I never said that dictatorships were illegal,thus your point is a strawman . Article 1 of the UNO Charter :"promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms " : we know that this was a joke,and that the overwhelming majority of the members of the UNO were doing their best to PREVENT the promoting and encouraging of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms . There were some 50 members in 1945. How many would do their best for the promoting and encouraging of respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms ? US UK Canada SA (for a minority only) Australia NZL France Belgium Luxembourg Holland Denmark Norway Thus,we have an organization where 75 % of the members were ignoring the charter of that organization and ,following this charter,can be considered as criminals.This is enough to label the organization as criminal,it is not needed that the aim of the organization should be criminal . And,as such,the moral authority of the SG of that organizatin is inexistant .
Is it? It doesn't appear to me to be so. Especially since you said: The only reason you gave for it being a criminal organization was that accoriding to you the "very big majority" were dictarorships. The clear inference is that dictarorship = illegal.
I think he's implying that allowing a nation to be bound by anything the UN dictates would be idiotic, a notion with which I agree. The UN doesn't follow its own first article, so even the argument that it represents international law becomes absurd.
Really? On what Grounds do you exclude the Philipines or India from this list? How about Turkey? Or Lebanon? Honduras? Costa Rica? Nor do some of the others seem to fit the "doing their best to PREVENT the promoting and encouraging of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms". Nor were they all dictatorships.
That argument has some merit but that's a long way from what he said. Indeed that's one of the reason the real power in the UN resides in the Security Council. The General Council is rather toothless by design.
Was any of them a democracy ? India was a British colony,and,the maharadjas ruled their states as despotes. Were the Philippines independant ? Turkey was ruled indirectly by the army,and in 1950,the army deposed the PM (Menderes) and he was hanged. Iran,Iraq,Syria,Lebanon : democracies ? And,there were how many democracies in Latin America in 1945 ? Cuba, Haiti (never heard of papa doc),? How should one call a club of Methodist clergymen,who were preaching against the use of alcohol,and were drunken every night ? A gang of hypocrites? And,how should one call the president of the club(even when he never used alcohol) , The chief hypocrite ? And,how should one call people who were pontificating :"all men are created equal,endowed with unalienable rights,as :life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness " and of which the wealth was based upon the possession of slaves ? The UNO was a gathering of persons who were saying :listen to what I am saying,but do not look on what I am doing .
Maybe its in his own interest - CW falling into the hands of Chechens would not be pleasant. And embarrassing the USA at the same time - two birds with one stone
Many were to at least some extent. The situation is similar for both. They are listed as founding members although they became independent democratic countries in 1946 and 1947 respectively. But at the time the UN was formed Turkey was a democratic country and indeed the role of the military is a bit unusual in Turkey. One of it's missions has been to keep Turkey secular. If it looked like a religious dictartorship was in the works the Turkish army post WWI has overthrown the government but stepped down pretty quickly afterward. Lebanon surely was at the time. The others had democratic elements at the time. They may not have remained so but then I didn't say they were either did I? That rather depends on your defintion of a democracy doesn't it? You obviously pick as an example a couple that are at one extreme but look at Costa Rica for example and Mexico was to some extent as was Brazil I believe and Honduras. At the time the UN was formed Venuzala was a democratic state as well. I'll admit democracy tended to be fragil in those countries. This analogy is so flawed there's no point in commenting on it as is the rest of your rant which is getting further and further from the topic at hand.
Brezil was ruled by the dictator Vargas,who ,in october 1945 was deposed by the military. Mexico was ruled by an oligarchy who had gained power after a bloody civil war . In Peru,the military took power in 1948 In Colombia, the civil war started in 1948 In Cuba,San Domingo,Haiti,there was no such thing as democracy . In the ME,democracy never existed Etc,etc And,this did not prevent all these countries to join a club,the charter of which was talking about human rights. Conclusion : the whole gang was only a band of hypocrites.. The democratic members were the worst .
