We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
The UN is a dependable moral compass If the UN says something should or should not be done, it is a safe bet that doing the opposite is most likely the correct course of action. Thus when the UN says Britain must not expel Muslim clerics who incite terrorism, clearly this is indeed the best policy.
It does not matter if a compass always points south, as long as you know that you can use it to find your way just as effectively as with one which always points north.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Oh that W had had the sense to invade the UN instead of Iraq. It’s nearer, they’d all have surrendered, none would have had the balls to be insurgents, ….
Someday, I’d like to see a U.S. President (or G.B. Prime Minister) to tell the U.N. to kiss his ever lovin’ a**. Can’t happen soon enough, if you ask me.
It would be useful, if we ever do bail out of the UN, to create something worthwhile of our own.
Clubs are a good thing – like-minded people (or countries) can agree a set of principles and some goals and then work towards them.
The UN’s faults are that it’s a club containing people who are very, very far from like-minded and they all have their own, different – and sometimes contradictory – goals. It’s original intentions – highly noble that they were – are long forgotten.
GM
This is sickeningy pedantic but if I don’t correct it I won’t sleep tonight:
The line in my previous message should read:
“Its original intentions…”
Ignore me – I do eventually go away…
GM
The Samizdata regulars will all sympathise with you, Gary. We’ve all had that “Doh!” moment.
An alternative to the UN has been discussed here fairly frequently. Most of us seem to favour an Anglophone club – shared laws, shared histories, shared values, etc.
Think of the line-up: The United States, Great Britain, Australia, India, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia for starters. That’s a pretty dynamic bunch of people.
That wouldn’t mean that other countries, duly vetted, could not become associate members. But the Anglosphere would be in the driver’s seat.
Verity, you seem to be getting close to suggesting that we ignore the late unpleasantness in North America?
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the concept of a United Nations Organisation existing as a forum whereby independent states may negotiate with each other. But that’s all it should be. If every state is allowed to join, that means democracies must rub shoulders with the vilest dictatorships.
Membership of the UN merely means that you are a recognised state. It confers no moral authority. Therefore, collectively, the UN has no moral authority. To say that something agreed by the member states of the UN has moral authority is meaningless.
John – I agree with the rest of your post, but not this sentence: There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the concept of a United Nations Organisation existing as a forum whereby independent states may negotiate with each other
I would suggest that what is wrong with it is, it is completely unnecessary. Countries and tribes have been negotiating with one another for thousands of years without a UN or similiar body. Once you get bodies like this in place, agenda-creep festers.
There already is an anglophone club – the British commonwealth.
I would suggest a steady reform of the UN with a system of prefered memebership. For example, no say on world trade unless you have an open market economy, no say on human rights unless you respect them. But actually, I think that the development of regional trade blocs is far more important for future geopolitical development.
Wouldn’t an association of democratic nations be a more uplifting start? Maybe with a tiered membership (full/associate) to offer reward/punishment to more borderline cases?
I like Robert Alderson’s suggestion. Under that system, nobody in the UN would have any say on anything.
The US isn’t in the British Commonwealth. And all of the British Commonwealth is not truly Anglophone.
I like Perry’s example of the UN as a perfect compass, though.
Martin Geddes, Such an organisation is not a bra. We’re not looking for uplift. We’re talking pragmatism and effectiveness … a club of like-minded people who speak the same language and have the same background. Have you not noticed that 99.999% of countries label themselves “democracies”?
If we let non-Anglophone democracies in, we’d have to let France in and France would want French W Africa in to support its policies. And Argentina would want in to bang on about the Falklands. Give me a break. Anglophone. We’re not talking about setting up a supreme authoritarian world body. The EU, for example, could have its own, as a source of innocent merriment.
“If the UN says something should or should not be done, it is a safe bet that doing the opposite is most likely the correct course of action.”
So when the World Health Organisation (a United Nations Organisation) issues medical advice on an influenza or other pandemic, you will happily ignore it or do the opposite ?
When the United Nations Security Council issues Resoloution, which the United Kingdom has voted for and which therefore the UK has not vetoed, we should actually do the opposite ?
“Think of the line-up: The United States, Great Britain, Australia, India, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia for starters.”
“Alas, poor Hong Kong….”
Robert –
“There already is an anglophone club – the British commonwealth.”
US? Been there, done that. ‘nother thread.
All the same, it’s a good idea.
The trouble with the UN is fundamentally, that it wishes to be a World Government, rather than a forum for discussion. Hence Clair Short’s ludicrous statements as to it’s moral authority.
Viewed from the left, secure (for the moment) behind their first world walls of affluence that the right actually secured for them, the UN is a big play pen for their patronising indulgence to those they think less fortunate than themselves, but equally worthy, because all cultures are equal right!?
Well no they’re not., and if we keep pretending they are then we are in big trouble.
Shut it down. It only impedes the healing process in this world, not speeds it up.
No doubt this latest piece of gratuitous advice to one of the world’s leading democracies originally emanated from the UN ‘Human Rights’ Commission. Members such as Libya. Syria. The Sudan. etc. This from the organisation that has a track record of human rights abuses (paedophilia in Africa, looking the other way when massacres are conducted in Bosnia etc etc). I guess its in the nature of huge bureaucracies to continually seek to justify their existence, even when they are discredited and outdated. It’s sad that of the Nazis tried, found guilty and hanged at Nuremberg, if living in 2005, probably could have successfully relied on this fabulist human rights notion to successfully evade their richly deserved executions for crimes committed as a result of deliberate, conscious, adult choices they made. A lot more may have actually walked. Present day mass murderers are proof of how stupid things have become : witness the ridiculous failure of the ICC with Milosevic, the sudden ‘human’ face of Saddam Hussein etc etc. These scum have become sanitised thanks to their exhortations of human rights protection and their portrayal as innocent victims needing understanding.
