You have to decide if you believe there should be international law or not
-
Call me a fool, but imho it starts with a paradigm shift, of all of us living on the principle of abundance instead of scarcity and of course the love for all our creatures in this world.
@fdriesenaar @ekis I believe we need that too. I also realize most humans are inherently selfish & that kind of societal shift requires a lot less selfishness & a lot more selflessness. I support folks doing their best to personally consume less, strive to contribute more to their community & actively resisting capitalist temptations.
-
@PhoenixSerenity @ekis no argument. The same reason the West is learning that having one uber dominant partner isn't ideal, the world economy is about to learn the same thing regarding China.
Asymmetry is tough to control. Capitalism's chase of the cheapest everything for profit will be it's demise.
@pixelpusher220 @ekis There are a few good reasons that I've been saying China is the sleeping dragon who will emerge as new global superpower - since early 1990s. They are sitting back, waiting, while watching USA destroy itself - domestically & internationally.
-
@pixelpusher220 @ekis There are a few good reasons that I've been saying China is the sleeping dragon who will emerge as new global superpower - since early 1990s. They are sitting back, waiting, while watching USA destroy itself - domestically & internationally.
@PhoenixSerenity @ekis yep. Purely from a political anthropology angle, China is fascinating. They seemingly have found the magic touch between some economic freedoms while still maintaining central party control. And for long enough to get embedded into western economies almost to the point of catastrophic levels of risk to said economies.
-
You have to decide if you believe there should be international law or not
The Nuremberg trials laid out a very simple idea: the supreme international crime is launching a war of aggression
The UN security council must be rebuilt from the ground up
UN must be wrestled from US control, it must not be allowed to use it as just another weapon, and we must work towards an actual system of international law, one where we are actually equal. the other option is global war
the UN does need to be rebuilt regardless of any other factors
the security council for example:
france and uk both having seats is a colonial era hangover. there should be one EU seat
russia inherited theirs from the USSR, this wasn't even legal. russia simply should not have a seat
india should have one
brazil should have one
nigeria or south africa should have one
australia or indonesia should have one
egypt or saudi arabia should have one
china and usa as usual
-
the UN does need to be rebuilt regardless of any other factors
the security council for example:
france and uk both having seats is a colonial era hangover. there should be one EU seat
russia inherited theirs from the USSR, this wasn't even legal. russia simply should not have a seat
india should have one
brazil should have one
nigeria or south africa should have one
australia or indonesia should have one
egypt or saudi arabia should have one
china and usa as usual
Single member veto powers are a bad idea. I get that it was probably the only way to get the UN started, but it makes it difficult to make meaningful decisions.
-
the UN does need to be rebuilt regardless of any other factors
the security council for example:
france and uk both having seats is a colonial era hangover. there should be one EU seat
russia inherited theirs from the USSR, this wasn't even legal. russia simply should not have a seat
india should have one
brazil should have one
nigeria or south africa should have one
australia or indonesia should have one
egypt or saudi arabia should have one
china and usa as usual
@benroyce and no VETO.
-
the UN does need to be rebuilt regardless of any other factors
the security council for example:
france and uk both having seats is a colonial era hangover. there should be one EU seat
russia inherited theirs from the USSR, this wasn't even legal. russia simply should not have a seat
india should have one
brazil should have one
nigeria or south africa should have one
australia or indonesia should have one
egypt or saudi arabia should have one
china and usa as usual
-
i disagree
the UN is a room for countries to discuss matters so things don't go to war
that we are going to war more and more is a function of the UN's antiquated structure from a snapshot of the world in 1945
in a new structure, if you exclude any of the regional powers from veto power, any decision simply won't be followed. and so: war
yes, it makes meaninful decisions hard
but they won't be binding without support of the regional powers anyways
-
@benroyce and no VETO.
but how?
say brazil has a seat and brazil vetoes a decision but their veto is ignored and this greatly upsets brazil
this CREATES conflict
-
good point about china
but china is the natural regional power
meanwhile russia is a joke of a country that is getting to be even more of a joke every day. it's irrelevancy will only grow
there has to be though
how does a decision decided on by small countries have any significance if the regional powers don't like it?
-
good point about china
but china is the natural regional power
meanwhile russia is a joke of a country that is getting to be even more of a joke every day. it's irrelevancy will only grow
there has to be though
how does a decision decided on by small countries have any significance if the regional powers don't like it?
@benroyce @StarkRG @ekis It doesn't work either way apparently. We have tried the veto system and as long as it exists it absolves those countries who have a veto completely. Israel has long done whatever it wants because the US gives them a get out of jail card. The US does what it wants. It doesn't matter who you give the veto to it won't work...ever....
So what's the choice, two systems one of which clearly doesn't work (and it doesn't matter who has the veto) and the other that has never been tried but apparently won't work either.....
-
@benroyce @StarkRG @ekis It doesn't work either way apparently. We have tried the veto system and as long as it exists it absolves those countries who have a veto completely. Israel has long done whatever it wants because the US gives them a get out of jail card. The US does what it wants. It doesn't matter who you give the veto to it won't work...ever....
So what's the choice, two systems one of which clearly doesn't work (and it doesn't matter who has the veto) and the other that has never been tried but apparently won't work either.....
@SamanthaJaneSmith @StarkRG @ekis
i think it's matter of deciding on what the UN is
if we think it is just a room for discussing things and resolving conflict, then yes veto power
if we think it is for making binding decisions over the strenuous objections of a few countries, regardless of whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, then no veto power
but now you're saying the UN is for *creating* conflict
nevermind you won't get buy in to the idea from enough countries to make it work
-
the UN does need to be rebuilt regardless of any other factors
the security council for example:
france and uk both having seats is a colonial era hangover. there should be one EU seat
russia inherited theirs from the USSR, this wasn't even legal. russia simply should not have a seat
india should have one
brazil should have one
nigeria or south africa should have one
australia or indonesia should have one
egypt or saudi arabia should have one
china and usa as usual
-
the problem with getting rid of the veto is that now you're envisioning a UN that *creates* conflict instead of resolving it
if a regional power strenuously objects to a decision and doesn't get a veto, they won't follow it
nevermind you won't get buy in from the regional powers to make such a new UN at all
as for indonesia vs australia, i think we can solve that problem by giving the ASEAN + oceania veto seat to palau
-
R relay@relay.an.exchange shared this topic
