event. should be interesting.
Kofi Annan has recently made it known that he was for elections in Iraq all along. The restoration of constitutional rule in Iraq is destined to become yet another feather in the cap of the World Organization.
But of course! Can anyone seriously doubt that the UN did not support such an outcome all along? Let's take a moment to recount all the ways the UN helped bring about the "opportunity for all Iraqis to move away from violence and to unite in a spirit of national reconciliation to build a democratic, unified and prosperous Iraq."
Anybody? Um... Anybody?
Annan said the United Nations "will continue to do all it can to help the Iraqi people to that end."
here's a pretty good piece about the immense US current account deficits.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1504600/posts
GWB is a divider not a uniter… it is precisely so because of those who would agitate against him, it takes two to tango and the music is still playing.
We are bound to a future of Low Intensity Conflict. Those conflicts will strive to maintain the sovereignty of nation states, whilst those who oppose order will labor to disintegrate the same. To disrespect the boundaries of nations, to expand into a greater conflict, will bring more rapidly the dissolution of peace amongst states and the conflict will bloom into first a regional and then a world war. When China, Russia, and Germany see just cause in our destruction, the ineludible outcome will be global thermonuclear war. Embrace LIC. Enjoy the cessation while it lasts, no one ever attained glory by starting peace.
aristides said: Man has never lived in a world of such peace, so there is literally no data available to tell us what to expect.
Actually, we did, once. The Pax Romana it was called. After a few hundred years of peace after its last major rival (Carthage) was defeated, the Romans no longer had what it took to hold off the barbarians when they finally came.
The Roman elite had their slaves doing their work for them, the old Roman middle class which provided their fighting men and NCOs in time of conflicted degenerated into a welfare class, whose votes were bought by the highest bidder.
When the German barbarians started migrating south, the Romans discovered that wars are won by the side with the actual willingness to fight
"The Roman elite had their slaves doing their work for them, the old Roman middle class which provided their fighting men and NCOs in time of conflicted degenerated into a welfare class, whose votes were bought by the highest bidder."
I don't suppose the EggMcMuffinish mores of the American middle class could result in a similar McGriddle dilemma?
Come Now. PAX AMERICANA IS RIGHT.
America is the World's hyper-power. That's what the French say and arent they always right?
America is to blame for everything in the world.
Surely, they too can be blamed for this disturbing lack of violent conflict since the fall of USSR.
Wretchard, brother, could you please, please, please hire smarter trolls. A certain McIdiot has really brought out my nostalgia for a certain Drooling Stooge.
verc
Even when we agree, you like to argue about it.
Civilization is in the eye of the beholder, as is much in life. The Europeans believe they are at the "peak" of Civilization.
I hope the US never sinks so low.
Many think of the US as a great Barbarian Nation, those in China, for example.
I celebrate the Barbarian aspects of America, while having visited the great Art Museums of US and Europe, I find more pleasure on the back of a horse, exploring the endless horizon of the American West.
I hail the individual over the collective, the rights of the minority above the fear and loathing of the majority.
Perhaps that makes me a Conservative, a wingnut, a Liberal, a loonie or just an American.
Really, lucky is all I am, to have been born in America in this age, able to defend it's Principles while I was young and particpate in it's future as I age.
well said, 'rat. the same goes for those of us lucky enough to migrate here.
Lol, rat, I guess the truth hurts... ;)
Still there is an important distinction I wished to make outside of the incessant, preening jackassery of the Europeans, such as a huffy brit of late; civilization is distinct from culture, where in the European mind culture is the end all of civilization. So we get a huffy, winded crackhead squealing about McDo, as if it means anything. We'd be the same civilization if and when McDonalds folds, like we will be if and when GM folds and on and on.
We would be a completely different civilization if the legal underpinnings of our republic became monarchic, feudalistic, princely, or tyrannical, such as if al Qaeda won the cosmic jackpot and got their global Caliphate. Or if Communism won out and replaced parlimentarianism. Culture is contingent on civilization which is far deeper than the arts, the philosophy, architecture, technology, religion, language, and on.
