Globalization and the UN

Globalization - What is it good for?

Call me a simplistic, isolationist, rube, but why exactly is globalization being trumpeted as a good thing.

Let’s see:

Global oil market + Islamo-Nazis wishing to expand the ol' bank account = $80.00 a barrel oil and rising

American market + cheap Chinese labor and goods = staggeringly huge trade deficits

American Economic influence + Communist Governments = Communist governments taking our money + giving us goods +ignoring our "influence"

One of my dearest friends is dating someone who apparently has a degree in international finance and economics. She is being introduced to my circle of friends in just two weeks. After introductions, I plan on cornering her and getting someone to explain to me why globalization is a good idea economically.

Let it not be said that I don't have an open mind. All I ask of the Pro - Globalization crowd is all I ask of politicians - convince me that your course of action is demonstrably better than the opposing view point.


The UN - What is it good for?

Again, I will liken the United Nations to the League of Nations. If an international body wants to be respected, it has to have the ability to earn respect. In most cultures of the world, corruption, indecisiveness, lack of will power, inability to follow through, do not engender respect.

Put it simply, if you had a boss that told you to do something, changed his mind, threatened your job, and if you really screwed something up, sent a middle manager to sit across from you and monitor what you did, but wouldn't really do anything if you misbehaved, and could be paid off to look the other way as you were stealing office supplies and harassing your coworkers - would you really respect your boss or the company that you worked for?

What would the world look like if there was no UN? Since the inception of the UN has the UN really done anything of import - have they ever really stopped a war? It could be argued that the United Nations has merely allowed wars to continue, albeit in some instances a reduced level of hostility, with, for all intents and purposes - international approval. Who can forget the UN triumph that was Rwanda? Or the Korean War for that matter. It'll soon be the 60th anniversary of the commencement of that conflict and the two nations are still technically at war. True they don't actively shoot at each other on a regular basis, but the threat of a full scale war is there.

I challenge all of you readers out there - can anyone prove to me that UN "conflict mediation" is successful in truly ending conflicts that it purports to solve? Or does it merely force the conflict underground until the peacekeepers leave?

Do I call for the dissolution of the UN? No. It does provide a place where diplomats can come and speak. Do I think it needs all of the money that we and other nations send to it? No. Keep the building in New York, but make the diplomats have to pay for their parking tickets. That'll make them move with a purpose.

Even Mr. Spock disliked and had little use for Diplomats. For your viewing pleasure, may I suggest the Classic Star Trek Episode A Taste of Armageddon. Two societies decide that a "clean" war is the way to go - their societies continue humming along nicely, and computers calculate simulated attacks on major cities. If and Eminian or Vendikan city gets "hit", then the population is required to report to a disintegration chamber for execution.

Of course, CAPT Kirk, James T, UFP Starfleet and CDR Spock ignore the Prime Directive and threaten the two civilizations with real war, horrors and blood and all. Television writers in the 1960's realized that war is horrible, and the more horrible wars are the shorter they usually are and the quicker they end. For Peacekeeping to truly work, they have to be able to have simple rules of engagement: If a peacekeeper witnesses two people fighting, kill them both with maximum violence, while working on the root causes of the conflict. There are roles for NGO's (non governmental organizations) - those should be addressing root causes of conflict through infrastructure improvement and education, all while underneath the protection of scary Peacekeepers.

Peacekeepers should take on a motto of the mighty United States Marine Corps, "No greater friend, no worse enemy."

The UN should hire itself an Army of mercenaries and pay them well. Good ol' Executive Outcomes comes to mind. Give them clear rules of engagement:

Party A and Party B are fighting in Hajiland, the International Community has brokered a cease fire. Protect the NGO teams that are going into each side to rebuild the infrastructure and educating the populace on both sides. If you witness hostilities, destroy or capture the participating units with overwhelming violence. If you are engaged, destroy the engaging unit, and their support facilities again, with overwhelming violence - remove their ability to wage war. Also, if a faction begins to use threatening rhetoric, treat that rhetoric as an overtly hostile act and respond quickly and decisively.

If any of the soldiers in the Peacekeeping force are found to be misbehaving, corruption, siding with one side or another, abusing those who they are sent to protect, the individuals or units in question will be tried and, if found guilty by Courts-Martial, executed. Commanders of Peacekeeping forces will be held ultimately responsible for the actions of those units they command.

With an ROE like that, conflicts would end - with quickness! Unfortunately, people would have to be more afraid of the Peacekeepers than the opposing side. Force is the only factor in getting people to work together. Threats, especially from the UN, are merely laughed at, and then promptly ignored.

But knowing the current UN administration, the corruption would start from the outset. Kofi Annan has been the head of the UN for how long? Perhaps it's time that Mr. Annan retired? I'd really like to see a major shakeup at the UN and see Secretary Colin Powell be the new Secretary General. He'd never take the job, but if I was king of the planet and made decisions like that, I'd give him the job and the ROE above.