The human rights industry conception of ‘human rights’ is that they come free from obligations. They are inherent to human nature. A criminal is a passive pawn of nature, thier actions not connected to free choice and free will but determined by society. According to this logic, Osama Bin Laden has the same human rights as Mother Teresa. The London bombers have the same human rights as the victims. In no circumstances, it appears, can anyone’s human rights ever be lost or downgraded. Therefore, according to this bizarre way of thinking, if you incite mass murder, you have the same human rights as the potential victims. If you make the choice to enter a house to steal and/or terrorise an innocent person, you have the same rights as the victim if something goes wrong. The obligation we all have not to murder people, in their view, does not mean the automatic downgrade of the murderer’s ‘human rights’ to the poor innocents that have been murdered. No : according to these self styled experts, the murderer’s rights are the same as the victims. Further: these strange people, who wrap up their twisted logic in the name of ‘peace’ and ‘humanity’, often believe that the murderer is the victim, therefore has ‘human rights’ that have priority over the dead.
The fact is that if you incite or conduct mass murder, your human rights, if they exist at all, are at best downgraded to low priority status. The state has every right to protect itself and its citizens as it sees fit. Personally I think the whole notion of human rights is questionable, unless they are also tied to obligations, ie they do not come for free. In my view, OBL, Milosevic, serial killers and radical imams that preach murder lose their qualification for human rights protections as a result of their manifest failure to respect the obligations tied to them.
I tire of the UN. I guess that Bolton will be, ironically, the man who could save it. If he gets nowhere, the US may well withdraw, as it has been having far more success without the UN than with it in recent years – witness the US/Australian effort post-tsunami. Can we please proceed with an enlarged NAFTA free-trade zone and a genuine world body that only includes democracies? Quickly!!
Ted – Nice post, but as to your last sentence, as I said above, they all call themselves democracies.
I am against the one-size-fits all organisation. There must be a coherence and a reasonable assumption that members will see things roughly the same way – or will at least understand opposing arguments – as in the Anglosphere. Being in a club with Nicaragua doesn’t do a damn’ thing for me.
I’m not saying the Anglophone should be the top club – although it would be – but others could start their own organisations if they wanted. No one’s stopping them. Just get rid of the ratbag that is the UN.
PS – I didn’t understand the comment, “Alas, Hong Kong.” Since when has Hong Kong been Anglophone?
Verity
I take your point about the non-democracies calling themselves democracies. To gain entry, the nation state in question would need to admit independent monitoring to 1 election : if it passed, it would gain non-member associate status. It would then need to pass another election and also comply with free market criteria to gain member status. Any nation state could be thrown out. This should weed out the fakes from the real democratic nation states.
As to whether the anglophone countries would become the dominant group, who knows? It would definitely be a powerful group, dedicated to the mutual progress and defence of member nation states.
So is Malaysia anglophone?
Watching them.. writes:
“So when the World Health Organisation (a United Nations Organisation) issues medical advice on an influenza or other pandemic, you will happily ignore it or do the opposite ?”
Certainly! The WHO is deeply suspect – like all arms of the organisation, deeply motivated by politics inimical to Western interests and frequently barking mad in its diagnosis, let alone proposed treatment.
A strong union of democratic, free market nations is a good idea but I am worried that if the entry criteria are too strict then we would have countries like China, Pakistan, Egypt etc. on the outside and with an interest in destablising the new bloc and possibly setting something up on their own. That’s why I favour the idea of a fairly broad club to keep the ones who are completely on the outside to a bare minimum (Maynamar, N Korea, Zimbabwe) and leaving borderline countries in but with reduced privileges.
Robert Alderson – Yes. So is Singapore.
Ted – To gain entry, the nation state in question would need to admit independent monitoring to 1 election : if it passed, it would gain non-member associate status
Tell me you are joking. Venezuala got a clean bill of in its last election – from non-other than everyone’s favourite hick lefty president.
At the risk of turning, like Andrew Sullivan, into a central planner, let us start off with the Anglophone organisation and have friendly relations with the inevitable Francophone organisation that would spring up immediately with drop dead chic uniforms for the security guards. Countries like Poland could get associate member status.
If the WHO really cared about what its name claims to be — world health — they’d admit Taiwan, the other of the two Chinas.
Sadly, Chinese Peking has a fit over the suggestion that Taiwan ought to be a member of even such a putatively apolitical body.
I too have no time for the WHO. Everything they have accomplished has been accomplished with 10 times the bureaucracy and 10 times the cost of a country doing it itself, or in friendly cooperation, with another country. Does anyone on earth doubt that typhoid and polio would have been effectively eliminated by the West without the buffoons at the WHO getting their mitts in? It’s a smokescreen.
Robert Alderson – Yes, China did worry me. Obviously, they should be accorded some important form of honorary membership. Pakistan and Egypt are exactly what we are trying to get away from. Let them try to destabilise the US, Britain, Australia, India, Canada, New Zealand, Malaysia, Singapore and the W Indies if that is their pleasure.
We would amount to around 2bn people, btw.
But, Verity, the “Anglosphere” would have only one-third of the world’s population and an overwhelming percentage (80%?) of its wealth, health, modern armaments, scientific knowhow and educated, happy people. That hardly seems fair, you know. How did that happen, anyway?
Once you get bodies like this in place, agenda-creep festers.
Yes, you are probably right, it’s the way these bureaucracies operate. The UN has developed from a forum where every state can take part into a vast international boondoggle, as exemplified by WHO and UNESCO. Jobs for the boys and trebles all round, backed by the “moral authority” of the UN.
Robert Spiers – I am not a socialist. If I want to be in a club which happens to control a huge percentage of the world’s wealth, so what?
We are not, for god’s sake, talking about setting up a new UN!
I keep saying, others could start their own organisations. Latin America/Spain, for example. They could discuss Hispanic affairs without having to listen to Ali Bhaktar from Yemen wittering on with Yemen’s agenda and demands for Hispanic aid through a simultaneous translator.
I keep saying, this is not supposed to be the governing body of the world. Just a giant, rich, international lobby that acts unilaterally, if need be, in its own sphere of interest. As it happens, it would be the richest and most influential, which, to be candid, is the kind of club I like to be in.