Rome had divergent languages (including a competition between Greek and Latin for the sciences and official work), a stunningly pluralistic and even overly tolerant religious community (save, of course, the Christians), epochal transformations of architecture, and stunning imperial arts that lasted for a thousand years (perhaps even 2000 if you count the Holy Roman emperors, I don't). You could hardly credit medieval europe as a 'civilization' on the same plane or even at all as Rome; there is something far greater than just the phenotypes of 'community' that built the Roman Republic, its momentum peaked with Augustus and free-fell after the Antonines.
And that is the law, as key to civilized man as honor is to the good man.
desert rat:
"Youth population
Most young people -- about 85 per cent --live in developing countries with 60 per cent in Asia. The annual growth rates of youth population have slowed down in every region during the 1990s, according to United Nations statistics. Developed regions, and Eastern Asia -- comprising China, Japan and others -- suffered a negative growth rate. As a proportion of total population between 1980 and 1995, the number of young people has dropped everywhere except Africa.
In industrialized countries and East Asia, declining fertility rates have created aging populations, and social and economic policies are sometimes tilted in their favour. At the same time, middle-aged people still consider themselves young -- an occurrence known as the "prolongation of youth" -- which is now considered a global phenomenon."
http://www.un.org/events/youth98/backinfo/yreport.htm
10. Bad guys in handcuffs, graves, or hiding.
Mr Annan, his minions and like-minded people work hard to keep the level of dishonestly consistently high in the world (Or maybe it comes natural to them). The US are to blame to the extent (and that extent is too large) that they allow the evaders to get away with their mind acrobatics. Only so long as the truth is left unspoken will the theater of the absurd go on. And the demands will become more brazen.
Oh, when will we hear the following assertions spoken by a US politician:
We don't need the UN. It is an organization that promotes anti-US policies while it simultaneously demands our support. We withdraw it now. Start packing your stationerys, you have a week to leave our shores.
Or:
Excuse me? The Internet was invented and created in the USA and I don't recall its owners showing any interest in sharing ownership of their property. (in relation to the demands that the US relinquish control over the Internet)
pd
Really interesting in that Japan and perhaps the Chinese sea coast are now fitting the "Western" mold. Perhaps modernity would have been a better term to use.
1st vs 3rd world reproduction rates seems to be the story.
Central Asia still being youth oriented and home to Osama.
Aristides,
"What happens when we start to believe in a world with no cost? What happens when our people subscribe to a world of rational behavior? What happens when we get our manageable world? "
When that occurs, it will be followed at some point by the equivalent of what would happen if someone were to re-introduce smallpox to today's world.
My opinion:
There are few wars now not becasue of any political reasons. Its because wars are not as profitable as they used to be.
In the past, wealth came in the form of land, slaves or natural resources. These could be aquired by conquest at a relatively low cost/benefit ratio.
Today, there is not that much wealth that can be made from land/slaves/natural resouces anymore. A lot more money can be made by Software, Information Technology, aerospace or a host of other manufactured or service base products.
So today, those looking to improve their lot in life, today's best and brightest dont go into the "conquest" careers anymore(dictators, military general, colonial govenors, etc). They become engineers or marketing managers. They dont start wars, they start companies. Because (as Dilinger sayed) that is where the money is...
So today, those looking to improve their lot in life, today's best and brightest dont go into the "conquest" careers anymore(dictators, military general, colonial govenors, etc). They become engineers or marketing managers. They dont start wars, they start companies. Because (as Dilinger sayed) that is where the money is...
this explains islamic-splodey-dopes...
aint the sharpest tacks on the wall...
Failure is an orphan, success has thousands of fathers.
Cliche but true, and it is time for Special Report with Britt Hume.
this explains islamic-splodey-dopes...
In fact it does. The reason there are people who respond to the call of islamic fundimentalism is because, in their corrupt disfunctional societies, they have few other opportunies to improve their lot. If they had the opportunity at an education and a job, I think many would choose that path.
Monty Python's view:
LORETTA:
And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg.
FRANCIS:
Yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. Let's face it. They're the only ones who could in a place like this.
COMMANDOS:
Hehh, heh. Heh heh heh heh heh heh heh.
