The United Nations

Some thoughts on the United Nations.

"One is that the Bush administration has, without understanding what it was doing, created a situation in which the majority of nations see the UN as the only institution that has the possibility of checking American power and limiting the consequences of American unilateralism.

In the future, shifting coalitions of the willing are likely to work through the UN and other major international institutions and use the unprecedented means the Internet provides for mass mobilization to counterbalance or contain the United States on many economic and politico-military issues."
William Pfaff, Boston Globe

"Remember when we were told that the war would have to start by February, to get it over with before the desert turned too hot? Then, as diplomatic resistance to war mounted, nature's deadline was put off until later in the spring.

On March 7, facing a French and Russian veto in the Security Council, the U.S. did another backpedal. It amended its supposedly "final" resolution to include a deadline of March 17. All the amendment says is that Iraq must show it is disarming in good faith by the 17th. But most Security Council members, including the French and Russians, say Iraq is already disarming in good faith. So come the 17th, the Security Council will remain as paralyzed as ever. The amended resolution has no real teeth. It is another U.S. surrender.

But every time the Bush administration caves in to diplomatic pressure, the White House puts out the story that it's more determined than ever to go to war. And the U.S. media dutifully buy it. The media heralded the March 17 date as a drop-dead deadline, an absolute proof that Bush will indeed have his heavenly war, come hell, high water, or UN veto. Of course, they may be right. But if you look at what the administration does, not what it says, the evidence points in the opposite direction."
Ira Chernus, Common Dreams

Nice to note that the United Nations may not be as useless as the Conservatives often portray it.

Values

"In real life, unlike in Shakespeare, the sweetness of the rose depends upon the name it bears. Things are not only what they are. They are, in very important respects, what they seem to be."
Hubert H. Humphrey

"A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel."
Robert Frost

Read an article today by William Pfaff entitled "Islam and the West: Incompatibility of Values." Being the incurable optimist that I am I hoped that Pfaff would grapple with some of the moral questions that I have been grappling with.

I am quite aware of our nations blunders in the Middle East. And I know why nations around the world have reason to fear and even hate the United States. On the other hand the values we enshrine in the United States are things I believe in. I believe that Freedom of Speech, or Expression is a positive good. Not just for me here in the United States or in the West, but for every human being on the planet. I believe that Freedom of Religion is every child's birthright, that each child has the right to seek the Infinite as they see fit. I believe in individual freedoms. I believe in respecting the dignity of each human being, regardless of their Gender or Race or Religion. I believe in Democratic principles; governments run better when they seek the input of the governed. And again, I don't believe that these principles apply only to the United States or the "West." I believe these principles should be followed in every place there beats a human heart.

And yet some Radical Islamic Fundementalists would deny these rights and privaleges to those who live in their communities. They guide their communities into opposing freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of thought. They oppress women, and often religious and racial minorities. And some Radical Islamic Fundamentalists have lead their followers into open warfare with those who do not share their values. I don't mean to imply that the only reason terrorists attack the west is because of a clash in our values. They also have specific policies they would like us to adopt. Radical Islamic Fundementalists would like, for example, for us to allow them to eliminate the only Democratic nation in the Middle East and slaughter its inhabitents.

And yet, Islam is genuinely in most cases a religion of peace. Despite the rantings of some (Ann Coulter, i'm looking your way), most Muslim people are just like people anywhere. They love their children and seek to make a better world for them. I've met several Islamic people over the years and have liked most of them. To hold all Islam responsible for the actions of a few Radical Fundamentalists is insane. So how do I square these thoughts? Perhaps William Pfaff has some thoughts that will help me navigate these tricky waters.

Nope.

He holds with the standard far-left liberal thinking; the United States government is evil and corrupted and therefore anybody who fights against the United States Government is, ipso facto, good. He basically holds that the values of some Radical Islamic Fundementalists are the equal and perhaps superior to the values of the West.

He states "There is constant Western pressure on Islamic governments to conform to Western conceptions of human rights and promote free and critical religious and political thought.

In short, they are to become us."

Does Mr. Pfaff really believe that the principles of Islam are incompatable with human rights? With democracy? With freedom of expression and thought? I don't believe that. I would suspect many Islamic people in the United States and elsewhere would agree with me.