Here in Turkey one of the running jokes is if military lost its apetite for making coups in every 15 or 20 years. Army intervening Turkish politics almost became a national habit since 1950'ies though most of the time it stands aside like a big brother , doing nothing but observing and taking a big share from national budget , spending it at will without any goverment oversight (armed forces were always automonous and had freedom to do its will ) In every coup since then (there had been three of them since then ) as soon as it gained power by deposing civilian goverment army declares martial law but then tries to create a friendlier national civilian goverment to do its bidding and stands aside. That's why now we have a ultra populist , very religiously conservative Prime Minister who has aspirations to be President like Assad or Husni Mubarek for last ten years. He eliminated heads of military who could challange him. He does not acknowledge any opposition , insults or isolates them in every turn and trying to be "One Man". That's why I am pessimistic for future. I mean Parlimentary Republic was formed in 1923 at Turkey but we never seemed to digest it , never assumed it in national cultural level complately. That is 90 years so far. And before that Ottoman Empire had its own representative parliment. Now consider Middle East countries which were created because British and French statesmen drew lines on map at will in 1920 and before with Sykes-Picot Deal or Balfour Decleration because it was suitable for their colonial interests. Most of them were composed of tribes , sheikdoms , emirates etc (like princedoms from Middle Age Europe) which had no democracy culture or elective representative bodies and gained their independence only 50-60 years ago. What do you expect to happen ? Convert Greco-Roman democracy politics rule/culture overnight ? LOL. Won't happen. Stability counts in ME just like everywhere else whether it is dictatorship , theocracy or democracy. Democracy works in Europe or USA because it passed through a very painful evolution process since Middle Ages (let's say since Magna Carta) Absolutism , autocratic monarchies , tensions between ethnic/religious minorities , church pressure all of them were honed in centuries with revolutions , wars , cultural enlightment. ME just started that route.
Excellent Post Merdiolu. Freedom and Democracy are not necessarily the same thing and we are a long way from Nirvana in the West. In 1914 an Englishman could live where he liked, and as he liked. He could travel where he liked to whatever country he liked. He had no passport or identity card (there were not any). He could change his money without any restriction and move it wherever he wished. He did not perform Military Service - he was not required to. The State only took 8% of his income and in return educated his children to 13 years old and gave him a small pension at the age of 70years. Any foreigner could enter the Country and settle where he liked (only women were disenfranchised but that was probably a wise thing). Every time I am forced to take off my shoes at an Airport or take my Passport, plus two other documents showing place of residence to withdraw my own money out of the Bank (and then restricted to £4000 in cash!) i wonder just how much progress we have made in the last 100years and whether my g grand parents would be impressed?
Actually, merdiolu, Turkey and the UAE are what give me some form of hope for the ME, and the world, at all. No, they're not perfect societies. But they've at least shown that there is some possibility of co-existance, a tremor of tolerance. Individuals can and do make a difference. As you said, it's a long and painful process, and such things are seldom without setbacks.
Well they gave it to Arafat didn't they? Then of course there is the question of whether or not a thing like the Peace prize can be considered to have any moral authority. Naming him one of the winners certainly impacted the prestige of the design and called the moral authority of the committe into question. True true....And to most reasonable people giving it to two terrorists at the same time was morally unaceptable. Begin being the other.
Two terrorists at the same time? I think you are confusing Menachem Begin with Yitzhak Rabin Menachem Begin & Mohamed Anwar al-Sadat won theirs in 1978 for the Camp David Accords(and rightfully so, whatever their past transgressions). Arafat, Rabin, and Shimon Peres won the Peace Prize in 1994 for the Oslo Accords(started off with such promise, but now lies broken in the gutter). Same time...there are not even in the same decade. At least for me the new century has made a laughing stock of the Peace Prize: 2001 - United Nations, 2007 - Al Gore for his work on climate change(that is science folks, not peace), 2009 - Barack Obama - he had not even done anything yet, 2012 - European Union(Why? For not starting another World War in the past 60 years).
No your correct...memory reliance not always a good fact checker..But highlights the fact that its no use complaining about Arafats prize when years before Begin another terrorist...got one too. And I'll have no truck with the freedom fighter from anyone...Not you Tak, just anyone...
I'm not sure it even qualifies as science, politics maybe. I disagree. Begin and Sadat may not have been the "nicest" people around but the peace treaty they made has held up pretty well for quite a few years. I also suspect that it relieved some of the pressure on Jordan with respect its relations with Israel. Afarfat is a much more controversial case. While he also came to an agreement with Israel hs organization never changed it's goal from that of destroying Israel and there is some evidence that he viewed the treaty as simply a way to further that goal. On the other hand it may have been a sincere effort towards peace. In the latter case it may even have been justified. Are you familiar with MacDonough's song by Kipling? http://www.bartleby.com/364/318.html
urqh reminds me of one of my favorite George Carlin bits Also brings up this TVTrope http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YourTerroristsAreOurFreedomFighters
back to the topic please. There was an interesting interview of Hollande by CNN yesterday : http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/world/2013/09/24/hollande-power-amanpour.cnn.html
If Lwd would like to start another topic on Begin I'll certainly counteract any thoughts and views he may have on Begin. For another thread though.