But group of countries could start their own.
Ted
“In no circumstances, it appears, can anyone’s human rights ever be lost or downgraded.”
Unless you are a Anglo-Saxon middle class,middle aged male.
BTW,being in the UN is like being in business with the Sopranos
We can all point to bureaucratic inefficiency and waste etc. at the United Nations, but that is entirely irrelevant to Perry’s origanl posting about ignoring or rejecting whatever the “United Nations” says, and to my reply.
Since there is no alternative global world health organisation other than the WHO, and since germs do not care abouut national borders, to deliberately ignore the best medical and scientific advice available, merely on ideological grounds, smacks of communist Lysenkoism
Even though I am generally supportive of Civil Liberties, I would support the forced quarantine of people who are irresponsible enough to deliberately ignore such WHO medical and scientific advice, and who would help to spread a pandemic disease.
If you think that creating a smaller “Western” club of nations e.g. based on the G8 etc. would be any different from the United Nations bureacracy, then you really are naive, and have ignored the failures of the League of Nations.
To be honest, the best approach may be that the US and UK go out on their own; screw the UN and any other body. I’m not much into the idea of international law anyway, and there aren’t many nations (even my own at times) that I trust to be responsible about individual rights and freedom.
“Even though I am generally supportive of Civil Liberties, I would support the forced quarantine of people who are irresponsible enough to deliberately ignore such WHO medical and scientific advice, and who would help to spread a pandemic disease.”
Now there’s a good excuse for the concentration camps”
Watching – Did you read the posts above? Not one commentator was so fanciful as to propose that a club like the G8 run the world!
“… irresponsible enough to deliberately ignore such WHO medical and scientific advice,” So now advice from the WHO has legal status? I think not.
Anglo-Saxon countries (meaning those which speak English and have English Common Law as their legal underpinning) have the fairest system of government the world has ever known. If there has to be a hegemony, anything is better than the UN, and an Anglophone leadership would be the best of all.
Robert Alderson, re China – the Chinese are very pragmatic people. Maybe we could persuade them to declare themselves a county of Singapore (pop. 4.5m), and they could get in that way?
Peter – great minds think alike!
I would love to see the UN broken up and replaced with a few seperate technical organisations (such as the WHO) which have no political mandates at all.
@ Verity – read your own “Western Anglophone” laws – protection of the national health is, rightly, considered to be a fundamental duty of the Government, and is, in the UK, one the grounds for the invocation of Emergency Powers, under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.
Which organisation is more likely to influence a communist Chinese regional Government to take the appropriate medical action, with respect to, say, a Bird Flu or SARS pandemic ? A ” Western” government’s National Health Service , or the World Health Organisation ?
Only an apologist for dictatorship and tyranny would claim that “anything is better than the UN”
@ Peter – yes of course I did, and the “United States, Great Britain, Australia, India, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia” and “Hong Kong”, makes even less sense than the G8 (United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Canada, Russian Federation and the European Union as observers), which is far more likely to form the nucleus of any “alternative UN”.
Watching,
The Civil Contigencies Act is a despicable dirigiste piece of legislation,to put such powers in the hands of an organisation,the UN,which has overseen the largest scam in history,is suicidal.
Your other reply,if it is to me,makes no sense,I never mentioned any of those countries
Iwill mention,Rwanda,the Congo,Darfur,the Balkans,child prostitution,genicide and drug trafficking.
Yo Watching! You think a Chinese regional govt is going to take notice of the WHO? The only people they will take notice of is Peking.We are still in the territory of “well it’s [the UN] , yes they’re crap but they do a few good things, don’t they?” Well frankly no, they don’t.
They don’t do emergency relief, they don’t stop wars, they don’t feed anyone who would not eventually be fed, they just hold committee meetings. When they finally move you can count the dead in millions and the Aid is either rotting on the dock or looted.
It is a waste of space and money. We used to have an Anglophone organisation once upon a time, until the Germans ruined it by starting two world wars. It was doing quite nicely too until we went bancrupt saving the world from tyranny(and , it has to be said, being undermined by an America that jealously wanted a slice of the action.We only stopped paying for Lend-lease a few years ago you know folks!) So let’s start talking to those who are listening, rather than those who pretend to.
Perry: you’re an optimist if you think a “political mandate” could be kept away from a transnational quasigoverment organization, regardless of size or charter. That sort of a job attracts technocrats. You’ll never make them believe they can’t (or shouldn’t) impose utopia.
Watching –
I know public health is of paramount concern in the Anglosphere. We can do it ourselves. We do not need the WHO. They have not done one thing that a single advanced country, or a group of advanced countries acting together for the purpose, couldn’t do without the massive organisation and boondoggle.
I don’t know what is this fascination with Hong Kong, but could I point out two facts? 1. It is not Anglophone and never was. In Hong Kong, they speak Cantonese. 2. Hong Kong is part of China. It is not a country.
Wathcing them… writes:
“…to deliberately ignore the best medical and scientific advice available…”
It isn’t. Frequently it is utter rubbish, driven by political motives.
If it were, you might have an argument. As it is, you don’t.
@ Peter – I am appalled by the potential dictatorship that the NuLabour Civil Contingencies Act 2004 Part 2: Emergency Powers could introduce, on the mere “oral orders” of a “Senior Minister”, which, astonishingly, could even be a non-Minister such as a Government Whip, as they have sinecures as “Lords Commissioners of the Treasury” (a term which should really be limited to just the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, and the Prime Minister Tony Blair)
I have been trying to warn people about the dangers of this Act, since before it was passed into Law, not necessarily in the hands of this present Government, but, since it is now on the Statute Book, as a potential “rod for our own backs” in the hands of a future Government:
Civil Contingencies Bill concerns
Nevertheless, despite the NuLabour “Enabling Act” for a future dictatorship, Public Health, in the face of a lethal pandemic disease, is definately one of the areas where I am willing to cede authority to a legitimate Government, because lethal viruses and bacteria care not a fig for your political or moral opinions or beliefs, or race or religion.