REG:
All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
I could not help but alternatingly laugh and fume at the brazen buffoonery that passes for insight, right out of the fecund, scheming minds of those U.N. apparatchiks.
Who in the hell do they think they are kidding? WE do the heavy lifting, while those pretenders kick dirt in our faces and steal the credit.
This report is nothing more than a naked insult to the dead who honored freedom and justice.
It's enough to make a Christian man engage in the Jewish act of rending his garments in anger and revulsion.
The true source of peace and democracy is capitalism or economic freedom. The UN is a club where free but particularly a lot of unfree and dictatorial members can't agree on anything. It is an illusion to think, that this costly bureaucracy has ever been able to foster anything of importance to the societies at large. On the contrary its record is dismal. Please read the following article: most interesting.
Future Depends on Capitalizing on Capitalist Peace by Erik Gartzke
Erik Gartzke is associate professor of political science at Columbia University and author of a study on economic freedom and peace contained in the 2005 Economic Freedom of the World Report, published by the Fraser Institute in cooperation with the Cato Institute.
With terrorism achieving "global reach" and conflict raging in Africa and the Middle East, you may have missed a startling fact - we are living in remarkably peaceable times.
For six decades, developed nations have not fought each other. France and the United States may chafe, but the resulting conflict pitted french fries against "freedom fries," rather than French soldiers against U.S. "freedom fighters." Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac had a nasty spat over the EU, but the English aren't going to storm Calais any time soon.
The present peace is unusual. Historically, powerful nations are the most war prone. The conventional wisdom is that democracy fosters peace but this claim fails scrutiny. It is based on statistical studies that show democracies typically don't fight other democracies.
Yet, the same studies show that democratic nations go to war about as much as other nations overall. And more recent research makes clear that only the affluent democracies are less likely to fight each other. Poor democracies behave much like non-democracies when it comes to war and lesser forms of conflict.
A more powerful explanation is emerging from newer, and older, empirical research - the "capitalist peace." As predicted by Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Norman Angell and others, nations with high levels of economic freedom not only fight each other less, they go to war less often, period. Economic freedom is a measure of the depth of free market institutions or, put another way, of capitalism.
The "democratic peace" is a mirage created by the overlap between economic and political freedom. Democracy and economic freedom typically co-exist. Thus, if economic freedom causes peace, then statistically democracy will also appear to cause peace.
When democracy and economic freedom are both included in a statistical model, the results reveal that economic freedom is considerably more potent in encouraging peace than democracy, 50 times more potent, in fact, according to my own research. Economic freedom is highly statistically significant (at the one-per-cent level). Democracy does not have a measurable impact, while nations with very low levels of economic freedom are 14 times more prone to conflict than those with very high levels.
But, why would free markets cause peace? Capitalism is not only an immense generator of prosperity; it is also a revolutionary source of economic, social and political change. Wealth no longer arises primarily through land or control of natural resources.
New Kind of Wealth
Prosperity in modern societies is created by market competition and the efficient production that arises from it. This new kind of wealth is hard for nations to "steal" through conquest.
In days of old, when the English did occasionally storm Calais, nobles dreamed of wealth and power in conquered lands, while visions of booty danced in the heads of peasant soldiers. Victory in war meant new property. In a free market economy, war destroys immense wealth for victor and loser alike. Even if capital stock is restored, efficient production requires property rights and free decisions by market participants that are difficult or impossible to co-ordinate to the victor's advantage. The Iraqi war, despite Iraq's immense oil wealth, will not be a money-maker for the United States.
Economic freedom is not a guarantee of peace. Other factors, like ideology or the perceived need for self-defence, can still result in violence. But, where economic freedom has taken hold, it has made war less likely.
Research on the capitalist peace has profound implications in today's world. Emerging democracies, which have not stabilized the institutions of economic freedom, appear to be at least as warlike - perhaps more so - than emerging dictatorships.
Yet, the United States and other western nations are putting immense resources into democratization even in nations that lack functioning free markets. This is in part based on the faulty premise of a "democratic peace." It may also in part be due to public perception.
Everyone approves of democracy, but "capitalism" is often a dirty word. However, in recent decades, an increasing number of people have rediscovered the economic virtues of the "invisible hand" of free markets. We now have an additional benefit of economic freedom - international peace.
