Bruce Sterling says: Marry the UN and the Net 343
An anonymous reader writes "SF writer Bruce Sterling is guest-posting on the global-eco-tech blog Worldchanging today and thinks we ought to marry the Internet and the United Nations. 'The UN has cumbersome rules, no popular participation, and can't get anything useful done about the darkly rising tide of stateless terror and military adventurism. The UN was invented to "unite nations" rather than people. The Internet unites people, but it's politically illegitimate. Vigilante lawfare outfits like RIAA and MPAA can torment users and ISPs at will. The dominant OS is a hole-riddled monopoly. Its business models collapsed in a welter of stock-kiting corruption. The Net is a lawless mess of cross-border spam and fraud. Logically, there ought to be some inventive way to cross-breed the grass-rootsy cheapness, energy and immediacy of the Net with the magisterial though cumbersome, crotchety, crooked and opaque United Nations.' It's obviously part tongue in cheek, but it does make you think."
Without the ICC, this won't work (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Without the ICC, this won't work (Score:4, Funny)
1. After reading the article, the closest thing I could find to an actual point is the suggestion that UN "sherpas" could be more effective and populist by doing some of their work online. I wouldn't exactly call that a "marriage" of the UN and the internet, it's more like adding modern technology to internal UN processes.
2. "sherpas"? Seriously, that nutcase is calling mid and low level diplomats "sherpas". here's a place with real sherpas. [shangrilatrek.com] And they're already online. OH SMACK, UN bitches, you just got an information technology beatdown from a bunch of professional hikers in the Himalayas. UN IT department gets "served" by a pack of llamas!
3. You'll notice I called the article guy a nutcase in #2. Well, he calls himself "Bruce Sterling, Worldchanging Ally#1 [worldchanging.com]" What is he, some kind of super hero? Does he hang out at the World Changing Headquarters in spandex with Captain Planet, sidekick Democracy Boy, and Womens' Rights Woman? Check out what he's standing in front of in his picture: read about all their stunning adventures in this month's edition of Amazing Stories--featuring the fearsome Ghost of Mars!!!
But just click on the "Worldchanging Ally#1 link in the article. You'll see the home of the Viridian Curia, a secretive mailing list of the world's most powerful superheroes. They apparently trade links to modern art reviews, and make comments like "(((Christmas is coming. Are you Viridian? Go buy something "Tech Nouveau" and flaunt it! Give it to your best friends! Go consume it, for heaven's sake! Waste not an hour.)))"
Yes, they surround everything in triple parentheses. They don't even match parentheses between lines. That's sooo TECH NOUVEAU, omg omg.
But it gets better. Follow the link in Viridian Curia (viridian curia???) site to worldchanging.com. Down the page you'll see lots of fun superhero plotting against evil, like this review of a book reminiscing about their greatest battles against the evil Globalization Cabal of Ultimate Doom [worldchanging.com]. It includes a comment by the famous Dr. Menlo himself, to his site www.corpse.org. Exquisite Corpse [corpse.org] (yes they actually call it that!) is a site mascotted by a pair of dancing multicolored day-glo skeletons and secret communiqes from the great Doctor Menlo himself describing the Battle in Seattle. booyah!
4. wow that was some good shit. but getting back on topic here, let's look at the one crazed article slashdot did link to. Last paragraph-the #1 Worldchanging ally lays the smackdown with his name-dropping superpowers! Actual quote: "bigger than the self-appointed Davos Forum, faster and smarter than the Porto Alegre contingent, less cranky than the Soros initiatives, less creepy than Bilderberg, more potent than MoveOn, and faster-spreading than Napster." Well, I've heard of Napster and Soros. So maybe name-dropping isn't his most awesome power. But he sure is into this superhero stuff!
5. And, as befitting his #1 status, Mr. Worldchanging unleashes a KAPOW! on his rivals with the bold statement "The Malaysian Super Corridor tries hard to look really Super." Dizzamn yo, when the Malaysians' translator gets back from his coffee break there's gonna be an earth-shattering epic gladiatorial tableaux in the inimitable Stan Lee style!!
6. ???
7. Profit!
8. But don't fret, you mere mortals who don't have Worldchanging Ally-class superpowers! from the article: "Here Kofi Annan offers you a personal invitation [wsis-online.net] to log right on to the dizzy apex of global policy-making." Yes, much like the decoder ring in your ceral box or the mutant sea monkeys purchasable via mail order from the back of your fine comic book, YOU TOO can fight e
Re:Without the ICC, this won't work (Score:2)
Re:Without the ICC, this won't work (Score:2)
Re:Without the ICC, this won't work (Score:5, Funny)
Apparently the ICC so evil that one extreme just isn't enough for it, it needs both.