Apologies for attributing that nonsense about an “alternative UN to you.
However, “Anglo-Saxon countries” cannot stop a global pandemic disease on their own, If we are very lucky, then the World Health Organisation might be able to, and nothing posted here so far convinces me otherwise.
What about my other original point about UN Security Council Resolutions endorsed and Not Vetoed by the United Kingdom ?
According to Perry’s original posting, we should, for some unfathomable reason, ignore or do the opposite of, the very Resolutions which we ourselves have probably drafted ?
@ GCooper – one of the few “successes” of the WHO is actually the annual coordinated “which strain of influenza virus vaccine” is likely to be needed in the next year decision.
Since it takes about six months to produce millions of doses of influenza vaccine (a process which requires incubation in chicken eggs etc.) there is no way that any national health service can do a better job than WHO.
If you still stand by your previous comment implying a willingness to deliberately ignore any WHO advice in respect of a pandemic disease, then I still stand my belief that you should, if, necessary, be quarantined, by force, if necessary, for the greater public good.
Watching Them writes:
“….there is no way that any national health service can do a better job than WHO.”
Who said anything about a national health service? Is it International Straw Man Day and I somehow failed to get the memo?
There are plenty of alternative models that could be used – a single-purpose international body, for example. Many alternatives would be better than the highly politicised, often actively anti-scientific, WHO, in which you seem to place so much faith (while, simultaneously, admitting it has “few” successes.) Given the WHO’s track record on the mindless promotion of junk-science ‘anti-obesity’ propaganda and its lamentable record on malaria control, it could only have survived when funded by a root and branch corrupt body like the UN.
“…I still stand my belief that you should, if, necessary, be quarantined, by force, if necessary, for the greater public good.”
I feel much the same about those who advocate unaccountable international statism.
@RAB – Yes I do think that Beijing/Peking or any local Chinese province will take far more notice of advice from the WHO regarding a pandemic disease than any “Western” local health service. What makes you think otherwise ?
“Recolonisation” by “Western” governments of the “Third World” is simply not a practical option these days, just look at the total post war cockup in Iraq.
I am puzzled by some of the the parochial and isolationist comments on this supposedly “libertarian” blog, surely you are meant to be suggesting solutions for the whole 7 billion population of the planet, not just for a few middle class “Western” elites ?
Well, there you are G Cooper! Banged up in Basle!
Watching Them, the WHO does nothing, absolutely nothing that Western countries could not do on their own, without the billions of taxpayer pounds/dollars/euros overlay for a whole extra, pointless organisation. It is a parasite.
Do you really think the West could not have eliminated typhoid without the WHO? Polio? Could not – and, indeed – would not have organised the massive campaigns of injections for children worldwide?
Every single thing the UN has expanded into – agenda-creep – would have been done better, more economically by Western governments who are answerable for expenditures to their electorates. With the UN, it’s Katy-bar-the-door as far as money is concerned.
If the UN were disbanded tomorrow, the only people who would notice would be the employees, the vehicle fleet salesmen, the airlines, the luxury hotels and the people who rent high-end-of-the-market real estate to them.
@ GCooper- what is your alternative proposal to the World Health Organisation ?
Of course it can be “reformed” / made more efficient – which bureaucracy cannot ?
What kind of alternative organisation do you propose, which would have any chance of preventing a 1918 style infuenza pandemic, resulting in hundreds of millions of deaths, next winter ?
Simply relying on “Western” Governments is no answer at all – viruses and bacteria are spread via vectors over which no human has any control whatsoever.
Back to the original posting by Perry, is the entire “United Nations” simply to be lumped together as one bogeyman, or are there actually valuable parts of the organisation which do a valuable job, despite the bureaucracy (which is, in fact, no worse than that exhibited by “Western” governments) and which would have to be re-created by any alternative organisation ?
Hi Verity, I’ve been away and have to catch up. When I read you post “Think of the line-up: The United States, Great Britain,…”
I automatically (and mistakenly) thought “history of government”. According to a Hong Kong grad school student information site –
“Hong Kong is a city where East meets West. The population is more than 7 million. The majority of the population in Hong Kong is ethnically Chinese, through there is also a large expatriate community. The official language of Hong Kong include both English & Chinese. While English is commonly used as an official language and is almost always employed in business and government dealings, Cantonese is the dialect most often heard in the streets of Hong Kong.”
“Are there any restrictions on religion or free speech in Hong Kong?
No, there are no restrictions on religion or free speech here. After over 150 years of British colonial administration, Hong Kong was restored to the Peoples Republic of China on 1 July 1997 and is now classified as a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of China. Hong Kong maintains the social, economic, & judicial systems developed over the past years in accordance with the Sino-British Joint Declaration. All basic freedoms remain intact.”
That second to the last paragraph directly credits the British for their “social, economic, & judicial systems”
We’ll have to see what their mainland communist dependent future holds. I’m not optimistic about that.
Above quotes taken from http://www.bm.ust.hk/bba/exchange/in/faq.html(Link)
If we extended the idea to include products of the English history of laws, I would definitely include Japan. Here’s their constitution. It looks like a hybrid of the US and British constitutions.
http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Japan/English/english-Constitution.html(Link)
While wages controls etc are unfortunate, but their constitution is overwhelmingly American/English in origin.
I don’t think their massively productive economies are a coincidence.
My comments on the UN are in addition to it’s useful role as a moral compass, it’s kind of nice to have all of the barking moonbats and their minions in one more or less easy to ignore place. I just wish we weren’t giving them so much money.
Watching Them – oh, the war! Now I get it! It’s something to do with the quagmire, right?
G Cooper is right to notice that International Straw Man Day must have been moved forward, because I had no notification of it either. So you think Beijing/Peking (this double spelling must be for lunkheads who aren’t as sophisticated as you) would take more notice of the WHO “regarding a pandemic disease” than any “Western” (scare quotes) “local health service“. Sorry, Mr Strawman. You lose.
