To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » Noam Chomsky's Blog » The United Nations

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

9

Noam Chomsky's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/noamchomsky
Bio: (More)

All Chomsky Blogs

Recent Chomsky Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zaudio_icon ZAudios
Zvideo_icon ZVideos
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts
Zbook_icon Books
Zvideo_icon ZStores

The United Nations

By Noam Chomsky at Jul 06, 2005

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
…Americans favor international law and institutions, very strongly in fact. Which is pretty remarkable given the beating they take in the mainstream doctrinal system. As for the UN, there is plenty wrong with it, but the main problems trace back to the great powers, mainly the US, that pretty much determine what it can and cannot do. To take an obvious example, the UN can do nothing when Security Council resolutions are vetoed -- the most extreme way to violate a Security Council decision. Since the 1960s, when the UN fell out of control, the US is far in the lead in vetoing resolutions on a very wide range of issues, Britain second, no one else even close. Similarly, the General Assembly and special committees (like Disarmament) can do nothing when their decisions are blocked. To take merely one example, it's well understood that the core issue of nuclear terror and even possible terminal war is control over fissile materials. For years, the UN has been working on a verifiable FISSBAN (Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty), which would deal with a substantial part of the problem -- and it may literally be a problem of species survival. The UN has not been able to implement FISSBAN. Is it the fault of the UN? Or does the failure have something to do with last November's vote: 147-1 in favor, with two abstentions, Israel, which is reflexive, and Britain, which stated officially that it favored the treaty but couldn't vote for it because this version was "too divisive": 147-1. Check the coverage and we get a good estimate of the priority ranking for survival of the species, or nuclear terror in New York, in the mainstream doctrinal system. …Easy to continue. This is not the whole story, of course, but it seems to me that in comparison with mountains of material like this, reforms of the kind that are discussed are hardly even a mole hill. And on an optimistic note, these are problems we can do a great deal about.

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (30)

Person

Re: The United Nations

By Mini42072, Bad12 at Oct 15, 2005 07:50 AM
Just for a little bit of background on my post, I'm telling all of you some information. I'm an 18 year old college student in ENC1102 "Support the Troops." Our assignment was to post to a blog that was against what our major political views are, using the Toulmin's layout of argumentation. Which brings me to my first point. If you have experience with the Toulmin model, you know it must contain a rebuttal to be a valid argument. My rebuttal was "Unless, the opposing country is supposed to just “go with the flow” and vote in favor of the resolution, like all the other sensible countries do." My rebuttal is not my argument. A rebuttal is what someone might say if they were opposed to my thoughts. I afterwards replied to my own rebuttal. My entire point in the essay was the fact that the UN's current system is insufficient and should be changed. The rant about the one view, one voice, one hand raised was to prove how highly illogical the current system of ratification is. So I'm sorry if someone misunderstood me, but if you look into the Toulmin layout, you will understand the essay a little bit more.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The United Nations

By Mini42072, Bad12 at Oct 14, 2005 15:43 PM
Unless, the opposing country is supposed to just “go with the flow” and vote in favor of the resolution, like all the other sensible countries do. It seems that everything would simply be smoother without any opposition. If one would simply vote in favor like the rest, and not actually believe in it, then that person would be forfeiting their voice. This system was created so that all it took was one voice to be heard to make an impact in what happened. When one gives up a voice, there is more to it than just that. There is no opposition. Without opposition, without two views, without two political parties, there would only be one. One voice, one view, one political party, one way of doing things. If this were to happen, governments would do as they pleased because there would be no opposition. Does no opposition sound like a good idea? This, my friends, is fascism. Without the dissenting voice, without the liberal and conservative views, without the Democratic and Republican parties, fascism would slowly creep into our government. In review, this is the fault of the UN. The system for passing Security Council resolutions is insufficient, since these resolutions can be stopped so easily on account of it takes only one veto to stop them. Unless everyone should simply “go with the flow,” in which case you would give up your voice, and lead us down to the trail of eventual fascism. So if anyone is to be blamed, let it be the UN for their lacking system. (Post 3 of 3)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The United Nations