The actual presence of peace in much of the world sets this era apart from others. The empirical basis for optimistic claims - about either democracy or capitalism - can be tested and refined.
The way forward is to capitalize on the capitalist peace, to deepen its roots and extend it to more countries through expanding markets, development, and a common sense of international purpose. The risk today is that faulty analysis and anti-market activists may distract the developed nations from this historic opportunity.
This article appeared in the Windsor Star (Ontario, Canada) on October 1, 2005.
I never knew George Bush worked for the UN! Live and learn....
The American taxpayer normally does not like to pay for bloviation. Sickens me that some part of my income taxes go towards the subsidization of these sacs des merdes.
It would be interesting to see where the conflicts were and how each ended.
Here is a list I did on my own:
El Salvador - US Backed government held Democratic Elections and defeated a Marxist insurgency backed by Cuba and the USSR
Costa Rica - US Trained counterinsurgency forces backed by Spectre gunships defeated a Marxist Insurgency backed by Cuba and Russia.
Peru - Local government defeats Marxist Insurgency.
Maybe the report should read - Marxism discredited, USSR Falls apart, violence ends.
This report is an echo of the meme that is gaining strength amongst the great and the good of Europe - who have conveniently rewritten recent European history so as to excise the The US from any role in the largley peaceful colapse of Communism and the integration of the east. Of course the silent reproach offered by a checkpoint charlie has to be removed so as to ensure that the falsification holds - and I am sure the next major anniverssery of the berlin Airlift is quieltly dreaded in not a few capitals for the awkward questions it may raise, to say nothing of reminders of what precisely occured in the Balkans as recently as the last decade.
But no matter - the project has already gone so far that it is a commonplace for Europeans to castigate the US for it's violent and primitive approach to matters of international realtions and to do so whilst holding up as an example their "own" brilliantly sophisticated model as applied to the question of Eastern Europe, and the postwar period in Europe more generally. Those who still half remember that this history used to inlcude references to a distant country accross an ocean, whose young men and women stood on Europes frontiers as token of that countries commitement to undergo anahillation in defence of Europe, may feel a little beffudled. They seem also to remember that the diplomacy that set the conditions for the end of the cold war was conducted by protaganists who would find the new history of events they can still remember to be surreal.
Orwell thought that it would take the application of totalitarin terror to rewrite a history that was still living memory - and now we find that all it takes is self satisfied wishfull thinking and a little forgetfullness.
"Orwell thought that it would take the application of totalitarin terror to rewrite a history that was still living memory - and now we find that all it takes is self satisfied wishfull thinking and a little forgetfullness."
Bears repeating.
20th century history has already gone down the memory hole for much of that continent.
Maybe it's why Europe wants to take over the internet, to make sure their memory hole stays blocked.
Red River: very simple & straightforward analysis.
Inadmissable at the UN.
Therefore, I too vote for dissolving the UN immediately; scheduling a FORMAL convocation to discuss What Comes Next (within a year); before then ecouraging the study of WHAT WORKS for humans; and then discuss, argue and engage in dialogues about the collective future of humankind.
Clean slate, no obeisance to dictators or legitimizing them; break with 7,000 years of things that don't work and adopting the few extracts from those previous 7,000 years THAT DO WORK, and get them to We, the People of the world: responsible freedom, right to pursue happiness, under God, respect for minorities, equality of the sexes...
New Day!
Future of Freedom in Muslim World:
In Egypt, the al-Wasat (Moderate) Party is an Islamic-based political party that calls for a reformed and modernized version of Islamic Sharia, which gives both women and Christians full and equal rights under the law. In fact, al-Wasat not only welcomes Egypt's Coptic Orthodox Christians to join, but has absolutely no problem with a Christian becoming head of state. If such a party is legally recognized by the current Egyptian government, and if it can win the trust and cooperation of Egypt's small, yet influential and well-organized Christian communities, a dramatic victory could be won for democratic struggles in the Middle East.
