April 29th - US & UN was a Success!
Over 70 people turned out on the Friday night before finals to the UNO campus not to study for approaching tests, but to more accurately understand the sometimes tense relationship between the United States and United Nations in international politics. With John Bolton's nomination for US ambassador to the UN under hot debate on his suitability to represent the US as chief international diplomat, and the current plans for reform initiated by Kofi Annan for the United Nations - there was a lot of media attention on the UN at the time.
Mike Kelly of Creighton University open up the meeting and relaxed the crowded atmosphere with a bit of an ice breaker. He asked everyone to check the shirt collar of the person beside them, to see where the shirt was made. The countries rattled off, El Salvador, Canada, China, United States, Taiwan, ... the point was made, "we live in an interdependent world".
Kelly proceeded into a discussion of Force Theory over the course of recent history, in which there has been a shift in military doctrine to target "emerging" instead of "imminent" threats. The last preemptive strike by the US was on December 7, 1941 - upon which shortly there after the UN outlawed such actions and the Nuremburg trials found judgment that "world order is best achieved by restraining the military options of states". Israel was criticized and condemned for sending F16s to blow up a nuclear reactor in Iraq years ago, by the UN and the US even. The world did not agree with a "preemptive strike" strategy such that "any state could attack another" and because if a state is weak, they'll simply look to nuclear weapons "as a deterrent" to a possible invasion by their mightier neighbors - perhaps on the other side of the globe.
Kelly recalls that, with the Bush administration's disregard for international law (e.g. Kyoto Protocol, Antiballistic missiles, International Criminal Court, disregard of Geneva Convention restrictions against torture and standards of treatment in Guantanamo Bay) - the U.S. is now reaping the whirlwind of lowest regard by foreign nations in decades. If the U.S. wants to lead and be respected in the U.N. - it needs to embrace legitimacy instead of going it alone in the world. John Bolton (which Kelly analogized to "Oscar the Grouch" on sesame Street), with his history of character and actions of pure disregard for the U.N., doesn't seem to be quite the answer we need to put U.S. and U.N. relations back on track.
Dr. Sajda Qureshi of the University of Nebraska at Omaha (UNO) drew upon the international interdependence on technology in our globalized society, and how it flattens the landscape of distant societies and people to "work in interesting ways" while mentioning there is a perception gap in what the U.N. does and what Americans think it does. Dr. Qureshi has worked with the U.N. on economic development, and feels that one of the issues for people to understand about the U.N. is that it is simply such a large organization doing so many things in the world, it's nearly impossible to keep up with it all. All Kofi Annan can say, is that "the U.N. is bringing peace and development to this world" but can't possibly explain the details of every program. With the allegations of rape in the Congo and other reprehensible acts by U.N. employees, the U.N. is still making a profoundly positive difference in the world in many places by increasing food production, providing telecommuncation infrastructure, and is key capacity building by teaching people to do something productive.
Qureshi said the perception of the U.N. in the U.S. is off target. The U.N. is a run by a collection of world leaders in a very diplomatic way, and many of these countries have a hard time agreeing and coming to terms on things. Look at the U.S. bipartisan system and it's troubles finding an agreement, then try to multiply that to the scale of the world and the picture becomes quite distraught - but still a lot amazingly gets done, on a shoestring budget to no larger than that of the state of Arkansas is used to support world-wide endeavors.
In her closing remarks, Qureshi turned the tables on the Bolton nomination, regarding it as a "useful appointment for China, Mexico, Brazil and big emerging economies" ready to reap the benefits of globalization, while the U.S. is stuck fighting about needs for security to prevent against threats real or perceived.
Dr. Wogugu of UNO also played along into the emphasis on security in the U.S. perception of the U.N. instead of it's development efforts. He mentioned the story of a plumber who came by and said, "I have no respect for the U.N" and Dr. Wogugu, a 20 year veteran of the U.N., could only see that this must be based on a misunderstanding perceived from the press on what the U.N. does in the world. He mentioned that often times, when member states in the U.N. do not get their own personal agendas through (read U.S. on security - and right to "preemptive strike"), they turn against the U.N. This could explain the perception that trickles down through the media to the masses.
Wogugu said he was of course very happy to be present to speak about the topic of U.S. and U.N. relations but that he was definitely not here for "Bush or Annan bashing", but rather to put the facts as the are out on the table. He highlighted his experiences of U.S. misunderstanding related to his work in population and family planning issues at the U.N. In the 70s, the U.S. was in the forefront of family planning with the U.N. but then the policy changed with Reagan when the U.S. pulled their funds thinking the U.N. supported abortions as that was going on in China. Then also the U.S. had pulled out of UNESCO in the 70s because it was "no in their political interests" at the time, but later came back. This has been a common history of the U.S. withholding U.N. dues and funds of support for some U.N. programs and it's evident that this must strain relations between the two bodies.