By Mini42072, Bad12 at Oct 14, 2005 10:54 AM
This current system for passing Security Council Resolutions is insufficient since these resolutions can be stopped so easily, on account of all it takes to stop a resolution dead in its tracks is the veto from one of the many countries participating in the UN. So, out of 148 votes, who could possibly think that at least one person would not be opposed to this idea? This is why a pure democracy cannot and will not ever work. There will always be a dissenter, whether he has a plausible reason or not to disagree with an idea. This is just a fact of life. The only pure democracies that would ever function properly would have to be in a group of people extraordinarily low in numbers. An example: when was the last time a family could decide on what to eat for dinner? If a family of five cannot operate with a pure democracy, there is no reason to believe that any group of 148 countries, from 148 different walks of life, with 148 different views on the matter could possibly come to a consensus. (Post 2 of 3)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The United Nations

By Mini42072, Bad12 at Oct 14, 2005 07:11 AM
It is true that the UN cannot pass a Security Council resolution when there is a veto present, even one. All it takes is one voice, one opinion, one hand raised to make a difference. Of course with the ability to bring such a resolution to a halt with one veto, there is one obvious setback. It may seem that one country is able to control the UN, simply by vetoing everything that opposes that country. This is not the fault of the country, though, for speaking up for itself against what it does not agree with. This is the fault of the UN. Your warrant seems to be that FISSBAN wasn't able to be passed because of the US and its ally, Britain. While this may be true, it is a right bestowed to each country to be able to veto resolutions they are not in favor of. If the UN opposes to this, then they must change the procedure of the passing of Security Council resolutions. The current system is insufficient, and seems as though the person in charge just made it up, without thoroughly thinking through the pros and more importantly the cons of this system. (Post 1 of 3)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The United Nations

By Antiamerican800, Bernardo at Jul 21, 2005 05:33 AM
So all qualitative assessments of human behavior are ultimately based on incommensurable factors of culture and time and place. Superstitions and archaic theological anthropocentrisms, that's right. Perhaps you thought I was against such factors, on the contrary I think they are the only things that lend any value or meaning to human life. Apparently you agree with me.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The United Nations

By Antiamerican800, Bernardo at Jul 21, 2005 05:01 AM
I was criticising the notion of absolute Good and absolute Evil that seems to me to underlie much of Chomsky's reasoning. Chomsky in an article for Tehelka dated July 16, 2005 writes that "Air Force chief, general Carl Spaatz, had preferred that the grand finale be a third nuclear attack on Tokyo, but was dissuaded." But there were only the two atom bombs in existence at that time according to U.S. Air Force historians. Spaatz is probably just being a swaggering braggert that Chomsky miscontrues as being a serious strategic consideration. Unless I'm being misled about the actual number of atom bombs available at that time. Personally I believe culture is the determinate factor in human psychology and trying to find a "scientific" basis for morality is reductive and uninteresting. Cannibalsism is a highly respectable indeed religious practice among certain Amazon tribes people. What right do American ivy league liberals have in negatively judgeing it?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The United Nations

By Antiamerican800, Bernardo at Jul 18, 2005 02:47 AM
Scientifically it's utterly meaningless that 6 million Jews died or even if every Jew in the world had died. And alas most of Chomsky's arguments on various subjects are based on such evaluative superstitions. The idea of Good and Evil that he derides the likes of Bush II for are the very same archaic theological anthropocentricism's that he uses himself.

Reply this comment

50

Re: The United Nations

By Peterson, David at Jul 16, 2005 18:51 PM
Friends: Another example of the emerging UN's rejection of impartiality and non-violence under the influence of the "responsibility to protect":
“The role of the Security Council in humanitarian crises" (S/PRST/2005/30)
Rather than the institutional changes necessary to improve the Security Council's effectiveness to deter wars of aggression (i.e., its principal function under the Ch. V of the UN Charter), the world faces the real threat that the SC will be turned into a taker-of-sides and a wager of such wars . Not simply because one of more of the Permanent Five can steer the SC in this direction---the 1991 U.S.-led war over Iraq being a classic example. But because a "reformed" SC will have warmaking as its new function.

Reply this comment

50

Re: The United Nations

By Peterson, David at Jul 15, 2005 07:07 AM
Friends: In a statement delivered near Srebrenica on his behalf, the Secretary-General said:
As I wrote in my report in 1999, we made serious errors of judgement, rooted in a philosophy of impartiality and non-violence which, however admirable, was unsuited to the conflict in Bosnia. ........ Our...most important duty...is to prevent such systematic slaughter from recurring anywhere....The world must equip itself to act collectively against genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. The “responsibility to protect” must be given tangible meaning, not just rhetorical support.
The next day, addressing the Security Council about its "role...in humanitarian crises," he said:
I believe Member States should recognize that, whenever a particular State is unable or unwilling to protect its citizens against extreme violence, there is a collective responsibility of all States to do so -– a responsibility which must be assumed by this Council.
These are formulas for disaster. Imagine the head of the UN lamenting the philosophy of impartiality and non-violence! He may as well write blank checks for the greater powers to do as they please to the rest of the world. You see the direction UN "reform" is taking?