Re:Without the ICC, this won't work (Score:2, Informative)
Facist and Socialist (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Without the ICC, this won't work (Score:5, Insightful)
The ICC is a court, hence most aspects of the Bill of Rights don't even apply to the ICC. Otherwise, the court follows the international accepted rules [icc-cpi.int] of conduct, most of which are written of the Bill of Rights. Here the complete statute [un.org]
Concerning the aspect of undue punishment, the ICC is judging over war-crimes and genocide. What kind of punishment would the US [umkc.edu] impose on those crimes?
So, it seems to me, that your personal distrust for foreign and/or supranational entities is more the basis for your reaction than its legal framework.
Re:Without the ICC, this won't work (Score:2)
2nd, you do understand that the ICC see what the USA does as wrong but has no problem with the PA blowing up kids. I suggest you read up on the UN before you defend the so. Check to see which country leads the Human Rights subsection and how bad that countries human rights record is.
Damn right I do not trust foreign/supranationl enities as I can not vote them out of power.
Re:Without the ICC, this won't work (Score:2)
> ICC see what the USA does as wrong but has no problem with the PA blowing up kids
There has been no trial on either. I fail to see find such statements except from your sayings.
Finally, which human rights subsection?
There is the Office of Prosecution, the chief prosecutor is Mr. Lui
Re:Without the ICC, this won't work (Score:2)
Re:Without the ICC, this won't work (Score:2)
Some states do have direct election of some/all judges.
Did you know that between 30-49% of all security council resolutions in the past 10-15 years where agaist Israel and that almost none where agaist states that support terror?
# Amendment IV - Protection from unreasonable search and seizure. [4] (http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of _ freedom/bill_of_rights/amendments_1-10.html#4)
# Amendment V - Due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, private property. [5] (
Re:Fascist Socialists (Score:2)
Re:Fascist Socialists (Score:2)
The abbreviation Nazi comes from German Nationalsozialistische, "national socialist".
So, the rhetorical strategy, crude as it is, remains the same basically. Just mix up anything that you imagine is popular or unpopular and use it as a blunt weapon to
Re:That may not be a good combination (Score:5, Insightful)
It was created to do no such thing. It was created in order to prevent a third world war from occurring, with the Western democracies (the '1st world') on one side and the Soviet Union and its client states (the '2nd world') on the other.
This was a laudable goal, and to the extent that this did not happen, the UN achieved its goal. Like any other bureaucratic organization rendered obsolete by the passage of time, the UN has endeavoured to reinvent itself. Unfortunately, as the simple facts of the matter are that there exist more backwards, primitive, kleptocratic, oppressive governments than there exist enlightened democracies, the voice the UN speaks with is chiefly the voice of its basest and more numerous members.
Fer Chrissakes, Sudan, a government currently undergoing an organized campaign of genocide against its own citizenry
That's pretty much the current UN in a nutshell. When it *does* manage to accomplish something, like imposing sanctions on Saddam Hussein, it ends up looting the Food for Oil program which was intended to spare the Iraqi people the worst impact of those sanctions.
It's a nest of vipers. It's not even that it's anti-American; I'm not arrogant enough to condemn such sentiment a priorily. But it's clearly anti-liberal, and I use that word in its classic Lockeian sense. The ideals that this country was founded on, that individual liberty is the highest goal for which one can struggle, are anathema to the Westphalian notions of national sovereignity that the UN was founded upon. If we do truly hold that governments derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed, then how can we go about treating illegitimate governments to an equal seat at the table?
Nations like North Korea, Saudi Arabia, China, Singapore, and Iran make up a large part of the UN. There is no way in hell I want those countries having the merest degree of jurisdiction over what I can do, say, or read on the internet. The very suggestion is utter lunacy.
Re:That may not be a good combination (Score:5, Insightful)
What I meant to highlight was that the UN is unable to solve it's own problems, and has a limited impact on most of the issues that really trouble the world, and has therefore not quite done its job.
The League of Nations failed in stopping WW2, while the UN could do absolutely nothing about the Cold War - agreed, it did not fully escalate into a war - but it was still a very genuine threat. That it did not manifest itself into a war is something we should count as a blessing, and not something I would credit to the UN.