If you mean a worldwide health alert originating from the health department of Dimebox, Texas or an NHS VD clinic in King’s Lynn, you’re probably right. But worldwide health alerts are not issued by little local health authorities. They are issued by great big sophisticated governments.
Brain warp, I meant to say second to last sentence in the second paragraph. Not much clearer, is it?
@ “Verity”-
“Do you really think the West could not have eliminated typhoid without the WHO? Polio? Could not – and, indeed – would not have organised the massive campaigns of injections for children worldwide?”
There was not a cat in hell’s chance of “post colonial Western governments” organising such a a “campaign” againts polio or smallpox, especially in Africa and Asia.
Typhoid has *not* been eliminated by the UN or by anybody else.
Watching,
There is absolutely nothing libertarian about transnational organisations.
As for taking notice of WHO,in a nutshell,we will, they won’t,there are so many examples on so many levels you can pursue them yourself.
We don’t want the NHS looking after health in China,it would be nice oif the did it here.The basic problem is outside organisations can advise and cajole nations like China but they cannot order them,nor can they instruct thm to use public health resources they have not got.
Watching, would WHO have been able to eliminate smallpox without Western provided research, development, manufactering, distribution, and funding? Which would have been more likely to succeed without the other WHO or Western science and technology?
I think we would have eliminated it if for no other reason than our own health. And we provided the resources that did do it.
@ Verity – “But worldwide health alerts are not issued by little local health authorities. They are issued by great big sophisticated governments.”
No ! They are issued by the World Health Organisation, and then local Governments issue their own advice,.
The WHO advice is based on information from the best “Western” government agencies such as the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta in the USA, or Porton Down in the UK or the University teaching hospitals in Hong Kong and Singapore (in the case of SARS).
Midwesterner – In the early days, justice in Hong Kong was administered by the British, in English. Please, please, please try to understand this point: most of Hong Kong’s 5m inhabitants (since grown to 6m) never spoke English. Their language is, now that Hong Kong is Chinese again, officially Cantonese. It is no loss. They never spoke English in the first place and it is irrelevant. They are part of China.
“We’ll have to see what their mainland communist dependent future holds. I’m not optimistic about that.” Those reservations come from your depth of experience in Hong Kong, do they?
No “restrictions on free speech”? Ask the articulate, witty, worldly barrister Martin Li. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Anglophone means Anglophone. English speaker. So we all understand one another and we understand the undertones. This does not include the Japanese. That they had a hemi-semi-demi Anglo-Saxon constitution imposed on them by the victors (as did France and Germany) does not make them the receivers of the wisdom and traditions of 1,500 years of English Common Law. Plus, of course, their language is not English.
Watching Them – There was not a cat in hell’s chance of “post colonial Western governments” organising such a a “campaign” againts polio or smallpox, especially in Africa and Asia.
So who funded the research and said campaign and paid for all of the injections? Yemen?
Watching Them writes:
“what is your alternative proposal to the World Health Organisation ?”
Well that rather depends on what you want to achieve, doesn’t it? If it’s some measure of international agreement on the best way to prevent the spread of influenza, then the obvious answer is the establishment of a single international organisation dedicated to that purpose and that purpose only . In other words, not siphoning-off funds for agitprop campaigns motivated more by politics than medicine.
Sure as eggs is eggs it wouldn’t be my chosen way to combat malaria – a task at which the WHO has utterly failed.
“Back to the original posting by Perry, is the entire “United Nations” simply to be lumped together as one bogeyman…”
Yes, it is. Because it is corrupt at root and branch. I don’t know which hole you have been living in, but surely you cannot have missed the multiple scandals surrounding Kofi Annan and just about everyone connected with him? Surely, however deep that hole must be, you can’t also have missed the fact that UN policy is steered by some of the most venal, wicked and corrupt governments on the planet?
You have, to date, advanced a single issue as your justification for the UN – the WHO’s role in combating avian ‘flu (not a conspicuous success, it must be said).
It is perfectly clear that there are alternative mechanisms for international agreements to combat the spread of infectious diseases.
Are you seriously suggesting that we should accept the manifest evil that goes on beneath the skirts of the UN, simply because you can’t think of a better way of trying to control the spread of a single disease?
Because, if you are, I reckon there might be a few African children who could silence that argument by the look in their eyes alone.
Midwesterner – posting links to “a Hong Kong grad school student information site” is a little de trop on Samizdata. There are many people here who are familiar with Hong Kong through doing business there, and some who live there.
Watching Them – The WHO advice is based on information from the best “Western” government agencies such as the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta in the USA, or Porton Down in the UK or the University teaching hospitals in Hong Kong and Singapore (in the case of SARS).
Correct! So cut out the parasitic middle man, the WHO!
@ Midwesterner – you have obviously never worked in the “Western” healthcare or pharmaceutical industries.
There are hundreds of thousands of highly intelligent, committed people, who try to enhance the healthcare of the entire world, *despite* commercial priorities and Government bureaucracy.
Once you have handed over money and resources to the WHO for, say , an anti-polio or anti-smallpox campaign, you cannot claim exclusivity for “Western” money or technical knowledge, as this is simply not true.
Well yes, the UN is a monstrous outfit. That does not mean everything the things the UN does does not need doing (though for the most part that is also true), just that I would rather the UN did not do them. The WHO that you keep mentioning is a case in point. Sure, we need something like the WHO but I suspect a WHO that was not tainted by the UN would be a far better thing.
@ GCooper – “It is perfectly clear that there are alternative mechanisms for international agreements to combat the spread of infectious diseases.”
Like what, on a *global* scale ?
There is no use in a “Western ” nations only system – the global pandemic will have reached crical mass well before then. Unless you plan to enforce restrictions on the air travel industry.
@ Verity “Correct! So cut out the parasitic middle man, the WHO! ”
OK for “Western” countries, but what about he other 120 sovereign countries in the world which could easily become “infection pools” ?
@ GCooper – ok, WHO is only one small example of the “good ” which the UN system manages to produce, despite the politicians and bureaucrats.