Reply this comment

50

Re: The United Nations

By Peterson, David at Jul 15, 2005 06:34 AM
Graeme: Thought that your counterfactural case about Beijing and the Security Council was superbly drawn (July 09 at 12:22 AM). Carrying it further: Imagine Beijing citing Bush Doctrine in order to bypass the Security Council altogether for a "pre-emptive" war over Nepal. (We can drop the WMD part, which would be implausible anyway.) Or how about an "humanitarian" intervention, to better appeal to the Democratic Party in the States, and the Humanitarian Brigades? Either way. President Hu, the People's Congress, and the entire C.P. may indeed find reason to accuse the Security Council of a "failure" to act, "irrelevancy," and the like. Then imagine how far Beijng would get. But if they had the power to pull it off.... Now. Can you imagine a Security Council resolution eventually coming out of it, acknowledging that the newly installed puppet regime in Kathmandu (though not quite in those words, obviously) had requested Beijing's military to stay on as the head of a "multinational" security force, at least until some UN- and NGO-administered elections could be held to form a new, internationally recognized government? Yeah. I'll bet that one would go over really big around the world's capitals. And yet---mutatis mutandis---essentially the same script has been performed in American- (and UN- and NGO-) occupied Iraq these past 26 or 27 months.

Reply this comment

50

Re: The United Nations

By Peterson, David at Jul 09, 2005 19:09 PM
Graeme: Notice the exact meaning of your point in the last paragraph (July 09 at 12:22 AM) that the "USIP notes that the Security Council 'was incapable of acting'" on the question of war and peace and Iraq, ca. 2002-2003: The USIP is lamenting the failure of the American and British aggressors to sufficiently bully the rest of the Security Council into a vote in favor of their war of aggression! This is what the USIP means by incapable of acting: For whatever reasons (at least some of which no doubt were good), the Security Council proved incapable of siding with the aggressors in their criminal war. Of course, this changed later on, as resolution upon resolution since have turned the Security Council into an accomplice after the fact. But your point is very well taken. In this one particular instance, the Security Council turned out to be incapable of vetting the American and the British violations of the UN Charter as well as every customary international law on the books. This, from the point of view of the Americans, was a failure. Not on their part. But on the part of the UN and international law.

Reply this comment

50

Re: The United Nations

By Peterson, David at Jul 09, 2005 18:42 PM
Friends: Within the UN, there are many institutional competencies and missions that are a benefit to the world overall or to local issues specifically, and that aren't simply dominated by the Permanent Five. Two being the work done in the direction of nuclear disarmament and denying impunity to states that commit serious crimes---such as starting wars, for starters. But neither area is free of major forces pushing in the opposite direction. No reform worthy of the name will fail to address the anti-democratic, power-based distortions wrought by Permanent Five status within the UN's very constitution. The Secretary-General's much lauded, much reviled In Larger Freedom document proposed nothing to address these distortions. (See pars. 169-170. My view is that Kofi Annan sees his mission as appeasing the Americans, as their interests and concerns monopolize his.) Unless the UN is liberated from the Permanent Five status that dominates it on questions of peace and security, the rest of the world will have choice but to develop alternatives to the UN.

Reply this comment

50

Re: The United Nations

By Peterson, David at Jul 08, 2005 23:02 PM
Friends: The UN either is or is not "relevant" to the extent it advances U.S. objectives. Take a look at the excerpts I've provided from Richard Holbrooke. Recall that he represents the "dovish" or "multilateral" side of the American establishment---the side that wants to "rescue" the UN from the more radical extremists. Then check out the U.S. Institute for Peace's American Interests and UN Reform (June, 2005). Where American Power is concerned, "relevance" means service in the cause. With respect to the U.S.-U.K. aggression over Iraq, service has meant not only the Security Council, as the organ with the responsibility to defend international peace and security, being incapable of taking action. But, beyond this, it has meant the invaluable legal and logistical aid given to the occupying powers after the fact. Hence, Res. 1546. Hence also that fraudulent "demonstration election" the UN helped the occupying powers stage last January.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The United Nations

