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."
Yeah, let's give the last remaining actual "freedom" we have left (the Net) over to the most corrupt and widely-policing Capitalist Authoritarian organization possible.
Too late. Your IP has been tracked and the CIA will be by shortly to assist your enrollment in a 're-education' program. You'll be wearing Nikes, bopping to Britney Spears, and taping Survivor in no time.
Don't worry, you'll still be allowed choices. Specifically "Coke or Pepsi" and "Doritos, Doritos Extreme and Lo-Carb Mega Doritos Extreme".
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
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.
So you believe all you hear, right? Have you ever considered which national military makes up the bulk of the UN "peacekeepers"? Did you know the US is billed for 25% of the UN's operations (over 30% for the "peacekeeping" operations), in addition to the non-dues support it provides (which has estimates ranging from 15-20+ Billion in the last 8-10 years)?
Indeed, between 1992 and 1997, the US provided "voluntary" (in truth all of it is voluntary, the UN has no rightful or legal claims to *any* national treasury) support topping 11 billion dollars --just for "peacekeeping" activities. A march 1997 report showed US troops supporting such actions numbered approximately 68,000.
Hey, maybe we can just "pay our dues" and stop making all that voluntary contributions. Whaddya say? Wanna trade that 11+ Billion for 600 Million? No? Didn't think so.
Did you know that in fact, when it comes to peacekeeping forces, more than half the member countries refuse to make payments? Indeed, the UN thinks it is owed some 5+ BILLION in USD, yet we don't see you, or other UN apologists, pushing for the rest of the member countries (about 2/3rds any given year) to pay up (BTW, France is included in the top 5 list).
And FYI, the "withholding" of US funds has been tied directly to reforming functional aspects of the UN, such as the portion the UN allocates, the funding of conferences and organizations directly opposed to the United States (something no country should have to support -- organizations that oppose it), and a proper accounting of the US' military support which has far exceeded it's "assigned share".
Add to this the fact that the US has veto power over most issues
So does Russia, so does China, France. All five of the permanent members of the UNSEC have veto powers, but that is ONLY limited to the (in)Security Council. "The council's five veto-wielding permanent members are China, France, Russia, the UK and the US."
Indeed, do you know which country has used their veto power more than the rest? Bzzzt, no it isn't the US, it is USSR/Russia.
-- http://www.peace.ca/securitycouncilveto.htm
In the UN General Assembly, there is no veto power. Indeed, the UN GA can override the SC through UN resolution 377 which allows the General Assembly to recommend collective action "if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security".
http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/landmark/a major.htm
And guess which country pushed for that ability? Yup, the nasty old United States, in 1950. But that action has rarely been used. Indeed, only ten times since it's inception has it been used. Why was it not used in the Iraq affair? not enough support. If the majority did indeed oppose it, they were apparently unwilling to go on record as being against it.
Given the actual layout of functions and powers in the UN, your claims fall flat on their face, as the US does not have "veto power over most issues ", that the USSR has used the veto power more than any other member of the SC, that veto is no
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
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.