And yeah, while you are right in saying that countries like China should have no right telling you what to read, be aware that a lot of people in the world are feeling the same way about the US, too (am not taking sides here, merely highlighting the fact) -- that's what makes it all the more trickier.
Re:That may not be a good combination (Score:2)
Exactly. The failure of WW3 to arrise is not because of diplomacy or organizations like the UN (in fact, the UN was completely paralized because both sides had veto power), it was simp
Re:That may not be a good combination (Score:2)
WW3 was a little too close for comfort [wikipedia.org] for my liking.
skribe
Re:That may not be a good combination (Score:2, Insightful)
But you are ignoring tons of vitally important and very successful projects of UNICEF, UNESCO, and other sub-organizations of the UN. They have done really important work for decades, improving the world we live in.
Most peace-keeping missions have succeeded. And all those aid programs, haven't they also contributed to not just well-being, but also stability and peace in the world?
I'd even go as far as to say that what those organizations do every day
Re:That may not be a good combination (Score:5, Insightful)
FSVO 'success.' The peacekeeping mission in Rwanda 'succeeded' by sitting there and let the butchers finish their work, and then claiming credit for halting the butchery. The peacekeeping mission in Somalia, didn't. The peacekeeping mission in Yugoslavia wouldn't have accomplished jack were it not for the US's willingness to spread peace, love, and understanding in 500, 1000, and 2000 lb packages.
Google on 'Srebrinica Massacre' to see what sort of security UN peacekeepers can provide.
The number of genocides that have taken place on the UN's watch is a travesty. The number that have taken place within weapons range of UN peacekeepers is an indictment.
And all those aid programs, haven't they also contributed to not just well-being, but also stability and peace in the world?
Stability and peace are often at cross-purposes with the 'well-being' of the world. UNICEF feeds kids who are starving because of their fucked-up governments, but doesn't do a thing to replace fucked-up governments that starve their own populations. The WHO works to eradicate disease in countries with fucked-up governments, but doesn't do a thing to replace the fucked-up governments that don't give a shit about the poor public health of their populace.
I'd even go as far as to say that what those organizations do every day around the world is the only way to effectively fight terrorism -- remove the causes.
And where, oh where, has the UN managed to accomplish this?
of course they'll always be in the minority
Read down a list of the UN general assembly.
They're not in the minority.
Re:That may not be a good combination (Score:2, Flamebait)
What the hell does it matter what the General Assembly does? Nothing passed by the General Assembly is binding. I agree that the UN is obsolete, but not because of the reasons you're stating. The UN is obsolote
Re:That may not be a good combination (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/players/veto.html
From 1946-2002:
Russia/USSR - 121
US - 76
Not quite "BY FAR", is it?
Re:That may not be a good combination (Score:2)
Russia 80 from 1945 - 1955
Russia 41 from 1956 - now
China 4 since 1972, 1 before then
France 18
Britain 32
In the past 20 years China has used 2 vetoes; Fra
Re:That may not be a good combination (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, I see. The problem is that backwards-assed medievalism as embodied in nations like Sudan and Iran isn't given enough power to wield on the world stage.
That makes such sense.
that's where you're wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
While Israel has killed some innocent civilians in the West Bank and Gaza, their primary intention is to pursue and proactively eliminate terrorists, with civilians who die in the crossfire an unintended consequence. The problem is that that most of the world and UN, you included, are focusing in on Israel and con
Re:That may not be a good combination (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That may not be a good combination (Score:2)
Re:That may not be a good combination (Score:2)
Then bride and groom would unite....
Excellent analogy of a typical dysfunctional relationship. You know, where "I know all my relatives complain that Freddie is a shiftless, lazy ex-con and he'll use me, but we love each other and my love will change him." Likewise, the Internet and the U.N.
IIRC, the Internet worked well under the benevolent dictatorship model. It's gotten so important to commerce and power that such a model isn't possible anymore.
The next best thing to governence, IMHO, is to combine
Cats and dogs (Score:3, Funny)
Why does this seem like a bad idea? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why does this seem like a bad idea? (Score:2)
As the Internet gets more and more controlled, you'll see three forces at play.
1. Corporate
2. Government (ie: 1. Corporate)
3. The anarchy/democratic/social/liberty interests
Now, if you can get 2 to cede to the UN (a body that often finds it can't do anything much of importance), we'll still have a strong 3, and now a weakened 2. And with a weakened 2, 1 will have l
Re:Why does this seem like a bad idea? (Score:2)
That's an interesting point of view and I think there's some truth to it.
On the subject of three, it's interesting to consider that technologically the people do currently have control. The internet is a co-operative effort and to subvert it, the Powers That Be, need to subvert either people's control over their individual PCs (such as with Trusted Computing) or the connection (such as increasingly vicious legislation on the ISPs, making them responsible for their customer's actions).
We've been seein
Internet Council (Score:2, Interesting)
Add to the list (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Add to the list (Score:4, Insightful)
How about this (Score:3, Interesting)
All the world's problems would be solved instantly. Or at least it would be entertaining to watch.
Re:How about this (Score:2)
"Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at." - President Wilson
Would be brilliant but I doubt it would happen that way!
U.N. and the Tele (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:U.N. and the Tele (Score:2)
Do you mean like this? [wikipedia.org]
I don't know what you mean by "the Internet is a service", as it's more of a network over which services can be provided. Similarly, the UN provides a framework over which certain services can be provided.
Re:U.N. and the Tele (Score:2)
However, the Soviet Union saw it as a way to legitimize its and its client states' control over information (under an early version of anti-globalization) throughout the 70s. Instead of promoting local content, it propped up government control of telecommunications networks and
I'm from the goverment... (Score:3, Insightful)
The internet is driven by it's users, the UN, the protoype world goverment, is driven by power.
The internet has intelligence at it's ends, the UN intellegence is centralised.
The internet routes around censorship, the UN is censorship.
He's from the goverment and all he does is cost money and fuck things up.
Re:I'm from the goverment... (Score:2)
Power, but I'd it politics. You know, it has been practised since foverer and is fundamentally a good thing? Internet is becoming way too important economically and politically to be left in the direct control of the "users" (citizens).
The internet has intelligence at it's ends
And this distributed intelligence you speak of has been just how successful in dealing with crap like spam?
The internet routes arou
Re:I'm from the goverment... (Score:2)
The internet is doing just fine without the goverment why fuck with something that works? In fact it could be held up as a model for what happens when goverment leaves well alone. Every time control is applied to the net i
Re:I'm from the goverment... (Score:4, Insightful)
Uh. No. The moment there was more than two people together, there was politics. With the emergence of the first shamans, wise-men, tribal leaders and priests, the fight for socioeconomical control within the group just became more formalized. You're right in saying that the way how politics works has changed during our social evolution, but as one of the fundamental ways of how we organize ourselves, it will never go away.
I have no problem with spam.
I do and it has nothing to do with my mail-box getting clogged by spam. It hinders my work, because these days when I send critical work related information to someone by e-mail, I also have to fax it and sometimes even phone the recipient to make sure that he/she has got the information. Where do the e-mails go then? They disappear into spam filtters or simply get accidentally deleted when the recipient is purging his mailbox manually. The e-mail as a means for communication is getting more and more useless every year.
Saying that spam is not out of control or that it isn't costing the infrastructure money is just wrong. Hiding your head in the sand won't make the problem disappear.
The UN is politico organistation with aims and goals, they engage in PR. Do you think they publish every piece of information they recieve?
Of course not. Why should they? It wouldn't serve any purpose. Withholding sensitive information from people who're not entitled to it is not censorship, but common sense. Any government does it and it's a good thing. If you want direct access to such information, get yourself involved in politics - if, like me, you don't want to do that, you'll just have to trust your elected representatives.
Or are you going to tell me these services work and are worth money they cost?
Where I live, they work and I would be willing to pay even more taxes to expand them. It would be horrific to live in a society where you'd be denied medical help just because "you haven't paid the last installment as specified in your contract with MediCorp(tm)".
The question is did the goverment help or hinder the development?
The Finnish internet backbone (funet.fi [www.csc.fi]) is a state sponsored infrastructure into which all the stream from private ISPs eventually flows. I'd say that the government involvement has significantly helped our access to the internet.
Re:I'm from the goverment... (Score:5, Insightful)
Amen.
To those who believe that the distributed intelligence of the internet (the users at its ends) is insufficient to manage itself, I'd say that the evidence is to the contrary. It is not the government that has provided us with ways of dealing with spam, of effective encryption and VoIP. It is smart individuals and groups that move much faster than governments.