These examples are but a small sample of the many cases of religious groups finding compatibility with democratic principles in the Muslim world. More importantly, these are the groups that are actively involved in humanitarian aid work - such as helping out communities in the aftermath of the major earthquake that hit Pakistan and India last week.
http://www.aina.org/news/20051018124844.htm
IIRC, a few years back the UN declared that by any reasonable standard of meaurement -- reduction of poverty, infant mortality and disease; increased life expectancy, literacy and wealth, etc. -- the last 50 years of the 20th century saw more improvements in the human conditon than the previous 500 years, largely the result of increased economc activity and trade.
This from and organization institutionally hostile to capitalism, the engine of this progress. And this, despite the fact that no nation has been raised from poverty by trillions in foreign aid, UN receivership or the earnest admirable work of NGOs.
That this occured during a peak in American global influence -- or hegemony, according to critics -- is more than a coincidental or concurring event.
Those who've labored mightily for decades at deconstructing and delegitimizing American leadership and authority might not like what comes after the last chous of "Ding Dong The Witch is Dead" fades.
Yeah, right, whatever.
The UN is not entitled to claim any benefit for the past 16 or so years of peace. Years of peace, unless you count the dozens of nations where fighting was occurring tand there was precious little the UN could do about it.
The bit about the UN taking credit for peace in Iraq is laughable, considering they sent one (1) official mission which scorned to be quartered alongside the Coalition "conquerors" and "occupiers". So they camped outside the GReen Zone, promptly received a car bomb, and then ignored their own misison leaders's "don't give up the ship" request to flee shrieking from bloody death. If there is peace in Iraq, it is because Coalition forces, the continued will of the US Government, and the hopes & dreams of Iraqis, that have brought it about.
I should like to know one place in this world other than East Timor in the last two decades where the presence of UN "peacekeepers" and "negotiators" has done anything to keep the peace, or negotiate a permanent peace settlement. Somalia, Rwanda, Liberian, Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast, Congo Republic, Zimbabwe, Bosnia-Herzognovia, Kosovo, Serbia, Montenegro, North Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Gaza Strip, West Bank, Colombia.... Where have the blue bonnets been victorious? Where have the diplomats left behind enduring treaties? Why did the Ivory Coast beg for US intervention, and not for UN intervention? Why do the Iraqis hold the UN in contempt & have great respect for Americans?
If there has been peace anywhere in the world since the end of the Cold War (an American-led victory), it is because fo the efforts of the USA, whose citizens want peace more than anybody else in the world, but are also willing to do the work necessary to ensure that peace.
Kstagger notes: The Nuremberg trials provided a chance for Germany to be cleansed by divesting itself from the Nazi regime. This trial may provide the same outlet for Iraq
I agree with kstagger. The quicker it is done the quicker the Iraqis can start on a fresh slate.
Jrod notes: This newswire headline just crossed: IRAQI TRIBUNAL CHIEF JUDGE SAYS SADDAM TRIAL ADJOURNED MAINLY BECAUSE WITNESSES DID NOT SHOW UP
Maybe because they're all dead?
This is a real possibility. Or, the defendant's family have been kidnapped or intimidated by other means. This is a bad precedent. It's must not stand.
NanhCee notes: It behooves the other dictators in the Middle East to pooh-pooh the proceedings as much as possible, too. I anticipate we'll be seeing much more of the same sort of overt spin as you can read in this article out of Abu Dubai's GulfNews:
'Iraqis in Dubai say court case is a political farce'
Yes, there are a number of tin pot dictators who will feel the sense of loss. They will naturally align themselves with Saddam.
Ray echoes the same thing in his 2nd point:
2) The bigger audience for this trial is outside of Iraq, not inside of it. The Arab political world will squirm with unease as Saddam's pathology is exposed since he represents the pinnacle of traditional Arab political development. Consider the contrast with Nuremberg, where Soviet judges could, without a trace of irony, sit in judgement of crimes against humanity.
One of the main differences I note between the Nuremberg Trials and Saddam Hussein's trial is the length of time to bring Saddam to trial (let alone get a verdict).
Saddam Hussein was captured on Saturday, December 14, 2003, while the US occupied Iraq. Yet, one of the first meaningful court proceeding occurred on October 19, 2005. This would be about 675 days.
