James-

Why is it that you pick on the USA?  There are many many other countries 
who's deficiencies far outweigh ours, yet it's always us that you blame in 
your postings.

John Lee


At 12:39 PM 1/23/06 -0500, James B. Byrne wrote:
>On 20 Jan 2006 at 0:00, HP3000-L automatic digest system wrote:
>
> > This speaks volumes about the ineffectiveness of the UN as an
> > international peacekeeping body.
>
>Rather, what it shrieks to those who choose to hear is that the
>reason the UN remains ineffective is that it possesses no
>independent means of enforcing the laws which the states of the
>world have formulated and agreed to abide by, but whose rulers
>refrain from upholding when inconvenient for themselves.  This is
>an ancient conflict of interest which is, if not intractable, is at
>the very best only amenable to slow and incremental resolution.
>
>In short, the UN lacks teeth because the rulers of the USA, UK,
>France, Russia, China, and India, Canada and most other advanced
>states do not wish it to have any.  To turn this situation on its
>head and then argue that this "proves" the worthlessness of such an
>organization is like organized crime holding up the example of
>Chicago in the prohibition era as demonstrating the universally
>irredeemable corruption of the courts and law enforcement, implying
>thereby the pointless expense of having any at all.
>
>If one wishes to make changes in how one is governed then one must
>first compose oneself to accepting those changes and understand
>that their effects may not be immediately pleasing to ones own view
>of how things should be.  Naive, if all too human, fear of such
>change is commonly exploited by those who know that they are
>thereby misdirecting the generally honourable beliefs and
>tendencies of their subjects solely in order that their private
>advantage is preserved and their base interest secured, usually at
>their subjects' expense.
>
>To give but one present day example of evasion, GWB seemingly does
>not even wish to be held to account by the constitution of his own
>country.  He believes, evidently, that torture, unrestricted secret
>surveillance of citizens, and arbitrary arrest without trial are
>all appropriate behaviour for the government of a modern democratic
>state.  Apparently it is sufficient that an accused be classified
>as a belonging to a group that "deserves no better treatment."
>Membership in such groups being ascertained at the sole and
>unappealable judgement of the authorities, frequently on the basis
>of confidential intelligence that cannot be revealed or subjected
>to public scrutiny lest such jeopardize "national security".
>Cherished legal controls on arbitrary state behaviour like "habeas
>corpus" and the presumption of innocence are simply swept away as
>"archaic".
>
>It is hardly surprising therefore that the sycophants in GWB's
>administration and his supporters in the general population
>depreciate any attempt to establish additional oversight and legal
>recourse beyond that already in existence.  Perish the thought that
>U.S. sovereignty be in any way transgressed! Yet, the present
>behaviour of the US administration is only a hair's-breath away
>from deeming any objection to their policies as disloyal and
>subject to the same treatment meted out to other "terrorists."  In
>general, and lamentably, the rest of the world's governments are
>not that much different.
>
>In Japan for example, the conviction rate for those accused
>criminal offence approaches 99% and methods that are
>indistinguishable from torture are routinely applied by the state
>to extract confessions.  This is a country that wishes to obtain a
>permanent seat on the UN security council.  No doubt their ruling
>classes have a significant interest in insuring thereby that the
>UDHR is never fully applied to Japan's domestic situation.
>
>Likewise China and India both have domestic regimes that employ
>significant human rights abuse to counter legitimate political
>dissent.  These governments are not much interested in extending
>the reach of the UN into their own situations either.  Burma
>(Myanmar) and Nepal are other current examples of domestic regimes
>that have no interest in international legalities restraining their
>hand. Countries such as Germany and Japan pursue unconscionable
>domestic policies towards resident workers of alien ethnic
>backgrounds and their governments likewise have no great desire to
>answer to an international body on their legality.
>
>Despite the obfuscating bluster of the neo-conservative movement,
>however, it really is in the long-term interests of the citizens of
>western style states, whether presently democratic or not, that the
>UN possess the power to effect redress of such problems.  For the
>alternative is that, when India and China come to posses sufficient
>economic power, their way will become the right way even here,
>whether we will it or not.
>
>And that day will come.  In 1905 the primary economic and military
>power on the planet was the UK.  I rather suspect that in 2105 it
>will not be the USA.  It would be prudent therefore, like the good
>steward, that while ones strength remains one should prepare a
>world that will remain comfortable long after ones day in the sun
>is gone.
>
>Yet, in present parlance, reform of the UN in practice means
>acquiescence of the secretariat to the whimsical political desires
>of the United States administration.  The secretariat resists such