And if the users, who are not in fact users as the grandparent termed them, but actually comprise the internet itself, were insufficient to manage themselves, then there is an alternative to taking the control away and centralizing it, and that would be to increase the education level of these "users."
More than any other systems, democracies and anarchies, require intelligent and educated people. Right now the internet is an anarchy and long may it remain so.
Re:I'm from the goverment... (Score:2)
Glad to have helped.
Re:I'm from the goverment... (Score:2)
Dude. Who paid for the Internet in the first place? Who paid for all the research, conferences, all the meetings etc. It was all state funded.
I expect your referring to ARPAnet - the military project? This formed an important part of what is now the Internet, but it was not the only part. Usenet formed a big chunk of it. There was also NSFnet, which was funded by a non-profit corporation formed by public universities, and a host of other little entities. They all came together to form the present day in
Jello (Score:2)
It would be like a fist full of jello. The tighter they try to make the controls the more you'll see independent and censorship free networks rise. Such as Area Wide Wireless Networks and sub networks like freenet.
Confused (Score:5, Insightful)
Sterling really ought to stick to the novels, tho' having said that, apart from Difference Engine I haven't been impressed by any of his work.
Re:Confused (Score:4, Insightful)
PLEASE STOP WITH THIS MUSLIM == TERRORISM CRAP!!!
A slashdot story the other day showed the CHRISTIAN party in Australia trying to force pr0n censorship on the Australian people. Yes that's right, the EXTREMIST CHRISTIAN party.
You media brainwashed types sicken me!
Re:Confused (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Confused (Score:2)
Re:Confused (Score:3, Insightful)
Till the major Islamic leaders stop saying that the DIRECT, DELIBERATE targeting of women and kids is OK people will think that MUSLIM = TERRORISM.
Till the major Christian leaders stop saying that the PRE-EMPTIVE and ECONOMICALLY MOTIVATED invasion of middle-eastern countries is OK, people in those regions will continue to think that WESTERN = IMPERIALISM.
Just holding up the mirror here. How do you think millions of muslims see the governments of Bush and Blair? Both of whom profess christianity and
Re:Confused (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you including state-sponsored terrorism? Or does that not count?
Re:Confused (Score:2)
The UN can't do anything unless you want it... (Score:5, Insightful)
The UN is a place to discuss problems between countries, to discuss world-wide problems. It is a place to organise solutions with regarding to global problems. It is an umbrella under which people can operate without having to worry from which country they are coming.
The UN consist of, included but not limited to, the Security Counsel, UNICEF (childrens fund) and the UNHCR (refugees). Don't judge the whole UN by the (in)capabilities of one section.
The UN itself doesn't have much power, they have as much power as the contributing countries give them. If the world cries "UN, help them!", but the countries don't give men and material, the UN can't help.
The UN is a place to resolve problems if everybody wants to resolve them, it is not a power which can resolve problems on its own.
Re:The UN can't do anything unless you want it... (Score:2)
Germany grew to be powerful, and when it attacked, most countries did nothing to stop it. You may go ahead and draw the analogy.
Sure, the UN does a lot of other things, such as provide aid and what not. Mind you, so did the League of Nations [wikipedia.org] - which was founded after WW-1 to prevent agressors. UN could no do anything to prevent the Cold War, and neither can it stop aggression today.
Re:The UN can't do anything unless you want it... (Score:3, Funny)
Be prudent, you risk to infuriate all american slashdot readers.
Re:The UN can't do anything unless you want it... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's mostly a problem of the participating countries which do not want to solve it.
It's quite pointless when you are not solving the bigger problems
The UN is helping in this. But you expect it to happen overnight. That's not going to happen.
Education and medication is a first step in helping people. Once people understand what is going on in their world, they will take care of their dictatorship-based governments themselves.
It is not that
Re:The UN can't do anything unless you want it... (Score:2)
And that was exactly my point.
The UN is helping in this. But you expect it to happen overnight. That's not going to happen.
Nope. People have been "expecting" it to happen for 65 years. My point was merely that the UN has been powerless to stop aggression or the genuine problems that threaten us.
The UN is a global organisation which can survive empires, which can survive governments and which can survive empires beca
Re:The UN can't do anything unless you want it... (Score:2)
But even then, the task of the UN is not to tell how a nation is to be run. (Or do you think the USSR or China would have agreed and participated in such an organisation). The UN is a public forum of the nations.
Instead of private meetings between various ambassadors, you have a public discussion. And the behaviour of the nations representatives are judged by other nations.