How about the International Atomic Energy Agency, based in Vienna, Austria ?
Are you sure that “Western” governments would have any access at all to the nuclear energy / weapons programs of say North Korea or Iran, except for the “neutral” IAEA ?
Why not just expand the role and membership of the G8? The UN can remain as a talking shop, important to those who want it to be important or who need it. States that aspire to real influence on world affairs would naturally aspire to membership of the G8, G15, G25 whatever.
Interestingly, the Live8 protesters seem to have already got the message. When they wanted “something to be done” about Africa they protested at the G8 meeting not outside the UN.
If you want to build a serious world organisation for security purposes it would be rather divisive to make being anglophone an entry requirement. Sure that might result in a powerful and worthy set of founders but a country like France would be very useful for working on security problems in West Africa just as Russia would be indispensable in Central Asia and Brazil in Latin America.
On the topic of the WHO. Right now there is no current alternative so doing the opposite of what the WHO advises on for example avian flu would be foolhardy. Of course, the WHO is not sacred. I would look to the example of how hurricane warnings are done for the Atlantic basin; the US national weather service does the bulk of the work, has close links with the weather services of the countries in the region and exchanges information and staff freely with them.
Hold on! Watching Them writes: Once you have handed over money and resources to the WHO for, say , an anti-polio or anti-smallpox campaign, you cannot claim exclusivity for “Western” money or technical knowledge, as this is simply not true.
Run that by me again? Once we’ve handed Our money and OUR intellectual resources to WHO to further the health of the world, it stops being “Western” money and becomes … what? Kofi’s money? Kofi’s sons’ money?
Watching, my point is that modern medicine itself is a product of the west. Here is a link to an article on price controls. Look at the bottom graph.
http://www.phrma.org/publications/publications/brochure/questions/badpricecontrols.cfm(Link)
You said –“There are hundreds of thousands of highly intelligent, committed people, who try to enhance the healthcare of the entire world, *despite* commercial priorities and Government bureaucracy.”
My first job was for a not-for-profit company packing and shipping donated medical supplies to third world countries. Virtually all of the supplies, ranging from dressings to pacemakers, were donated by corporations. For many years I was one of those people. About 100 of us were shipping millions of dollars worth of corporately donated medical drugs and supplies every year. You can loose the “*despite* commercial priorities and Government bureaucracy.” I know where it came from and why it was donated.
R Alderson: Why not just expand the role and membership of the G8? Because, with a couple of exceptions, their centralised economies are going down the tubes and can’t be responsible for diddley? And every one of them looking out for their national interest. In the Anglosphere, we feel we are, despite spats, one nation.
France is very effective in W Africa. Is this a joke?
Yes, forming an Anglophone group would be divisive in one sense – so? – and reassuring in another. They would know that the people with the artillery, the firepower and the ability to communicate were on one team not whoring around the waterfront looking for loose change.
Verity,
“Their language is, now that Hong Kong is Chinese again, officially Cantonese.”
While they may being making it up, they claim to conduct business and government primarily in English. Their claim, not mine. Certainly during the British years, it was english, which was the time frame I was referring to.
“We’ll have to see what their mainland communist dependent future holds. I’m not optimistic about that.” Those reservations come from your depth of experience in Hong Kong, do they?
No, Verity, they come from looking at totalitarian governments history of keeping their hands off of anything that they want. Do you challenge that observation? Am I overextending my cynicism?
“No “restrictions on free speech”?” see the answer above, and I was referring to the British years. There may have been some then. I don’t know.
“Anglophone means Anglophone. This does not include the Japanese.”
Verity! I said “If we extended the idea to include products of the English history of laws, I would definitely include Japan.” I think that statement stands on it’s own.
I disagree with your assumption that any government conducted in english is good and all others are bad. While our nations should stay in english, I guess I’ll believe other languages will work for other nations.
I do, however, think that any government tracing from English history of laws is better than any others I’ve seen, so far.
Bugger this for a game of soldiers!
Which pandemic SPECIFICALLY, has the WHO (Led Zeppellin or The Beatles if you like) ever stopped by it’s prompt action and efficacious wisdom then, observant one? Hmm?
I disagree with your assumption that any government conducted in english is good and all others are bad. Straw man. I never “assumed” that. My experience tells me otherwise. I have, however, said vigorously that ours is best.
No, Verity, they come from looking at totalitarian governments history of keeping their hands off of anything that they want. Do you challenge that observation? Am I overextending my cynicism? Haven’t a clue. But I do know that governments are aware that, in these days of the internet, the old ways of secrecy are getting much harder to maintain.
Do not misjudge China. They were – and are – the Middle Kingdom for 7,000 years. They are aware that things change. Yes, I know they are censoring emails, but I think this is while the boat is still rocking and they are trying to stay stable. The Chinese think long term. Let’s see where they are in 10 years.
RAB,
“Which pandemic SPECIFICALLY,”
Obesity?
Verity, I was briefly optimistic about China, and then the story comes out that they’ve klepto’d their citizens savings accounts to an irreparable degree. Crap, here they go again.
I would really like to be optimistic about their future because the alternative is so scary.
You must look out for “The League of Gentleman” Midwesterner. I felt our black senses of humour entwine back there.
Seriously though. If you want to know what I’m talking about, google the BBC radio player. Go to comedy and quizes, run down the list to League of Gentlemen and enjoy very dark British humour. It will explain or baffle.Take your pick. Death or MauMau as it were.
If we extended the idea to include products of the English history of laws, I would definitely include Japan. Here’s their constitution. It looks like a hybrid of the US and British constitutions.
There’s a very good reason for that, and it has to do with who wrote it. I understand it was a group that reported to a man named Douglas MacAurthur.