>importunism as most people in the UN realize that a law subject to
>the influence of those who wish to remain immune from its effect is
>no law at all and that abject acceptance of such conditions would
>inflict immeasurable damage upon its reputation in the rest of the
>world.
>
>For it is a principal of democratic rule that the governed and
>governors alike serve under the same law and are equal before it.
>This is not to deny that the UN, like all large organizations (such
>as the US Federal government), suffers considerably from careerism,
>nepotism, croynism and outright corruption. Just that the end
>actually sought by self-styled reformers is not correction of any
>of these things.
>
>I would have you recall the amount of public debate in the USA that
>occurred regarding one recent president's curious and self-serving
>definition about what constituted "sex" and contrast it with the
>presently muted public discussion over the point at which state
>sanctioned systematic abuse crosses the legal line into torture.
>Which discourse takes as its starting point the indefensible
>premise that any systematic abuse of a prisoner is acceptable under
>any circumstance.  Is this the type of world most of the citizens
>of DVH's cherished "Western Civilization" wish to leave as a legacy
>for their children?
>
>
>"si cupitis pacem oneratis non"
>
>
>P.S.
>
>On the efficacy of using aerial bombardment of a defenceless civil
>population to effect political change:
>
>
> > Knight Ridder Newspapers
> >
> > http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13594370.htm
> >
> > WASHINGTON - U.S. warplanes have carried out hundreds of airstrikes
> > in Iraq in the past two years, bombing and strafing insurgent
> > fighters and targets almost daily. And the air war, which has gone
> > largely unnoticed at home, could intensify once American ground
> > forces start to withdraw.
> >
> > Since Iraq doesn't have a working air force, U.S. jets are expected
> > to provide air cover for Iraqi troops for at least several more
> > years.
> >
> > Some analysts have raised questions about how effective air power
> > can be in a counterinsurgency war. A key fear is that Iraq's mostly
> > Shiite Muslim and Kurdish army will use American and allied bombing
> > missions for revenge attacks on the Sunni Muslim Arab minority,
> > which provides most of the insurgency's fighters.
> >
> > "If we allow that to happen, then in essence we'll be doing the same
> > thing we accused Saddam Hussein of doing," said Larry C. Johnson, a
> > former CIA and State Department official. "We'll just be
> > substituting one tyranny for another."
>
>I draw attention the the noteworthy fact that the possibility that
>some of these target may not have been what they were alleged to be
>is not even raised in this article.  Thus the consciences of the
>audience are not even pricked by the possibility that many of these
>raids are against suspected targets whose actual composition is not
>ascertained beforehand and whose consequences are not
>systematically investigated thereafter.
>
>This is hardly prudent military practice since it leaves unanswered
>and unanswerable the rather important strategic question of whether
>these activities are having a desired effect or not.  So the
>conclusion is that the US military and civil authority would rather
>not know.  Which generates the need for sites like
>iraqbodycount.org and leads to some interesting and uncomfortable
>questions regarding US military competence beyond the mere
>technical mastery of the rather mundane work of killing people.
>This remarkable lack of introspection has been commented upon by
>others than myself:
>
>
> > Richard Norton-Taylor and Jamie Wilson in Washington
> > Thursday January 12, 2006
> > The Guardian
> >
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1684561,00.html
> >
> > A senior British officer has criticised the US army for its conduct
> > in Iraq, accusing it of institutional racism, moral righteousness,
> > misplaced optimism, and of being ill-suited to engage in
> > counter-insurgency operations.
> >
> > The blistering critique, by Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster, who was
> > the second most senior officer responsible for training Iraqi
> > security forces, reflects criticism and frustration voiced by
> > British commanders of American military tactics. What is startling
> > is the severity of his comments - and the decision by Military
> > Review, a US army magazine, to publish them.
> >
> > American soldiers, says Brig Aylwin-Foster, were "almost unfailingly
> > courteous and considerate". But he says "at times their cultural
> > insensitivity, almost certainly inadvertent, arguably amounted to
> > institutional racism".
> >
> > The US army, he says, is imbued with an unparalleled sense of
> > patriotism, duty, passion and talent. "Yet it seemed weighed down by
> > bureaucracy, a stiflingly hierarchical outlook, a predisposition to
> > offensive operations and a sense that duty required all issues to be
> > confronted head-on."
>
>
>
>--
>      *** e-mail is not a secure channel ***
>mailto:byrnejb.<token>@harte-lyne.ca
>James B. Byrne                Harte & Lyne Limited
>vox: +1 905 561 1241          9 Brockley Drive
>fax: +1 905 561 0757          Hamilton, Ontario
><token> = hal                 Canada L8E 3C3
>
>* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *