Hello, Secretary-General. How do you plan to enforce peace?

[Craig234]

There's this neat idea. Let's write down a UN Charter saying things like invading other countries is illegal. That'll end it, right? But just in case, how should we enforce it?

How should the world prevent Russia invading Ukraine, Israel (Worse than Hamas) invading Gaza, China invading Taiwan, the US invading Iraq and Afghanistan, for example? What mechanisms, legalities, military structure, should make the charter more than a paper when nations violate it? Or should we just tear it up as meaningless and misleading?

 

[Gozaburo]

There's this neat idea. Let's write down a UN Charter saying things like invading other countries is illegal. That'll end it, right? But just in case, how should we enforce it?

How should the world prevent Russia invading Ukraine, Israel (Worse than Hamas) invading Gaza, China invading Taiwan, the US invading Iraq and Afghanistan, for example? What mechanisms, legalities, military structure, should make the charter more than a paper when nations violate it? Or should we just tear it up as meaningless and misleading?

You touch on the fact that at the end of the day, all guarantees of rights, all promises of non-aggression, etc. are protected by a thin veneer that is only enforced on others because a bigger, scarier guy says it should be that way. The moment the bigger scarier guy loses his ability to project power (or) stops believing in the project altogether is the moment that the veneer begins to dissipate and we see human nature for what it really is.

 

[Craig234]

You touch on the fact that at the end of the day, all guarantees of rights, all promises of non-aggression, etc. are protected by a thin veneer that is only enforced on others because a bigger, scarier guy says it should be that way. The moment the bigger scarier guy loses his ability to project power (or) stops believing in the project altogether is the moment that the veneer begins to dissipate and we see human nature for what it really is.

I wouldn't call it human nature, but institutional nature. Institutions warp what people do. The Nazis weren't a bunch of individuals who each decided to act like Nazis. The question remains unanswered, though, how to enforce such laws?

 

[Gozaburo]

I wouldn't call it human nature, but institutional nature. Institutions warp what people do. The Nazis weren't a bunch of individuals who each decided to act like Nazis. The question remains unanswered, though, how to enforce such laws?

Have fun separating this thing you call "institutional nature" from human nature. I suppose institutions just manifest out of the ether and are given to us?

If we determine made up things like human rights and democracy are good or worth preserving, then you have two options:

• Manufactured consent via propaganda, academia, media, etc.
• Through threat of violence or law

If what you say about institutions is true, then human beings do not operate autonomously within a society which I think sounds true. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who unironically believe they came to their conclusions about democracy, personal freedoms, and rights organically instead of being spoonfed these views since they were four years old. Had people like this been born in medieval Europe they would've been the most hardcore Monarchists around.

 

[Craig234]

Have fun separating this thing you call "institutional nature" from human nature. I suppose institutions just manifest out of the ether and are given to us?

No, but they are different than what a person does. It's complicated.

If we determine made up things like human rights and democracy are good or worth preserving, then you have two options:

• Manufactured consent via propaganda, academia, media, etc.
• Through threat of violence or law

Those are very vague, though. They don't tell me how you prevent Putin invading Ukraine or the US invading Vietnam.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Have fun separating this thing you call "institutional nature" from human nature. I suppose institutions just manifest out of the ether and are given to us?

No, they're built by the collective work of individuals, often on the ruins of institutions which came before. "Thou shall not kill" becomes "you go to prison if you murder someone." Monarchy becomes the Presidency.

The institutions which came before have influence, but they're not determinative. Some countries extend "thou shall not kill" to the State as well. Some countries have a Prime Minister who serves at the pleasure of Parliament, instead of a more king-like President who has their own mandate.

If we determine made up things like human rights and democracy are good or worth preserving, then you have two options:

• Manufactured consent via propaganda, academia, media, etc.
• Through threat of violence or law

Or, they are preserved simply because they "work" for most people*, and the effort to change them does not seem worthwhile.