Dr. Wogugu also made the important point, that many tend to forget, is that the U.N. is NOT a sovereign, and they can only do so many things. In fact, the U.S. has a large stake in forming the u decisions - the UN is headquartered in New York, the U.S. is its largest donor, and the U.S. gets the most benefits out of it. Also Dr. Wogugu highlighted Dr. Qureshi's point, but changing the term, to say the U.N. is a "multifaceted" organization and has it's challenges, and needs reform. In closing, he commented that in the long run we need dialog and cooperation with the U.N. for ideas to be pushed through - just like winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis and Afghans, so to it applies in the U.N. and world political system. It was neat to remark, that when Bush was asked of the U.N.s work in Lebanon and Syria, he said that they were doing a fantastic job. So, in the end, the U.N. is "wonderful" when it plays along with U.S. interests, yet "chastised" when it sides democratically with the other couple hundred nations represented.
Dr. Sung Pae of Bellevue University carried on this "perception" difference the past speakers brought up as well. He cited from Plato's "The Republic" in that we all live in our own cave, of our own backgrounds: religious, legal, social and other perspectives. With some short lessons in political science, Pae touched on the 2 schools of thought in foreign policy: realism and idealism. He said we could live in a world like the "wild kingdom" where there is only a "survival of the fittest" among nations who are each trying to dominate each other, or we could live in "peace loving world" where nations are willing to cooperate instead of working isolation. Examples of each are the U.S. unilateral preemptive attack on Iraq, and also the founding of the League of Nations and United Nations to help ensure peace. Dr. Pae went on to say that sometimes we choose the "realistic" way and other times the "idealist" way all depending upon the circumstances of the situation. For instance, is the situation urgent, threatening a national interest, dependent on secret intelligence, and an exchange their analysis on costs versus benefits of a desired action are some examples to consider.
Dr. Pae closed with an analogy to the fall of the Roman empire after 200 years - while the US is just beyond that time. The causes for Rome's fall were considered to be imperial overstreatch by trying to extend power in the world at costs of large economic debts ($300 billion just for Iraq) and social overstreatch leading to debt by extending to many hand-outs to people.
Questions from the audience brought up points that:
* In the cold war it was easier, countries just sided up with the USSR or U.S. - one of the sides that had the nukes.
* Lest we forget, the League of Nations collapsed when Germany invaded Poland, and now the U.S. is in Iraq.
* Policies often change with self interests of the people in charge.
* World Bank/IMF is not part of (but linked to the U.N., and is heavily dominated by Western powers which uses 3rd world for cheap labor, not the U.N.
* Before judging the U.N. (which is not sovereign) look at one's own country first.
- Brian Wiese
Mike Kelly of Creighton University open up the meeting and relaxed the crowded atmosphere with a bit of an ice breaker. He asked everyone to check the shirt collar of the person beside them, to see where the shirt was made. The countries rattled off, El Salvador, Canada, China, United States, Taiwan, ... the point was made, "we live in an interdependent world".
Kelly proceeded into a discussion of Force Theory over the course of recent history, in which there has been a shift in military doctrine to target "emerging" instead of "imminent" threats. The last preemptive strike by the US was on December 7, 1941 - upon which shortly there after the UN outlawed such actions and the Nuremburg trials found judgment that "world order is best achieved by restraining the military options of states". Israel was criticized and condemned for sending F16s to blow up a nuclear reactor in Iraq years ago, by the UN and the US even. The world did not agree with a "preemptive strike" strategy such that "any state could attack another" and because if a state is weak, they'll simply look to nuclear weapons "as a deterrent" to a possible invasion by their mightier neighbors - perhaps on the other side of the globe.
Kelly recalls that, with the Bush administration's disregard for international law (e.g. Kyoto Protocol, Antiballistic missiles, International Criminal Court, disregard of Geneva Convention restrictions against torture and standards of treatment in Guantanamo Bay) - the U.S. is now reaping the whirlwind of lowest regard by foreign nations in decades. If the U.S. wants to lead and be respected in the U.N. - it needs to embrace legitimacy instead of going it alone in the world. John Bolton (which Kelly analogized to "Oscar the Grouch" on sesame Street), with his history of character and actions of pure disregard for the U.N., doesn't seem to be quite the answer we need to put U.S. and U.N. relations back on track.
Dr. Sajda Qureshi of the University of Nebraska at Omaha (UNO) drew upon the international interdependence on technology in our globalized society, and how it flattens the landscape of distant societies and people to "work in interesting ways" while mentioning there is a perception gap in what the U.N. does and what Americans think it does. Dr. Qureshi has worked with the U.N. on economic development, and feels that one of the issues for people to understand about the U.N. is that it is simply such a large organization doing so many things in the world, it's nearly impossible to keep up with it all. All Kofi Annan can say, is that "the U.N. is bringing peace and development to this world" but can't possibly explain the details of every program. With the allegations of rape in the Congo and other reprehensible acts by U.N. employees, the U.N. is still making a profoundly positive difference in the world in many places by increasing food production, providing telecommuncation infrastructure, and is key capacity building by teaching people to do something productive.
Qureshi said the perception of the U.N. in the U.S. is off target. The U.N. is a run by a collection of world leaders in a very diplomatic way, and many of these countries have a hard time agreeing and coming to terms on things. Look at the U.S. bipartisan system and it's troubles finding an agreement, then try to multiply that to the scale of the world and the picture becomes quite distraught - but still a lot amazingly gets done, on a shoestring budget to no larger than that of the state of Arkansas is used to support world-wide endeavors.