Rewind back to the Nuremberg Trials - and choose one of first trials "The Doctor's trial" (and one of the most complex trials) which 23 defendant were arraigned on November 21, 1946. Let's assume they surrendered on or about May 8, l945 or V-E day 'Victory in Europe' - and that is a generous assumption (the county was shattered, they were probably were in hiding and the logistics of rounding them up).
That would have brought Germans to trial in 563 days (or less). That about 112 days shorter than Saddam's first meaningful date in court!
Now, we hear there will a delay of 45 days because of certain witness failure to appear - so now the difference be Nuremberg and Saddam's trial is 157 days! This smacks of witness intimidation or manipulation of the court by the defendant and his considerable wealth (and possibly his ability to continue to intimidate people). This is the opposite of what should happen.
Further, this extra time allows Saddam's thugs to carry out more terror attacks and kill more Americans (and Iraqis).
I also note that once the "doctor's trial" started it ran rather smoothly until the end. Something I hope will happen in Saddam's trail.
Let's look at the "doctor's trial"
[Harvard]:
Summary
The Medical Case, U.S.A. vs. Karl Brandt, et al. (also known as the Doctors' Trial), was prosecuted in 1946-47 against twenty-three doctors and administrators accused of organizing and participating in war crimes and crimes against humanity in the form of medical experiments and medical procedures inflicted on prisoners and civilians.
Karl Brandt, the lead defendant, was the senior medical official of the German government during World War II; other defendants included senior doctors and administrators in the armed forces and SS. They were indicted on four counts: 1. conspiracy to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity; 2. war crimes (i.e., crimes against persons protected by the laws of war, such as prisoners of war); 3. crimes against humanity (including persons not protected by the laws of war); and 4. membership in a criminal organization (the SS).
The specific crimes charged included more than twelve series of medical experiments concerning the effects of and treatments for high altitude conditions, freezing, malaria, poison gas, sulfanilamide, bone, muscle, and nerve regeneration, bone transplantation, saltwater consumption, epidemic jaundice, sterilization, typhus, poisons, and incendiary bombs.
These experiments were conducted on concentration camp inmates. Other crimes involved the killing of Jews for anatomical research, the killing of tubercular Poles, and the euthanasia of sick and disabled civilians in Germany and occupied territories. The defendants were charged with ordering, supervising, or coordinating criminal activities, as well as participating in them directly. The fourth count concerned membership in the SS (Schuttzstaffeln) of the Nazi regime.
Karl Brandt and six other defendants were convicted, sentenced to death, and executed; nine defendants were convicted and sentenced to terms in prison; and seven defendants were acquitted.
The material presented in this project includes case file documents (the briefs and document books created and used in the course of the trial), evidence file documents (the evidentiary documents from which the prosecution, and occasionally the defendants, derived their exhibits), and the trial transcript.
The trial documents and evidence file documents related to Case 1 amount to approximately 2800 documents and 13,000 pages of material.
1. High-altitude experiments. March - August 1942... experiments were conducted at the Dachau camp using a low-pressure chamber... R. Brandt and Sievers were convicted.
2. Freezing experiments. August 1942 - May 1943. .. primarily for the German air force to investigate treatments for persons who had been severely chilled, using prisoners at the Dachau camp. ...R. Brandt, Handloser, Schroeder, and Sievers were convicted.
3. Malaria experiments. February 1942 - April 1945... experiments were conducted on more than 1000 prisoners at Dachau... Sievers was convicted.
4. Mustard ("lost") gas experiments. September 1939 - April 1945... experiments were conducted at Sachsenhausen, Natzweiler, and other camps... K. Brandt, R. Brandt, and Sievers were convicted.
5. Sulfanilamide experiments. July 1942 - September 1943... experiments were conducted at Ravensbrueck... K. Brandt, Fischer, Gebhardt, Handloser, Mrugowsky, and Oberheuser were convicted.
6. Bone, muscle, and nerve regeneration, and bone transplant experiments. September 1942 - December 1943. Conducted for benefit of German armed forces, using Polish inmates at the Ravensbrueck camp... Fischer, Gebhardt, and Oberheuser were convicted.