By Isjoel, Apples at Jul 08, 2005 18:04 PM
NAM was created in response to the cold war and it is, as the UN or any other organization is, a representation of the members' desires. One thing it has dealt with and will deal with more in the future is social issues. So now we have a non-hieararchial pseudo military/political/social group created and maintained by a group of nations. What is the UN? What do you want the UN to be? i agree this is one factor (probably the largest) but it is not so simple. both candidates promoted their faith. the second largest factor was probably not wanting to change the chief in the middle of war.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The United Nations

By Aagha, Dude at Jul 08, 2005 07:51 AM
Wouldn't it make sense to give human rights NGOs like Amnesty International and others some permanent seats as well as the right to over ride vetoes? Why do security council seats have to be occupied by nations only?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The United Nations

By Cacioppo, Jonas at Jul 07, 2005 23:55 PM
Reform, yes, but to what end? It has long been recognized that the United Nations is, at its essence, a powerful instrument for the United States to seek its foreign policies. I wonder if the changes deemed necessary will actually enhance our influence, tackle the corruption at the highest echelons of the UN, or both?

Reply this comment

50

Re: The United Nations

By Peterson, David at Jul 07, 2005 23:06 PM
Friends: The single most dramatic case of UN failure in recent years can be found in the abject lack of a constructive response by any of its principal organs when faced with the looming and subsequent war by the American and British states over Iraq, in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations, customary international law (wherein there is no right to wage a war of aggression, a.k.a. "pre-emptive" war), and the spirit and explicit purpose of the UN, as expressed best in its Preamble's determination "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war," and in Chapter One's pledges "To maintain international peace and security" and "take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace," and in the further demands that all members "settle their international disputes by peaceful means," and "refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state...." And what did the United Nations do when no less than two of its Permanent Five, veto-wielding members violated this Charter, these laws, and these principles?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The United Nations

By Cmzimmermann, Cmzimmermann at Jul 07, 2005 20:30 PM
R2D2, To say that the UN is a joke because there are not sufficient powers of enforcement is less a criticism of the UN than a criticism of us and systemic power structures. This is to say that the US and the other security council members are certainly in a position to create, enforce, and uphold proper enforcement powers. This is obviously not in the interests of the elites, which is quite problematic for those of us who are committed to human rights and international law. We have to take responsibility for shaping our institutions. It is not enough to simply say that the UN is worthless because they only have the power to say 'shame on you'. It is imperative to look beyond this to the root reasons for this relative impotency. The US stance on the International Court of Justice is instructive.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The United Nations

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Jul 07, 2005 18:50 PM
What about the complete lack of enforcement powers? Isn't the UN a complete joke? We act like "international law" means something, when all it really means is that a bunch of people said "shame on you" - since they don't actually have the balls to do anything to stop anyone. Unenforced rules are worse than no rules at all, because they breed contempt and disrespect for the very idea of rules. This is the same organization that promised safety to thousands of Muslims in Srebenica and then simply let the serbs slaughter them - an act even more disgusting than when Ariel Sharon let the chrisitian militias into the Palestinian camps. Sharon never promised the Palestinians protection (although he owed it to them anyways), but the UN PROMISED to defend these people, but really only performed the work of rounding them up for slaughter. The UN had the military power necessary to defend them, but simply decided not to use it because.....it's inexplicable. At least the veto recognised the real state of things by acknowledging that "since there is no way that we, the UN, are EVER going to actually do anything to these countries - no way we will EVER actually enforce a single resolution with anything other than harsh language - we might as well give them a veto to keep the whole damn thing from becoming a TOTAL farce". The rot goes deeper than the vetos. Take away the vetos and you will be left with a completely ignored UN that gets no more done than it does today.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The United Nations

By Adabanasik, Ap2k at Jul 07, 2005 18:37 PM
I previously stated that (with US support) Israel is trying to annihilate the PALESTINIANS not the PLO. Building the apartheid wall, bulldozing homes and olive groves, destroying the local economy, massive arrests, special ID cards and license plates, etc…does NOT hurt the PLO. It only hurts the Palestinian people, while making them more dependant on the PLO, making the PLO stronger. The PLO has become more of a political organization than a militant one and over the last few years have worked with Israel to preserver their power and influence. The conflict is not Israel vs. the PLO – it is the Israeli government & military (at least the Zionist part) vs. the Palestinian people. And as far as US “allowing" it to happen” – it is no secret that US supports Israel and that without the economic and military (American weapons, helicopters, bulldozers, etc) support Israel would not be able to carry on the occupation of Palestinian land for 38 years (57 years if you count the land taken in 1948). It's pretty well known (not so much in the US, but in Europe and Israel and the rest of the world) that if the US withdrew it's support for Israel (both weapons, money and political support such as vetoing countless resolutions calling for Israel to obey international law), the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would have to be resolved, as Israel would not be able to continue the (very, very expensive) occupation.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The United Nations