*Or more precisely, they "work" for the people who have the most power to change them. When the power of the press was expanded beyond newspapers, standards of censorship were retracted: films and television were allowed to regulate themselves. And when the power of the press was even further diversified by the internet, the standards of censorship and copyright changed again. If no-one objects to an act of speech, it is allowed to stay up. Of course someone WILL object, simply because they disagree, but this too is diversification of the censorship power. In a sense the power was 'returned to the People' because it never was granted to government by the Constitution.

If what you say about institutions is true, then human beings do not operate autonomously within a society which I think sounds true. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who unironically believe they came to their conclusions about democracy, personal freedoms, and rights organically instead of being spoonfed these views since they were four years old. Had people like this been born in medieval Europe they would've been the most hardcore Monarchists around.

Fair enough. These aren't the people who build or change institutions though. Arguably, they don't even preserve the institutions. Accepting one's role within them is a passive position.

 

[Fabiusbile]

Let's write down a UN Charter

Didn't that make you smile yourself?
The UN Charter... It's a funny thing. It is difficult to find an organization on the planet.more useless than this one.
Alas. But no one can forbid fighting. Wars on the planet do not actually stop... It's just that you know more about some of them because they tell you about them, and you know less about other wars.
Understand, international law is not a law... These are gentleman's agreements that are binding for exactly as long as each of the signatories considers himself a gentleman. Only there are no gentlemen among the heads of state, there are only wolves, there are only top predators, others do not get to such positions.
In this world, it was and will remain so, you are either a predator or prey.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Those are very vague, though. They don't tell me how you prevent Putin invading Ukraine or the US invading Vietnam.

An UN rule that countries can't invade each other, wouldn't have stopped the "American war" either. Americans were there on the invitation of the South Vietnamese government ... at least at first.

As to how the UN rule would be enforced, it could only be done by the UN having it's own military: one bigger and stronger than any plausible alliance of countries put together. Obviously, it would need to be able to slap down America and NATO, or else its rule wouldn't apply to them. This might be more practical than it seems: initial investment would be huge, but once the UN had military dominance it could pass another rule like "no country shall have a military beyond domestic policing and coast guard." Or it could be expressed as percentage of GDP.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Didn't that make you smile yourself?
The UN Charter... It's a funny thing. It is difficult to find an organization on the planet.more useless than this one.
Alas. But no one can forbid fighting. Wars on the planet do not actually stop... It's just that you know more about some of them because they tell you about them, and you know less about other wars.
Understand, international law is not a law... These are gentleman's agreements that are binding for exactly as long as each of the signatories considers himself a gentleman. Only there are no gentlemen among the heads of state, there are only wolves, there are only top predators, others do not get to such positions.
In this world, it was and will remain so, you are either a predator or prey.

The UN prevented North Korea from invading the South. Because Eisenhower was a "gentleman" he didn't go beyond the mandate and nuke China.

It may be fairly inept at war, but the UN does a lot of humanitarian work. It's not completely useless.

 

[Juin]

How should the world prevent Russia invading Ukraine, Israel (Worse than Hamas) invading Gaza, China invading Taiwan, the US invading Iraq and Afghanistan, for example? What mechanisms, legalities, military structure, should make the charter more than a paper when nations violate it? Or should we just tear it up as meaningless and misleading?

Impossible. The reason nations acquire power in the first place is to not depend on the mercies of others to operate. Your request demands that they willingly give up this previlge the most powerful have. acquired and subject themselves to what they may see as the caprices of an international organisation. Why would they do that if they already powerful enough to operate f4eely?

Its not totally meaningless. The in between is that the most poweful work something out. And naturally thet settle for something that exempts them

 

[Ug make hammer]

Under a UN military hegemony, there would still be a need for small countries to have their own militaries. All countries can agree and act on the Big Boys fighting each other: it's bad for everyone.

So perhaps national militaries could be limited to the square root (or even cube root) of their GDP. There would be no decisive advantage to China, Europe or the US, against each other. But small countries who can't expect the UN's protection because proxy war or border disputes don't reach the level the UN cares about, could still defend themselves.