7. Seawater experiments. July - September 1944... test methods of making seawater drinkable; experiments were conducted at Dachau. Becker-Freyseng, Beiglboeck, Gebhardt, Schroeder, and Sievers were convicted.
8. Epidemic jaundice experiments. June 1943 - January 1945... experiments were conducted on Polish prisoners at Sachsenhausen and Natzweiler camps... K. Brandt was convicted.
9. Typhus ("spotted fever") and other vaccine experiments. December 1941 - February 1945. .. Poison experiments. December 1943 and September - October 1944.
10. Poison experiments. December 1943 and September - October 1944. Conducted to investigate the effect of various poisons, including poison in food and poisoned bullets; experiments were conducted at Buchenwald (food) and Sachsenhausen (bullets). .. Mrugowsky was convicted.
11. Incendiary bomb experiments. November 1943 - January 1944. .. experiments were conducted at Buchenwald, involving the infliction of burns by materials from incendiary bombs. All were acquitted.
12. Sterilization experiments. March 1941 - January 1945. Conducted to develop methods of rapid, large scale sterilization in order to ensure the eventual elimination of "enemy" populations while keeping captive workers as a labor force during the war. Experiments were planned and/or conducted at Auschwitz, Ravensbrueck, and elsewhere employing drugs, x-rays, and surgery. .. Brack, R. Brandt, and Gebhardt were convicted.
13. Skeleton collection. June 1943 - September 1944. Conducted to complete a skeleton collection for an anatomical research project at the Reich University of Strasbourg; one hundred twelve Jews at Auschwitz were killed for the purpose. Charged against R. Brandt and Sievers; both were convicted.
14. Tubercular Polish nationals. May 1942 - January 1944. Polish nationals alleged to have incurable tuberculosis were imprisoned or killed on the pretext of protecting the health of Germans in Poland.
15. Euthanasia. September 1939 - April 1945. Involved the secret killing of the aged, insane, incurably ill, deformed children, and others, beginning at asylums in Germany and later in the camps and occupied territories. .. Brack, K. Brandt, and Hoven were convicted.
16. Phenol (gas oedema) experiments. 1942 - 1944... Hoven and Mrugowsky were convicted.
Chronology of the Medical Case
Indictments (25 Oct. 1946)
25 Oct 1946 Indictment filed
5 Nov 1946 Indictment served
21 Nov 1946 Arraignment
5 Dec 1946 Defense motion for continuance (Transcript begins)
9 Dec 1946 Defense pleas; court procedures
9 Dec 1946 Prosecution opening statement
10 Dec 1946 Prosecution: Documents, defendants, and
organizations
10 Dec 1946 Prosecution: High altitude experiments
11 Dec 1946 Prosecution: Freezing experiments
13 Dec 1946 Prosecution: Malaria experiments
16 Dec 1946 Prosecution: Seawater experiments
16 Dec 1946 Prosecution: Sterilization experiments
18 Dec 1946 Prosecution: Jewish skeletons collection
19 Dec 1946 Prosecution: Jaundice experiments
19 Dec 1946 Prosecution: Tubercular Poles program
19 Dec 1946 Prosecution: Sulfanilamide and bone/muscle
experiments
2 Jan 1947 Prosecution: Polygal and phlegmon experiments
2 Jan 1947 Prosecution: Lost (mustard) gas experiments
3 Jan 1947 Prosecution: Typhus and other vaccine experiments
10 Jan 1947 Prosecution: Biological warfare experiments
10 Jan 1947 Prosecution: Euthanasia program
28 Jan 1947 Prosecution: Criminal organization
29 Jan 1947 Defense opening statements
3 Feb 1947 Defense: Karl Brandt
11 Feb 1947 Defense: Siegfried Handloser
20 Feb 1947 Defense: Paul Rostock
25 Feb 1947 Defense: Oskar Schroeder
28 Feb 1947 Defense: Karl Genzken
4 Mar 1947 Defense: Karl Gebhardt
10 Mar 1947 Defense: Fritz Fischer
12 Mar 1947 Defense: Kurt Blome
21 Mar 1947 Defense: Rudolf Brandt
26 Mar 1947 Defense: Joachim Mrugowsky
3 Apr 1947 Defense: Herta Oberheuser
8 Apr 1947 Defense: Helmut Poppendick
9 Apr 1947 Defense: Wolfram Sievers
16 Apr 1947 Defense: Gerhard Rose
25 Apr 1947 Defense: Siegfried Ruff
1 May 1947 Defense: Hans Romberg
6 May 1947 Defense: Georg Weltz
8 May 1947 Defense: Viktor Brack