Leave HK out. There’s absolutely no way China will let them go in alone. And I don’t think grooming China for a seat at the table is particularly wise, either. China in its current incarnation isn’t a good bet at all. As someone mentioned above, its state-owned banking system is drowning in bad loans. The government admits that between 15%-25% (depending on what day you ask) of loans written by the big four state owned banks are non-performing (NPLs). Most everyone else reckons the true figure lies between 35%-50%. A healthy bank has an NPL ratio of much less than 1%. Now, the big 4 banks handle 60% of the country’s deposits and write the vast majority of its loans. Who are they lending the money to? Mainly, a group of rotten state owned enterprises (SOEs) that the government can’t afford to let fail due to the amount of people that would be thrown out of work and out of the tacit Iron Rice Bowl welfare agreement of the Maoist era. These newly unemployed, unprotected people would represent a potentially revolutionary force, something Beijing obviously wants to avoid. So it buys time by forcing the state owned banks to keep lending money to these bankrupt SOEs. However, Beijing can’t defy gravity forever. The banks will run out of capital sooner or later, or there’ll be a run on the banks. Perhaps in 2007, when the Chinese government has to open up its domestic retail banking market to foreign banks, in line with its WTO commitments. The savvy Chinese knows that the banks are flaky and his/her money isn’t secure. What is s/he going to do when Citibank opens up down the road?
The multiplier effect of US$60 billion per year flooding into China as FDI is currently pushing them along at a rate of knots. When the market gets spooked, China’s house of cards will collapse.
Also, I’m not particularly convinced the Chinese are long sighted. If you look at the way many mainland Chinese conduct their businesses (ignoring contracts, ripping off who and whatever they can get away with, blatant influence buying in the guanxi tradition), and the way the government has conducted its economics policy (what I’ve mentioned above), I would argue the complete opposite. Short termism seems to be the order of the day. Were the Chinese always this corrupt? I don’t think so. Then again, that’s what communism does to a country.
Verity – why Malaysia? I love the idea of an Anglosphere (am especially enthusiastic about India, who we should be pulling out all the stops to cultivate), but I don’t like the nature of Malaysia’s democracy one bit, what with all its Islamicist leanings. Singapore’s welcome with open arms, of course.
Verity, tell me you’re pretty. You have an opinion to raise hell, and it’s very attractive. How old are you?
James, 100%. That is the future and present I’m referring to. I was the one who brought Hong Kong into this with a nod to Shakespeare.
“Alas, poor Hong Kong…”
My reference to Hong Kong was intended to be a tragic past tense. Clearly, when the cards collapse, Hong Kong is fodder for the mill.
Midwesterner, you understand nothing about Hong Kong. It is thriving and will continue to do so. As my hero P J O’Rourke writes: “In Hong Kong, even the babies are too busy to cry.” But the notion of 6m Honkies suddenly morphing into Anglophones, and the Chinese government saying, “Oh, OK. Here are the keys to the car, go away and be independent. All the best.” is just too daft.
James Waterton – I understand your reservations about China … but they were the feared for 7,000 years. That has to give you a certain attitude. Secretive and all-powerful. Democracy and the necessity of opening up to the modern world has sent them reeling. But they will recover. Don’t forget, the Chinese are not only very intelligent (by and large; I’ve known some real jerks), but they are the world’s pragmatists. They will recover their balance. And it’s a lot to recover, you know: all the internal problems of such a vast and currently backward country and the external problems of the rapidly changing modern world. As I said, give them 10 years and then let’s see how they’re doing. They are long term thinkers.
Malaysia. Well, it is a genuine democracy. Since independence, they have never delayed an election, no matter how inconvenient to the government. Taxes are pretty low, wages are high, they have full employment, they share military intelligence with Singapore and there is absolute freedom of religion. Those who are not Islamic – around 40% (I think) of the country – are free to drink themselves into a stupor on a daily basis – the supermarket shelves are full of booze – and the government leaves you alone. The Chinese, Indians and expats are all big drinkers.
They do ensure that the big Bhumi companies get a large share of government business. This is a tacit acceptance that Chinese and Indian companies are smarter. They also give degrees to Malay natives for 20% fewer marks than the Chinese and Indians need to pass. (All this is done openly, though. It is not under the table.) They see it as redressing the native Malays for the overwhelming Chinese and Indian immigration 200 years ago – both these races being aggressively entrepreneurial. I’m not saying it’s right. But it is their country and that’s how they run it.
On the other hand, everyone is equal under the law (English Common Law) and you will get a fair and open trial. If you can’t afford an advocate, one will be provided for you. They are definitely a member of the Anglosphere.
The only reservation I would have would be in the event of a conflict with an Islamic country. Yet, they have been doughty in working with Singapore to root out extremists throughout southeast Asia. They’ve done a lot of work you never read about.
On the other hand, the extraordinary way that Anwar was treated may point to the future of an increasing radicalization of what is currently moderate Islam. I just don’t know.
Verity. I’ll try to type slowly and use small words. Whoever’s posts you’re reading, I don’t think they’re mine.
Hong Kong was (and still is for now) a powerful economic machine.
It owes that in very large part to the British role in it’s history.
It is now subject to Totalitarian China.
China has chewed up every source of revenue it can find to feed it’s nationalized industries (which are de facto social welfare). When all that’s left is Hong Kong, Hong Kong becomes dinner. If we disagree on this then we disagree.
Anglophone is your obsession, not mine. I believe it’s the laws that matter most.
The wealth is spreading, not contracting. Google Guandong.
Anglophones share the same English Common Law. They are, by definition, identical.
Where is Mike? Where is Michael Jennings?
The other solution would be to disband the UN, of course, and have a benign, informal association of hegemonies of the major powers.
The obvious example is, all the Americas would become, very loosely, the responsibility of the United States. They would be empowered to keep the peace and go in and put down civil wars, etc. (Yes, I know that “etc” is the lazy way out.)
Oz would oversea the S Atlantic and SE Asia. (It already does so, in fact.)
India would be responsible for the subContinent, obviously, but also, let us say, up through Afghanistan and N Africa. China would be responsible for the vast landmass of China and Mongolia. Britain for the continent of Africa, save Tunisia, Libya, Algeria and Morocco. I would say Britain should have responsibility for Europe, but on second thoughts, I think we ought to let them sink.