By Bok, Yakov at Jul 07, 2005 05:44 AM
If it was a 147-1 vote, it was not a security council resolution. Chomsky said Britain was the lone veto, not the U.S., yet everyone is bad mouthing the U.S. The Israelies have yet to annihilate the PLO - how do you explain the U.S. "allowing" it to happen?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The United Nations

By Isjoel, Apples at Jul 07, 2005 04:58 AM
The reform of the UN is synonymous with the reform of the US. It is up to the American public to make that happen and much of the world understands that. This is one reason NAM (non-aligned movement) was created. For those of you debating on whether or not to create another organization, you're a little behind. It's already been done. Of course without all of the bombs it doesn't make as big of a dent. So the real question is do we devote ourselves to reforming the US or do we support movements that are aiming to replace the UN. The American public may support the UN (Chomsky), but that wasn't expressed in the last presidential vote. Why is this not a priority of Americans and what is more important?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The United Nations

By Adabanasik, Ap2k at Jul 07, 2005 03:49 AM
Not to mention the US vetoing countless resolutions aimed to stop Israel's annihilation of the Palestinian people and land. Or the ones trying to abolish sanctions against Cuba. In both cases, it's the world against the US (possibly US with a lonesome ally)...I think it's cases like the above that really bring out the absurdity of the veto!!!

Reply this comment

Person

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Jul 07, 2005 02:56 AM
". I agree with the consensus that the veto power of the US is undemocratic." Only the US veto, or all vetos?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The United Nations

By Anjinursey, Cheetah at Jul 06, 2005 23:19 PM
Most of the bitter taste the UN leaves in my mouth comes from the bitter herb the US always seems to shove into any collective pot they get their hands on. I agree with the consensus that the veto power of the US is undemocratic. Any positive changes would have to start there. Of course, that leads to the catch-22 of the century.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The United Nations

By Adabanasik, Ap2k at Jul 06, 2005 22:41 PM
I agree...starting a new international organization like the UN is not too feasible (unless there is a world war which destroys the current world order)...Personally, I don't want to get rid of the UN. I think there are some shortcomings in the organization that should be addressed (get rid of the veto powers and permanent seats on the SC – basically make it democratic not plutocratic)…but the majority of the changes have to come from the US (since it is the US that undermines the UN more than any other superpower). The biggest problem I see with the UN (or US) is that the resolutions do not mean much if they don't fit US interests and there is no way to enforce them since no one can stand up to the US militarily. So the change will have to come from within the US itself…which means us…

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The United Nations

By Steele, Mistersteele at Jul 06, 2005 20:36 PM
It is rather simple to understand, as Prof. Chomsky has pointed out many times; the United States must always have it's way in world affairs. To suggest anything else, would violate the doctrine of our so-called national interest. Imagine, if you will, if any other nation state had determined that an invasion of Iraq would serve it's 'national interest', under the accepted American doctrine of pre-emptive strike. No, the United States can continue behaving as a rogue state, the rules do not apply.

Reply this comment

Mcd

Re: The United Nations

By Dawson, Michael at Jul 06, 2005 20:20 PM
Establishing a new organization is worse than reinventing the wheel. The United States already hates the basic idea of the UN. How in the world do you imagine it would not sabotage a new organization even more deeply? The Security Council veto and permanent seating system are what have to go, not the UN itself, which has much to like. Vetoes in general are anti-democratic, while we're at it.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The United Nations

By Aagha, Dude at Jul 06, 2005 19:10 PM
I'm not an expert on the U.N., but is there a difference between creating a new and equal U.N. and simply abolishing the security council? Also, are there not positive elements of the U.N. Charter that might be lost if the U.N. was abandoned altogether?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The United Nations

By Adabanasik, Ap2k at Jul 06, 2005 18:30 PM
The question is: can we reform the UN or would it make more sense to establish a new (and more equal) international organization? Reforms sound great, but I don't see the “superpowers” giving up their dominant roles (veto power, etc.). Obviously, the US is not likely to give up such powers (and “need a permission slip” to do what it pleases), but countries like Russia and China would oppose such reforms just as much. What would the other countries have to do in order to force these reforms to take place?

Reply this comment

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (30)

Loading_border