Slashdot Mirror
Bruce Sterling says: Marry the UN and the Net
An anonymous reader writes "SF writer Bruce Sterling is guest-posting on the global-eco-tech blog Worldchanging today and thinks we ought to marry the Internet and the United Nations. 'The UN has cumbersome rules, no popular participation, and can't get anything useful done about the darkly rising tide of stateless terror and military adventurism. The UN was invented to "unite nations" rather than people. The Internet unites people, but it's politically illegitimate. Vigilante lawfare outfits like RIAA and MPAA can torment users and ISPs at will. The dominant OS is a hole-riddled monopoly. Its business models collapsed in a welter of stock-kiting corruption. The Net is a lawless mess of cross-border spam and fraud. Logically, there ought to be some inventive way to cross-breed the grass-rootsy cheapness, energy and immediacy of the Net with the magisterial though cumbersome, crotchety, crooked and opaque United Nations.' It's obviously part tongue in cheek, but it does make you think."
Without the International Criminal Court (and the cooperation of every nation in the world), this kind of system simply won't work. It'd also bring up a lot of juristiction questions, such as whether it's okay for the Internet Police to make arrests in the United States, above the authority of the FBI and such. Also, who would watch them if they even had this power? Corruption in the Internet Police would be impossible to stop.
US businesses that currently accept chip and PIN/signature
The Internet should be for the People, by the People, and of the People. There has to be a better solution than having the U.N. get involved.
Sterling forgot to mention that the UN is as rife with corruption as its member states are.
Why not marry the UN and the telephone? That would make about as much sense. The United Nations is a government entity, the Internet is a service.
...and I'm here to help!
The internet is driven by it's users, the UN, the protoype world goverment, is driven by power.
The internet has intelligence at it's ends, the UN intellegence is centralised.
The internet routes around censorship, the UN is censorship.
He's from the goverment and all he does is cost money and fuck things up.
I'm confused here. Is Sterling proposing that the Internet be regulated to carry only the lowest common denominator of traffic? No political dissent, because China vetos it on the Security Council? No pr0n because a coalition of Moslem states raise a motion forbidding it, then use their block vote and the implicit threat of terrorism to force it through? RIAA and MPAA running hog wild because the US ties humanitarian assistance to acceptance of its IP agenda?
Sterling really ought to stick to the novels, tho' having said that, apart from Difference Engine I haven't been impressed by any of his work.
Before too many people start saying "the UN is powerless", please think what the UN actually is.
The UN is a place to discuss problems between countries, to discuss world-wide problems. It is a place to organise solutions with regarding to global problems. It is an umbrella under which people can operate without having to worry from which country they are coming.
The UN consist of, included but not limited to, the Security Counsel, UNICEF (childrens fund) and the UNHCR (refugees). Don't judge the whole UN by the (in)capabilities of one section.
The UN itself doesn't have much power, they have as much power as the contributing countries give them. If the world cries "UN, help them!", but the countries don't give men and material, the UN can't help.
The UN is a place to resolve problems if everybody wants to resolve them, it is not a power which can resolve problems on its own.
bash$
I can see the charter now:
1. Notice spyware problem.
2. Announce commission to study spyware problem.
3. Approves resolution condemning spyware problem.
4. Watch as spyware problem continues.
5. Repeat steps 3-4
Has it ocurred to anyone that the reason the UN "can't get anything useful done" is that the US owes close to $600 Million in dues? The US also routinely withholds money whenever it feels it can gain leverage on an issue.
Add to this the fact that the US has veto power over most issues (meaning it can skew any issue to suit its' purposes) and refuses to recognise the need for anything like an International Criminal Court and you have a recipe for a dysfunctional organisation.
The UN fails in its' role due to the often devisive action (or inaction) of the US. Perhaps if the US were a better global citizen the UN might have a chance of actually working?
my 2c
Even peace can only work if both sides want peace. After WW2 the european nations more or less decided that there were to be no more wars (on european soil between european nations, the rest of the world was still open season) and because all of them decided it it happened. Even though spain and england have a dispute over the rock of gibraltar. Even though Ireland and England are in dispute. Even though most of the nations have a long long history of war with each other there has been peace.
But even in europe there are still wars, Northern Ireland and Baskenland, because in those cases one side doesn't want peace.
Or maybe I am using the wrong word. It is not so much a case of wanting or not wanting peace. It is a case of the various sides wanting or not wanting things but not considering war to be a way of achieving those wants.
Simple example. Drugs. The Netherlands has a rather liberal policy on it, France does not. In the past the frence goverment wanted holland to change its policy but not so badly as to go to war. Unlike america wich has gone to war over drugs.
The UN can only work if all the sides involved consider war not really to be an option. It is like those pub fights were arguments flare up and things get out of hand. In some cases both the fighters can't back down but really want a third person to step in and stop the fight allowing both to save face. If however one in the fight really wants the fight to happen the third party is powerless.
Of course the world is not a pub. In a pub you got maybe 4 sides, the two fighters, those who want to watch a fight and those who don't. The world has got close to two hundred countries with each country often having conflicting intrests. The fact that the UN still exists may be considered an achievement.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Yes, and the internet can work just like the UN: put Microsoft, SCO, the RIAA, the MPAA etc. on the "Software Rights" Commission. It would be analagous to Lybia and such being on the "Human Rights" Commission.
The UN was created to unite countries,
,sits at the head of the UN Human Rights Commission. And what does the General Assembly do about such a travesty? It steadfastly refuses to pass a resolution condemning antisemitism.
