On Why the UN, EU and NATO?
Blubs of Verbs, Commentary Comments (2)
I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends. -Abraham Lincoln
We shall now have a therapy session with the UN (United Nations), and it’s younger cousin NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organizations) and EU (European Union.)
These are three institutions, made under the relatively same rules, drifting away from their original purpose, hamstrung by the rules they have in place, and are starting to be held hostage by their own members whims.
Now, the three have different reasons for existing. The UN exists so nations can have regular discourse instead of war (yeah, how’s that going), NATO for Defense (Job too well done) and EU for Economic prosperity (and counter US economic power). However, in all, it’s up to the countries to decide just what policies they are going to follow, how much they are going to follow them, and the penalty for non compliance is just about the filing of more paper.
In the UN, the 5 permanent members wield almost absolutely power, individually. One veto and a resolution is dead. it used to be All US all Russia tit for tat with China abstaining all the time. Nothing got done if the US or Russia was affected. Now, it’s pretty much the same if France or China are affected. Conversations ground to a halt or are none starters. General, all recognized countries belong to the UN but they don’t really have a say. The UN needs a rules rewrite so all member states have an actual say. Guess what, you can’t have one unless the 5 permanent members agree and that means they would lose power. It’s not something they relish.
NATO’s members (all of them) have to also agree for parties to enter.
NATO is a board of consensus, meaning if one member objects, as the case of Greece to Macedonia;s entrance, then subsequently, that resolution is dead. BTW, greece objected because Macedonia (the country) has the same name as a section of greece. Yes, that’s right, Greece objects to Macedonia because the name of Macedonia may lead to “confusion” and “instability.” you can’t make this stuff up. NATO, in becoming larger risks making itself useless. Getting 3 countries to agree on a defense or war or troops is way different than getting 20 of them to agree. An insistent veto turns the alliance into a “Parties of the Willing.” as inner groups form within and some members support one another differently. There is really no fix for this. Ergo, As NATO takes over europe and parts of Asia it grounds to a halt and becomes ineffective as a Group body. It has no future under it’s current mission except as a new UN, a european one.
EU
The EU needs it’s members to agree to move it’s constitution forward, however, when face with this prospect, members states (UK, France) always seem to win some exception to the constitution’s provisions. During this new round, the UK again won exceptions, Again, which are Mandatory for everyone else. Every new country that joins the EU makes governship just that more difficult and representation is now forced stopped at 27 representatives with a rotating head. It’s hamstringing of Monetary policy causes ripples against big economies, or would destroy smaller ones. Right now, Germany is outside the EU’s acceptable Monetary limits for continued membership. They can’t afford to let that continue, but they can’t remove Germany, that would be a disaster of epic proportions.
The EU will however continue to exist and will eventually work out it’s problems. The EU will not offer a military provision to bind it’s members because it has the NATO, so NATO will become the military wing of the EU.
In the end, regional UN’s are what’s going to happen in the world, driven together for defense or economic stability. But because each charter is made to give each member state sovereignty , they become little more than exorcises in paper tiger diplomacy. There is no wish to rid the world of a “group” once it’s in place, even if the charter no longer applies. Like a government, it becomes self perpetuating and self preserving of it’s own existence and often only becomes a new place to have a diplomat in residence.
Why have them then? To combat the growing power of Global Corporations, and Free Trade Stops Wars. More on that later.
Sphere: Related ContentOceansOfThought @ April 4, 2008
Not to be trite, but it’s unlikely that a room full of five or ten friends could agree on a pizza order, let alone a room full of different cultured trying to agree on reasonable adaptations of policy.
And as much as I like to mock our government, I think the people that set up the house and senate rules so many years ago had a great set of ideas, to let each state have an equal voice in one and a pro-rated voice in the other; whoever came up with that was a genius. I’m not saying it’s perfect, but it’s a reasonable way to account for both arguments.
As for France and China, I can understand why China would be a major player in international decisions, after all, any given day they could decide to take over the world and probably do it pretty easily just by virtue of sheer numbers and governmental brute force, but why is France still a player?
Don’t get me wrong, I love the french language (I speak, as does my sister, my son is in school in the local french immersion school) and their culture, but when is the last time they had any sort of military (land or sea) presence anywhere of significance? Their language is just barely in the top 10 most used languages as it is, and as globalization of markets becomes more prevelant, their remnant colonized countries identify less and less with the mother ship. Why would they be a key player as you mention near the beginning of the article? I must be missing something.
France is one of the member of the Security Council (the 5 permanent members) since creation of the UN. I mention France because France has made it clear it would veto many of the UN inititives when Shirac was leading it, pretty much for the last 8 years. Whether you like him or not, he’s made France a power in the world. France is also one of the Founding members of the EU (and pretty much runs it with UK, they get alot of exceptions to the EU rules too) and has retooled it stock market, and revitilized it’s industries. While it still has a lot of problems, it is far better off now than it was before. And that is one of the points, the french do not commit their military and in a “peaceful world” (note the quotes), not spending money on a miltary means you can spend it other places (especially being annoying). It’s pretty much halted American or slowed America’s diplomatic power especially in the UN. Another note about the miltary, France’s military is VERY active, not their national military, but their legal mercenaries, The Foregin Legion. Americans like to dismiss the French, but the French are doing a good job of leading the EU to countering american power everywhere America tries to extend it, especially in the Middle East.