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]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

!OT Re: [casi] What people are saying about the UN - and the blast

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 06:40:53 +0800 "emir chen" <> writes:

>Yes, to many Arabs, the US and UN are one; but to me, >they are
different! And, the difference should be made >more distinct than before,
since an independent UN, which >is not manipulated by any one power, I
believe, is very >important to counter imperialism and war. Am I right?

I think so. I also think that it's important that the UN get real teeth,
both legal and military. If we look at history, the common story is small
groups consolidating into larger ones: clans into tribe, villages into
cities and states, city-states into nations, and at each step the
formation of law and civil authority. It hasn't all been for the good --
the anarchists have some pertinent points on this --   but I see only two
alternatives: constant war, on some scale, or reduction of population
density to where people rarely come together.

Not just a UN, but a form of world government in inevitable if we are to
survive -- but it must be a just and democratic one, with built-in
guarantees of diversity and human rights for everyone, including
self-determination for groups and sub-groups -- not hegemony or empire!

There is a basic conflict, it seems to me, in Iraq: on the one hand the
Iraqis rightly want self-determination, but on the other there are
factions who want to control the whole country and everyone living there,
such as Saddam, and also radical Islamists. There must be a world-wide
organization and mechanism to support the rights of all individuals, and
counter the dictatorships, whether large or small, national, religious or
tribal. Those people who want to form a group with strong central
government and strict laws must be permitted to do so, as long as
individuals can freely opt out.

As it stands, the US tries to impose it's own visions of "democracy" on
all people -- but it includes not only much more than the fundamentals of
liberty and self-determination but also much which undermines those very
ideals which it espouses. Liberty at gunpoint is not liberty at all.

What, then, of a powerful UN? Even putting aside the fact that the US
uses the UN as a tool of it's imperial expansion, there remains the
problem of finding the point at which guaranteeing people's rights by
force merges with totalitariansm. At what point does Iraqi self-
determination permit the denial of Iraqi freedom. I submit that the best
answer to this is Alan Watts observation that groups do not really have
rights, but rather individuals have rights: if the rights of all
individuals are upheld, the rights of individuals as parts of a group are
also upheld. By Watts' criteria, the US statements that Iraq is now more
free than before, while people are being deprived of basic liberty, is

The core, then, of a functioning UN must be built around its human rights
declarations and activities. The hungry, ignorant, sick, homeless,
repressed, battered -- these people can not possibly be free. A UN as a
"one power" in itself can be right and effective only if that power is on
the side of the individual person, in equality with any other individual
person. That is *supposed* to be a primary tenet of the US, but has been
largely ignored.

(The same rights must be applicable for all, and this tends to avert the
tyranny of the masses, similar to the old method for dividing cake among
two children: the one cuts the cake and the other gets first choice. With
Iraq the same party - the US -- is dividing the wealth and then taking
whatever parts it wants.

To achieve a proper UN or world government it must derive its power from
from both immutable principles of human rights within its charter and
also from the *people* of the world -- not just the various governments,
many of which have been corrupted. The invasion of Iraq could probably
have been prevented by invoking the "united for peace" provision through
the general assembly, but even the GA is controlled not by the people of
the world -- who massively opposed the war -- but the governments of the
world, composed of "leaders" open to corruption. We see a similar thing
in Iraq with the governing council, which is not representative of the
people, but a hand-picked clique of the US (and obstruction of

One absolute pre-requisite to an effective democratic system is that the
people know: they need the education and information to make *informed*
decisions -- not the peasants' conditioning, propaganda, and lies people
are fed now. If a well-informed world population takes real power over a
world organization, such as, perhaps, the UN, then there would be a
viable alternative to power-hungry tyrants. Otherwise we would have -- as
we largely do have -- a UN controlled by many smaller tyrants, and the
people are then just pawns to be shuffled about to benefit whichever
tyrant happens to be winning *their* game at the time.

This will be true as long as most of the nations are not truly free and
led by those who truly represent the people. Thus we see nations
supporting the invasion even while vast majorities of citizens in
opposition -- and finally collapsing in resignation -- and the UN acting
counter to the people. It was not only the US, but the collapse of the
people's representatives.

The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit to sign up today!

Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]