It was created to do no such thing. It was created in order to prevent a third world war from occurring, with the Western democracies (the '1st world') on one side and the Soviet Union and its client states (the '2nd world') on the other.
This was a laudable goal, and to the extent that this did not happen, the UN achieved its goal. Like any other bureaucratic organization rendered obsolete by the passage of time, the UN has endeavoured to reinvent itself. Unfortunately, as the simple facts of the matter are that there exist more backwards, primitive, kleptocratic, oppressive governments than there exist enlightened democracies, the voice the UN speaks with is chiefly the voice of its basest and more numerous members.
Fer Chrissakes, Sudan, a government currently undergoing an organized campaign of genocide against its own citizenry
That's pretty much the current UN in a nutshell. When it *does* manage to accomplish something, like imposing sanctions on Saddam Hussein, it ends up looting the Food for Oil program which was intended to spare the Iraqi people the worst impact of those sanctions.
It's a nest of vipers. It's not even that it's anti-American; I'm not arrogant enough to condemn such sentiment a priorily. But it's clearly anti-liberal, and I use that word in its classic Lockeian sense. The ideals that this country was founded on, that individual liberty is the highest goal for which one can struggle, are anathema to the Westphalian notions of national sovereignity that the UN was founded upon. If we do truly hold that governments derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed, then how can we go about treating illegitimate governments to an equal seat at the table?
Nations like North Korea, Saudi Arabia, China, Singapore, and Iran make up a large part of the UN. There is no way in hell I want those countries having the merest degree of jurisdiction over what I can do, say, or read on the internet. The very suggestion is utter lunacy.
Well said, and I completely agree with you.
What I meant to highlight was that the UN is unable to solve it's own problems, and has a limited impact on most of the issues that really trouble the world, and has therefore not quite done its job.
The League of Nations failed in stopping WW2, while the UN could do absolutely nothing about the Cold War - agreed, it did not fully escalate into a war - but it was still a very genuine threat. That it did not manifest itself into a war is something we should count as a blessing, and not something I would credit to the UN.
And yeah, while you are right in saying that countries like China should have no right telling you what to read, be aware that a lot of people in the world are feeling the same way about the US, too (am not taking sides here, merely highlighting the fact) -- that's what makes it all the more trickier.
It's true that UN has been toothless in power politics.
But you are ignoring tons of vitally important and very successful projects of UNICEF, UNESCO, and other sub-organizations of the UN. They have done really important work for decades, improving the world we live in.
Most peace-keeping missions have succeeded. And all those aid programs, haven't they also contributed to not just well-being, but also stability and peace in the world?
I'd even go as far as to say that what those organizations do every day around the world is the only way to effectively fight terrorism -- remove the causes.
Just a "nest of vipers", whoa buddy. Have some respect where it is due. Those bad apples you mentioned, of course they'll always be in the minority, so who cares about them?
Most peace-keeping missions have succeeded.
FSVO 'success.' The peacekeeping mission in Rwanda 'succeeded' by sitting there and let the butchers finish their work, and then claiming credit for halting the butchery. The peacekeeping mission in Somalia, didn't. The peacekeeping mission in Yugoslavia wouldn't have accomplished jack were it not for the US's willingness to spread peace, love, and understanding in 500, 1000, and 2000 lb packages.
Google on 'Srebrinica Massacre' to see what sort of security UN peacekeepers can provide.
The number of genocides that have taken place on the UN's watch is a travesty. The number that have taken place within weapons range of UN peacekeepers is an indictment.
And all those aid programs, haven't they also contributed to not just well-being, but also stability and peace in the world?
Stability and peace are often at cross-purposes with the 'well-being' of the world. UNICEF feeds kids who are starving because of their fucked-up governments, but doesn't do a thing to replace fucked-up governments that starve their own populations. The WHO works to eradicate disease in countries with fucked-up governments, but doesn't do a thing to replace the fucked-up governments that don't give a shit about the poor public health of their populace.
I'd even go as far as to say that what those organizations do every day around the world is the only way to effectively fight terrorism -- remove the causes.
And where, oh where, has the UN managed to accomplish this?
of course they'll always be in the minority
Read down a list of the UN general assembly.
They're not in the minority.
he UN is obsolote because all power rests in the hands of the Security Council, and the power there lies only in the hands of the countries that hold veto power (US, UK, France, China, Russia).
Oh, I see. The problem is that backwards-assed medievalism as embodied in nations like Sudan and Iran isn't given enough power to wield on the world stage.
That makes such sense.
Virtually every year for the past couple of decades it has almost universally condemned Israel's refusal to follow international law in its occupation of Palestine, what has that accomplished?
While Israel has killed some innocent civilians in the West Bank and Gaza, their primary intention is to pursue and proactively eliminate terrorists, with civilians who die in the crossfire an unintended consequence. The problem is that that most of the world and UN, you included, are focusing in on Israel and condemning this country while blatantly ignoring the far more indiscriminate oppression of people in Zimbabwe, Sudan, and Timor. The problem of the UN being practically castrated in its power is only compounded by its obsession to punish Israel due to a large base of antisemitic nations.
But he wasn't there to get anything done. The hard part is when you're there to do a real job, like making global roaming for cell phones work.
Funny (actually tragic) how the UN does not care the least bit about Palestinians training their kids to be suicide bombers who try to kill as many innocent civilians as possible. This is perhaps the worst form of child abuse in practice today, and the UN tries to sweep it under the rug. When they are willing to condemn this horrible behavior, then I will say Israel should listen to them regarding the occupation of Palestinian land.