 

[Fabiusbile]

Under a UN military hegemony, there would still be a need for small countries to have their own militaries. All countries can agree and act on the Big Boys fighting each other: it's bad for everyone.

So perhaps national militaries could be limited to the square root (or even cube root) of their GDP. There would be no decisive advantage to China, Europe or the US, against each other. But small countries who can't expect the UN's protection because proxy war or border disputes don't reach the level the UN cares about, could still defend themselves.

Ahem... the events taking place on the planet today are not the result of chaos, this is a planned game and they have been preparing for these events for neither a year nor two, but much longer. I think China started in the 2000s, Russia since 2008 (when Russia was given the final signal that it would not be allowed into the club of "Western Powers")... and now no one will allow everything to be paused. The pieces for this game were prepared for too long and carefully placed on the table. Yet again... this is a world of predators, where there are higher predators and smaller ones. On this planet, no one believes anyone, knowing full well that when a predator is hungry, especially a top predator, it eats. Russia and China know perfectly well that if they don't act, the day will come when the top predator will eat them.
When the issue of sovereignty is under threat, no humanity and sacrifice are taken into account. And you say to trust UN... It's not serious.

 

[Fabiusbile]

To make it clear... in Russia and China, they absolutely do not care about democracy. Politicians don't care as much as people do. There are national security issues (imagine, not only the United States has national security). If China began to prepare for the Big Game... because he can, because he has the potential of the second country in the world. Then Russia was frankly forced to play this game. Once again, our politicians do not care about democracy, but they could not help but react as revolutions began to take place in the countries of the former Soviet republics, the result of which was the nationalization of the property and assets of Russian oligarchs and state corporations of Russia. These are not just ungentlemanly acts, they are economic aggression. Moreover, the constant and undisguised support of the Russian opposition by the West clearly spoke of the preparation of another revolution, only in Russia itself.
Alas, the West has created its own enemy in the face of Russia. Although the Russian elites were ready to forgive the West and Yugoslavia and the loss of influence in the Baltic... The red line was Ukraine and Georgia. However, the West was not interested in Moscow's opinion, new markets, new sources of income, and resources were needed.

 

[Ug make hammer]

To make it clear... in Russia and China, they absolutely do not care about democracy. Politicians don't care as much as people do. There are national security issues (imagine, not only the United States has national security). If China began to prepare for the Big Game... because he can, because he has the potential of the second country in the world. Then Russia was frankly forced to play this game. Once again, our politicians do not care about democracy, but they could not help but react as revolutions began to take place in the countries of the former Soviet republics, the result of which was the nationalization of the property and assets of Russian oligarchs and state corporations of Russia. These are not just ungentlemanly acts, they are economic aggression. Moreover, the constant and undisguised support of the Russian opposition by the West clearly spoke of the preparation of another revolution, only in Russia itself.
Alas, the West has created its own enemy in the face of Russia. Although the Russian elites were ready to forgive the West and Yugoslavia and the loss of influence in the Baltic... The red line was Ukraine and Georgia. However, the West was not interested in Moscow's opinion, new markets, new sources of income, and resources were needed.

It's amusing how you portray Russian aggression as self-defense. More of this please!

 

[Fabiusbile]

It's amusing how you portray Russian aggression as self-defense. More of this please!

It's funny that I need to explain this to adults.
When you are told about the suffering of a child in the war... the chance that someone is trying to deceive and mislead you tends to 100%.
Of course, we live in a world of infantile overage children, where people believe in all sorts of nonsense based on emotions and propaganda. One of them is that Putin is a monster and a tyrant... for many in Russia, this is so funny to hear from the West. Believe me, when Putin leaves, you will remember him with a kind word... for then Russia will be led by a monster, because there are a lot of them behind the scenes, and there is a request from society for a monster. Very, very much for many in Russia, Putin is too soft, too kind to his enemies and plays democracy and liberalism too much.
The day will come, victory will be ours and the good grandfather Vladimir will no longer interfere... Woe to the vanquished.