In her closing remarks, Qureshi turned the tables on the Bolton nomination, regarding it as a "useful appointment for China, Mexico, Brazil and big emerging economies" ready to reap the benefits of globalization, while the U.S. is stuck fighting about needs for security to prevent against threats real or perceived.
Dr. Wogugu of UNO also played along into the emphasis on security in the U.S. perception of the U.N. instead of it's development efforts. He mentioned the story of a plumber who came by and said, "I have no respect for the U.N" and Dr. Wogugu, a 20 year veteran of the U.N., could only see that this must be based on a misunderstanding perceived from the press on what the U.N. does in the world. He mentioned that often times, when member states in the U.N. do not get their own personal agendas through (read U.S. on security - and right to "preemptive strike"), they turn against the U.N. This could explain the perception that trickles down through the media to the masses.
Wogugu said he was of course very happy to be present to speak about the topic of U.S. and U.N. relations but that he was definitely not here for "Bush or Annan bashing", but rather to put the facts as the are out on the table. He highlighted his experiences of U.S. misunderstanding related to his work in population and family planning issues at the U.N. In the 70s, the U.S. was in the forefront of family planning with the U.N. but then the policy changed with Reagan when the U.S. pulled their funds thinking the U.N. supported abortions as that was going on in China. Then also the U.S. had pulled out of UNESCO in the 70s because it was "no in their political interests" at the time, but later came back. This has been a common history of the U.S. withholding U.N. dues and funds of support for some U.N. programs and it's evident that this must strain relations between the two bodies.
Dr. Wogugu also made the important point, that many tend to forget, is that the U.N. is NOT a sovereign, and they can only do so many things. In fact, the U.S. has a large stake in forming the u decisions - the UN is headquartered in New York, the U.S. is its largest donor, and the U.S. gets the most benefits out of it. Also Dr. Wogugu highlighted Dr. Qureshi's point, but changing the term, to say the U.N. is a "multifaceted" organization and has it's challenges, and needs reform. In closing, he commented that in the long run we need dialog and cooperation with the U.N. for ideas to be pushed through - just like winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis and Afghans, so to it applies in the U.N. and world political system. It was neat to remark, that when Bush was asked of the U.N.s work in Lebanon and Syria, he said that they were doing a fantastic job. So, in the end, the U.N. is "wonderful" when it plays along with U.S. interests, yet "chastised" when it sides democratically with the other couple hundred nations represented.
Dr. Sung Pae of Bellevue University carried on this "perception" difference the past speakers brought up as well. He cited from Plato's "The Republic" in that we all live in our own cave, of our own backgrounds: religious, legal, social and other perspectives. With some short lessons in political science, Pae touched on the 2 schools of thought in foreign policy: realism and idealism. He said we could live in a world like the "wild kingdom" where there is only a "survival of the fittest" among nations who are each trying to dominate each other, or we could live in "peace loving world" where nations are willing to cooperate instead of working isolation. Examples of each are the U.S. unilateral preemptive attack on Iraq, and also the founding of the League of Nations and United Nations to help ensure peace. Dr. Pae went on to say that sometimes we choose the "realistic" way and other times the "idealist" way all depending upon the circumstances of the situation. For instance, is the situation urgent, threatening a national interest, dependent on secret intelligence, and an exchange their analysis on costs versus benefits of a desired action are some examples to consider.
Dr. Pae closed with an analogy to the fall of the Roman empire after 200 years - while the US is just beyond that time. The causes for Rome's fall were considered to be imperial overstreatch by trying to extend power in the world at costs of large economic debts ($300 billion just for Iraq) and social overstreatch leading to debt by extending to many hand-outs to people.
Questions from the audience brought up points that:
* In the cold war it was easier, countries just sided up with the USSR or U.S. - one of the sides that had the nukes.
* Lest we forget, the League of Nations collapsed when Germany invaded Poland, and now the U.S. is in Iraq.
* Policies often change with self interests of the people in charge.
* World Bank/IMF is not part of (but linked to the U.N., and is heavily dominated by Western powers which uses 3rd world for cheap labor, not the U.N.
* Before judging the U.N. (which is not sovereign) look at one's own country first.
- Brian Wiese
1 Comments:
Looking to our own country first... I've read that the U.S. has been funding and supporting the corrupt leadership in the Congo, which has been accused of tremendous attrocities against its own people.
Reports also show that the U.S., U.K. and others likely had details on the oil-for-food scandal years ago but didn't say anything. Still, even with some funds illegally diverted, the program did do quite a bit of good. Similiar to arming Osama bin Laden and Al Queda with weapons to fight the Russians, it did some remarkable good for our own national interests to get the communist Russians out... but a side affect was that Al Queda would use weapons and training against the U.S. in terrorist assults later on.
With the Sudan and Rwanda genocides, among other crisis in the world... the failure to respond cannot be pushed upon Annan of the U.N. legitimately, but onto each of the individual nations for their inaction or unwillingness to do anything not in their "national interest"
Post a Comment
<< Home