There are some on the right and far right who believe that the UN should be abolished, they see it as a threat to Americas power. They create a straw man by debating the notion that the UN should be a blueprint for a world government annexing and subordinating the US to outside influences, but who on the left is suggesting this? The ambassador to the UN under George W. Bush, John Bolton was extremely hostile towards the UN and his appointment there was a clear message, you could say that John Bolton was the Bush administrations' middle finger pointed at the rest of the world. In a famous video clip from 1994 he vehemently stated "There is no United Nations. There is an international community, that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world, and that's the United States, when it suits our interests, and when we can get others to go along." Revealing his level of vitriol, he went on to say "The United States makes the UN work when it wants it to work, and that is exactly the way it should be because the ONLY question, the only question to the United States is what's in our best interest. And if you don't like that, I'm sorry but that is the facts."
John Boltons' statements were raw and unrefined partly due to the fact that he was speaking at a convention in the 90's and couldn't foresee becoming a YouTube sensation a decade later. He exposes the shocking truth about the United States' manipulation of the UN, that it's nothing more than the toothless tiger that we allow it to be. It's fascinating that John Bolton would not only admit that the United Nations was led by the United States, but he says it as a criticism of the UN as if they want to be puppets of politicians in Washington DC. The right wing should embrace the current model of the UN as a world government, it's completely under the hegemonic control of the US government, and therefore those wealthy and corporate interests who control the US government. The UN is intended to be a democratic system among nations on a global stage, but like our representative democracy this system is ultimately flawed. First, the UN acts as a firewall between actual people and international law/global policy. We the people have no vote on these fundamental policies gone global. Second, the Security Council and it's five permanent members is a "country club" within the the UN that rules over the general assembly and effectively controls the organization.
The UN is flawed in the same way that democracy in the US is flawed, it's completely vulnerable to manipulation by wealthy and powerful, entrenched interests. It is essentially globalized representative government, which is a false form of democracy. Direct democracy is true democracy and there's no reason why we can't have a true democracy on a global scale. We can actually vote for policy, not for people, through ballot measures, initiatives, and propositions. We do it on the city, county, and state levels, why not the national level? And why not global? When we vote we have ballots that combine our local, state, and national elections into one, we could just as easily have an international level to vote on issues of a global scale. If we believe in democracy why do we limit it so? Is it possible that those who seek to cap democracy at some level are those who oppose it's potential? Why not make one person one vote extend to everyone on the planet?
Our system of nations keeps us compartmentalized in chambers, making it difficult for us to compare and contrast our standards of living or quality of democracy. As a result, Americans can demand for themselves freedoms, rights, privileges, that they don't necessarily think other nationalities deserve. When the subjects of torture or immigration are discussed there seem to be many who are appalled that we might give other nationalities the "rights" we enjoy as American citizens, like the "right" to a fair trial, or the "right" to not be tortured. How can we draw a line on any level that allows some people to be tortured, but not other people? The territory we're born in shouldn't matter any more than the color of our skin, we once debated whether black people should have the same rights as white people. We as American citizens somehow have more "rights" than non-American citizens, in a similar way that our white forefathers had more "rights" than their black slaves.
That we openly discuss our need as Americans to have more rights than most other people is simply astonishing. Rights are nothing without equality, if after the 400 year legacy of slavery in North America we can somehow limit that ideal to Americans, we have ultimately failed the greater struggle. Democracy should be the one thing a government can't govern, limit, micro-manage, and ultimately subvert. We the people are deciding nothing of any import in our elections when we vote for one corporate sponsored candidate or another. And we're not allowed to sound off on global policies that matter now (and in the future) more than ever. With a direct democracy gone global we can finally see what democracy looks like, independent, autonomous regions under the umbrella of democratic, international (or global) law. The powers that be (represented well by John Bolton) do not want to see this world of global democracy, they now have enormous power and one person one vote would be a massive downgrade for them.
Until democracy and equality are complete they are mere concepts not yet in practice.
No comments:
Post a Comment