 

[Ug make hammer]

It's funny that I need to explain this to adults.
When you are told about the suffering of a child in the war... the chance that someone is trying to deceive and mislead you tends to 100%.
Of course, we live in a world of infantile overage children, where people believe in all sorts of nonsense based on emotions and propaganda. One of them is that Putin is a monster and a tyrant... for many in Russia, this is so funny to hear from the West. Believe me, when Putin leaves, you will remember him with a kind word... for then Russia will be led by a monster, because there are a lot of them behind the scenes, and there is a request from society for a monster. Very, very much for many in Russia, Putin is too soft, too kind to his enemies and plays democracy and liberalism too much.
The day will come, victory will be ours and the good grandfather Vladimir will no longer interfere... Woe to the vanquished.

You didn't disappoint. You went the full nazi for me.

 

[Craig234]

Its not totally meaningless. The in between is that the most poweful work something out. And naturally thet settle for something that exempts them

How is the UN Charter not meaningless in Ukraine?

 

[Fabiusbile]

You didn't disappoint. You went the full nazi for me.

No more than any American soldier in Iraq or Syria. With a small detail, I still have more moral rights to stay in Ukraine... for this is also my land... that someone 30 years ago used the weakness and corruption in the Kremlin and separated these lands from my country and called it an independent state... Today, fortunately, it doesn't matter at all.

PS: it's a pity, of course... I thought I met an adult on this forum. And then again, the Nazis, Hitler...

 

[Ug make hammer]

No more than any American soldier in Iraq or Syria. With a small detail, I still have more moral rights to stay in Ukraine... for this is also my land... that someone 30 years ago used the weakness and corruption in the Kremlin and separated these lands from my country and called it an independent state... Today, fortunately, it doesn't matter at all.

PS: it's a pity, of course... I thought I met an adult on this forum. And then again, the Nazis, Hitler...

Anyone who proposes "might makes right" as the natural and proper way for countries to behave, is a nazi to me. And doubly so if they talk about historical claims of "their people" to land governed by a country they despise but still live in. "Protecting Germans" was Hitler's stated reason for invading Poland, and "protecting Russians" was Putin's stated reason for invading Ukraine. So when you side with nazis, there is nothing childish or trite with calling you a nazi.

I hope you're using a VPN to post. I respect the free speech rights even of Nazis, and wouldn't want you arrested or killed by the Ukraine government, just for speaking your mind.

 

[Fabiusbile]

Anyone who proposes "might makes right" as the natural and proper way for countries to behave, is a nazi to me. And doubly so if they talk about historical claims of "their people" to land governed by a country they despise but still live in. "Protecting Germans" was Hitler's stated reason for invading Poland, and "protecting Russians" was Putin's stated reason for invading Ukraine. So when you side with nazis, there is nothing childish or trite with calling you a nazi.

Hmm... the discussion is really getting funny. I explained in an accessible way that Russia's actions were solely due to the protection of its economic assets, because huge amounts of money had been poured into the countries of the former Soviet republics, and significant industrial capacity belonged to Russia and that Moscow disagreed with giving it to anyone under the pretext of revolution... and about "historical..." it's all lyrics for the masses.

I hope you're using a VPN to post. I respect the free speech rights even of Nazis, and wouldn't want you arrested or killed by the Ukraine government, just for speaking your mind.

Hm... I think I will reach Kiev soon... but the Ukrainian authorities will no longer be there either. So...
this region is simply defined by your server as Ukraine. Russia has been here for 2 years now.

 

[Juin]

How is the UN Charter not meaningless in Ukraine?

Its meaningless in Ukraine. The Charter is meaningless when a dispute involves a big power.

 

[Craig234]

Its meaningless in Ukraine. The Charter is meaningless when a dispute involves a big power.

So why have it? As rules that don't apply to powerful countries? How do you make them applied fairly to other countries?

 

[Luce]

It's amusing how you portray Russian aggression as self-defense. More of this please!

Maybe he's in an occupied area and has to watch what he says.

However, I do seem to remember that he used to have a Russian flag under his name.