And I'd say that is quite powerful
Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
Even peace can only work if both sides want peace. After WW2 the european nations more or less decided that there were to be no more wars (on european soil between european nations, the rest of the world was still open season) and because all of them decided it it happened. Even though spain and england have a dispute over the rock of gibraltar. Even though Ireland and England are in dispute. Even though most of the nations have a long long history of war with each other there has been peace.
But even in europe there are still wars, Northern Ireland and Baskenland, because in those cases one side doesn't want peace.
Or maybe I am using the wrong word. It is not so much a case of wanting or not wanting peace. It is a case of the various sides wanting or not wanting things but not considering war to be a way of achieving those wants.
Simple example. Drugs. The Netherlands has a rather liberal policy on it, France does not. In the past the frence goverment wanted holland to change its policy but not so badly as to go to war. Unlike america wich has gone to war over drugs.
The UN can only work if all the sides involved consider war not really to be an option. It is like those pub fights were arguments flare up and things get out of hand. In some cases both the fighters can't back down but really want a third person to step in and stop the fight allowing both to save face. If however one in the fight really wants the fight to happen the third party is powerless.
Of course the world is not a pub. In a pub you got maybe 4 sides, the two fighters, those who want to watch a fight and those who don't. The world has got close to two hundred countries with each country often having conflicting intrests. The fact that the UN still exists may be considered an achievement.
Re:Exactly (Score:2)
- 50M people dead in world war II. Europe couldn't afford another idustrialize war.
- Common threat from the USSR.
- The United States maintaining troops in Europe more or less permantly and said, "We'll provide the Guns...you all worry about butter".
Irony was that Wilson and the United States told the Europeans this would have been best after World War I instead of punishing Germany and leading to world war II. The United States never ratified the Treaty of Versailles.
Wh
Re:Exactly (Score:2)
There was peac
Re:The UN can't do anything unless you want it... (Score:2)
Well yes. But which problems that plague the Internet are "problems between countries", that can only be solved by bringing the Internet under the control of the UN? If you're thinking about things like spam; the UN would solve that in a heartbeat by mandating a new email protocol... but so would any other centralised entity if it were given control of the Internet. If there is a problem with the Internet between c
I can see it now... (Score:2, Insightful)
1. Notice spyware problem.
2. Announce commission to study spyware problem.
3. Approves resolution condemning spyware problem.
4. Watch as spyware problem continues.
5. Repeat steps 3-4
US owes the UN Money (Score:5, Insightful)
Add to this the fact that the US has veto power over most issues (meaning it can skew any issue to suit its' purposes) and refuses to recognise the need for anything like an International Criminal Court and you have a recipe for a dysfunctional organisation.
The UN fails in its' role due to the often devisive action (or inaction) of the US. Perhaps if the US were a better global citizen the UN might have a chance of actually working?
my 2c
Re:US owes the UN Money (Score:2)
Keep in mind that a nation must dow aht is in its best interest, not the interest of the world. Whether their decisions are correct or not is of little importance so long as the nation does as it sees fit. You dont see the world get into a big tissy whenever some nation decides to buck the UN and do their own thing. Why should the US
Re:US owes the UN Money (Score:2)
Why the hell would that be so? Why can't nations act in a way that's in the interest of the world? That's a worst case assumption, some nations might act in that way - many do, I guess - but it's not a "must". The same goes for individuals; just because some people are jackasses and only look out for themselves, that doesn't have to apply for everybody.
You dont see the world get into a big tissy whenever some
Re:US owes the UN Money (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but that's baloney. The U.S. is not the only nation that owes past dues, and other nations have neglected to pay for long enough that they've lost their right to vote. [unwatch.org] The U.S. is also not the only nation with veto power, and as the link from the other respondent shows, these other nations with veto power have often been the (successful) target of bribery.
Re:US owes the UN Money (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah. That's it. The UN can't manage to pass a resolution condemning genocide in Darfur 'cause they can't afford the inkjet cartridges to print one up, or the copier toner to run off enough to hand out to the General Assembly.
U owe /. an apology (Score:5, Interesting)
Has it ocurred to anyone that the reason the UN "can't get anything useful done" is that the US owes close to $600 Million in dues? The US also routinely withholds money whenever it feels it can gain leverage on an issue.
So you believe all you hear, right? Have you ever considered which national military makes up the bulk of the UN "peacekeepers"? Did you know the US is billed for 25% of the UN's operations (over 30% for the "peacekeeping" operations), in addition to the non-dues support it provides (which has estimates ranging from 15-20+ Billion in the last 8-10 years)?