It would be cheaper, more benign and less self-serving and self-important than the vile UN.
Does anyone else have any thoughts?
Fuck China. India is the future primus inter pares of the Anglosphere.
James Waterton – Couldn’t agree more. India is the future. We can’t ignore China, but I have said many, many times, India is the future. They’re brilliant and the energy they put into everything is astounding. They get things done.
Just to be clear, I’m all in favor of the Anglosphere and admire the practicality of such an organization. But I’m still wondering why it is that such a large proportion of the world’s progress and prosperity can be attributed to people speaking one particular language. Is it something inherent in Britain, something in the water? Anglophones just seem to be more clearheaded about what needs to be done to see that ordinary people have opportunity and justice than speakers of other languages. Maybe it’s something in the sentence structure. But I guess it doesn’t matter. Such an organization would put the UN to shame, not that that’s particularly difficult. And perhaps the best effect of such a structuring of international relations would be that it would make coercive state power less important. The Rothbards of the world should like that.
Robert Speirs – “something in the sentence structure” … I like that. Most languages are highly structured and require people to think in preset patterns. English is infintely malleable and elastic. Perhaps you’ve hit on something important. When Anglophones are talking, we are making constant subconscious decisions about which words to use where and when to best obtain the effect we want.
I think you may be on to something!
What’s the mystery? Strong belief in the individual’s ability to effect change, rule of law instead of man, belief in personal freedom and the meritocracy of the market.
This is why the Anglo countries are the richest, most technologically advanced (for the most part), and the most attractive to immigrants worldwide.
Yes, Susan, but what promoted this superior belief in the individual? I think some quick-witted doctoral candidate could do his/her doctorate on the effect of the structure/malleability of the English language on the ability of Anglophones to influence the world in such a profound way.
I really intended to stay off of this thread. I guess my safety valve is whistling again.
Any one who has read my past posts knows that I believe in one language/one law per government.
LAW is what matters. “Anglophonic” countries are generally better because they share a common principle of government derived from English historical law.
Languages differ in merit, but are far from the most important thing!
North and South Korea share a common language, but not a constitution. Article 63 is from the North Korean constitution. Article 10 is from the South Korean constitution. Article 13 is from the Japanese constitution.
Which nation does South Korea most resemble? North Korea, or Japan?
North Korea
Article 63
In the DPRK the rights and duties of citizens are based on the collectivist principle, One for all and all for one.
South Korea
Article 10 [Dignity, Pursuit of Happiness]
All citizens are assured of human worth and dignity and have the right to pursue happiness. It is the duty of the State to confirm and guarantee the fundamental and inviolable human rights of individuals.
Japan
Article 13:
All of the people shall be respected as individuals. Their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness shall, to the extent that it does not interfere with the public welfare, be the supreme consideration in legislation and in other governmental affairs.
The constitution and it’s principles aren’t just the most important thing, they border on being the only thing.
If anyone ever thought I was advocating anglophonic supremacism, I apologize. I enjoy using and delight in hearing the English language, and I believe our (US & Commonwealth) nations should make it the only official language of government.
BUT, language cannot save a bad system of government and it can’t defeat a good one.
China cannot be ignored at the moment, however its influence will wane over this century. Currently, there are 117 boys being born for every 100 girls. 90% of aborted foetuses are girls. Obviously, this means in a few decades there is going to be a population collapse. It’s expected by many that China’s population will dip below a billion some time in the second half of this century. The One Child Policy has created a demographic disaster.
As has been the case wherever it’s been attempted, central planning in China has utterly ballsed things up. We just aren’t seeing it yet. Won’t be too long now…
I do agree, Verity, China could certainly rise again. However, it will take an enormous amount of time. We share a strong belief that the next few centuries will be Indian.
Under the new UK laws, would Pat Robertson be deported for his remarks about assassinating Hugo Chavez? Should he be?
Verity, do you realise that many Malaysian states enact various shades of Sharia law? Also, apostasy is a crime. There are a lot of very, very illiberal Islam-based laws on statute books in Malaysia. They’d have to do some massive social reforming before I’d let them in, if it were up to me.
James Waterton – Sharia is in effect in Aloe Star in the far north, much to the embarrassment of the government. They hate looking so backward to the rest of the world, but individual states are free to adopt it if they choose. Yes, apostasy is a crime for Muslims – not anyone else. And yes, I have reservations, too. The first time I went to Malaysia, young Chinese women were in business suits with the miniest of mini-skirts, Indian women wore saris and much sparkling gold, and Malay women – for the most part – wore sarong kebayas in brilliant colours. All three races piled on the make-up.
Then came the subtle pressure on Bhumi women in offices from Muslim colleagues, to wear the hijab. The last time I was in Malaysia, Chinese women were still showing leg by the yard, Indians still looked like exotic butterflies in the brilliant tropical sunshine and Malay women were almost universally veiled. Accomplished not by law, but peer pressure. I felt at the time it was a sign of something deeper and more unsettling.
That is why I am ambivalent about letting Malaysia into the Anglosphere. They have British law, trials are fair and open, people who can’t afford counsel are provided one free of charge, they are Anglophone, the police service is, by and large, well run, they do cooperate with Singapore in tracking down Islamic terrorists … they do a lot of things right. But yes, there is a niggle. During ramadam, it is a crime for restaurateurs and hoteliers to serve food or drink to Muslims during the daylight hours, except in the case of pregnant or menstruating women. (Those Islamics really do go in for the micromanagement of women …).
Yes, James, given your points, their membership would be incompatible with Anglosphere values. And I must say, I have seen signs of Islamic-creep in the government.
I think we will see India surge forward during this century, and by the ’80s, they will be neck and neck with the US. Then they will overtake it. Already some of their medical techniques are in advance of the US.
Just because I bunch of diplomats get together in a building somewhere does not mean they have any authority. What is wrong with the UN is the same thing that is wrong with “democracy.” A large enough body of people can pretend that a concensus somehow magically means moral authority.
UN beleivers have replaced God with diplomats.
Both the same arbitrary nonsense.