19 May 1947 Defense: Hermann Becker-Freyseng
2 June 1947 Defense: Konrad Schaefer
6 June 1947 Defense: Wilhelm Beiglboeck
21 June 1947 Defense: Waldemar Hoven
25 June 1947 Defense: Adolf Pokorny
26 June 1947 Defense: additional documents
28 June 1947 Prosecution: rebuttal evidence
30 June 1947 Defense: additional documents
1 July 1947 Prosecution: rebuttal evidence
2 July 1947 Defense: additional documents
3 July 1947 Prosecution: rebuttal evidence
14 July 1947 Tribunal ruling on Count One of indictment
14 July 1947 Prosecution closing statement
14 July 1947 Defense closing statements
19 July 1947 Defendants' personal statements
19 Aug 1947 Tribunal judgment
20 Aug 1947 Sentences (transcript ends)
22 Nov 1947 Appeals denied by Military Governor of
U.S. Zone (Lucius Clay)
16 Feb 1948 Appeals denied by U.S. Supreme Court
(333 U.S. Reports 836)
2 June 1948 Execution of seven defendants sentenced to death
see: the Doctors' Trial
The Thirteen Nuremberg Trials
Interesting what backwards loops and contortions people will do to pursue an ideological agenda. You silly silly people! The UN was an idea whose main backers were the United States and Britain! It is a successor to the League of Nations which was an organization promoted by President Wilson after World Ware I! Stalin went for it because the US and Britain pushed so hard for it after World War II and noone wanted to fight anymore at that time.
So go ahead and rip away at how the UN is trying to take credit for world peace. You silly people don't seem to realize that even if the UN is claiming more credit than it should, that still is a credit to the US because we created the damn thing in the first place!
And the statement hightlighting the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of the United States (Pax Americana) as the main reasons for the current climate were already quite clearly stated, and I quote "The report credits intervention by the United Nations, plus the end of colonialism and the COLD WAR, as the main reasons for the decline in conflict."
Yes, the END OF THE COLD WAR. Who do you think fought the cold war, Brazil? No, it was the US. And with the cold war over, deaths have gone down! And yes, Colonialism was a major contributor, too. And yes, apart from Cuba, The Phillippines and a few other places, the US was not a conlonial empire. So that was covered too.
The only reason to downplay the UN is because that would mean giving credit to other countries who have also contributed money, time, effort, sweat and bodies to UN missions. Remember Korea? Yes, it was primarily an American War, but it was sponsored by the UN, and had contributions from Australia, Britain, Canada, and over a dozen other Asian, African and European nations.
Not to mention many other wars or police actions that were driven primarily by the US, but with contributions from other nations. Even as recently as the first Gulf War, which was given a UN stamp and included armies from dozens of countries and fat bank from countries who didn't contribute bodies. Not to mention massive financial and peacekeeping assistance to formerly colonized nations and other countries that received education, financial assitance, arbiters, structual improvements and a long list of other items.
Yes, at least 50% if not more of this was driven by the United States, but always with assistance from the rest of the world. By highlighiting this and crowing over the same thing over and over its the equivalent of saying "Well enough about me, what do YOU think about me?"
Some people are probably upset that the UN didn't go along with us when our President circumvented the very rules that we set up in the first place and invaded Iraq. I'm not even going to go into the controversies we all know of regarding the rationalitaions given and the rushed job those at the top of the chain did in order to get us there.
Jeez...
I think you guys are missing the obvious here: Nuclear Weapons. War hasn't gone away, the stakes are just so high, some battles just aren't worth fighting. The big guys don't fight each other anymore.
Post a Comment
<< Home