Indeed, between 1992 and 1997, the US provided "voluntary" (in truth all of it is voluntary, the UN has no rightful or legal claims to *any* national treasury) support topping 11 billion dollars --just for "peacekeeping" activities. A march 1997 report showed US troops supporting such actions numbered approximately 68,000.
Hey, maybe we can just "pay our dues" and stop making all that voluntary contributions. Whaddya say? Wanna trade that 11+ Billion for 600 Million? No? Didn't think so.
Did you know that in fact, when it comes to peacekeeping forces, more than half the member countries refuse to make payments? Indeed, the UN thinks it is owed some 5+ BILLION in USD, yet we don't see you, or other UN apologists, pushing for the rest of the member countries (about 2/3rds any given year) to pay up (BTW, France is included in the top 5 list).
And FYI, the "withholding" of US funds has been tied directly to reforming functional aspects of the UN, such as the portion the UN allocates, the funding of conferences and organizations directly opposed to the United States (something no country should have to support -- organizations that oppose it), and a proper accounting of the US' military support which has far exceeded it's "assigned share".
Add to this the fact that the US has veto power over most issues
So does Russia, so does China, France. All five of the permanent members of the UNSEC have veto powers, but that is ONLY limited to the (in)Security Council. "The council's five veto-wielding permanent members are China, France, Russia, the UK and the US."
Indeed, do you know which country has used their veto power more than the rest? Bzzzt, no it isn't the US, it is USSR/Russia.
-- http://www.peace.ca/securitycouncilveto.htm
In the UN General Assembly, there is no veto power. Indeed, the UN GA can override the SC through UN resolution 377 which allows the General Assembly to recommend collective action "if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security".
http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/landmark/a major.htm
And guess which country pushed for that ability? Yup, the nasty old United States, in 1950. But that action has rarely been used. Indeed, only ten times since it's inception has it been used. Why was it not used in the Iraq affair? not enough support. If the majority did indeed oppose it, they were apparently unwilling to go on record as being against it.
Given the actual layout of functions and powers in the UN, your claims fall flat on their face, as the US does not have "veto power over most issues ", that the USSR has used the veto power more than any other member of the SC, that veto is no
Re:U owe /. an apology (Score:3, Informative)
According to the UN [un.org], no country made up the bulk of the contributions in August 2004. The largest contributor was Pakistan, who contributed 8600 out of 60000 peacekeepers. The USA ranked 26th on the list, contributing 430.
But maybe Iraq is a distraction, so let's go back to August 2001 [un.org]: in that month Bangladesh was the biggest contributor, with 6100 peacekeepers, and t
Start from scratch (Score:2)
If you want world democracy, start from scratch. A political party entirely ruled through direct democracy and consensus is possible. That means that even if the party becomes part of a state or national government, all its political decisio
Well, the internet is missing something... (Score:3, Interesting)
Our glorious, progressive 20th century institutions gave us about a hundred and fifty million real, rotting bodies to enjoy, while this vile anarchic 21st century internet has given us a only few hundred pictures of corpses--and most of them are the same old dead people from the 1900s!
It's just uncivilized.
Projecting from today's numbers, the internet will have produced not even a dozen violent deaths by century's end. Something must be done to end this lawless barbarity before it corrupts us all!
You almost got it.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:You almost got it.... (Score:2)
Do you think that ANYONE at the UN will go for this? They love to travel to such places, it's even better that someone else is paying for it all.
You can't get good Food/Sex/Drugs via the internet system.
Exactly what I expected from an Idealist. (Score:4, Interesting)
1. Point out things you are unhappy with, no complaint is to small to be totally blown out of proportion. Make sure you compare whatever exists to a perfection that need not be possible to attain.
2. Propose solution! The solution is to always get rid of the evil conspiracy holding back progress, because the answers to how to do really complicated things on a large scale are clear to everyone and all that stands in the way is the conspiracy.
3. Leave all the details for later (and there are a lot of details). Explain that you or your favorite know-it-all organization have to be in charge of things before you'll even bother with figuring out the details.
4. Get in power, screw up far more than what was there already and blame it on the continuing legacy of the conspiracy.
5. Propose even stronger more drastic reforms. Continue from here to step 4 until people are totally sick of you and tell you to get lost or you've totally destroyed what you were trying to fix to the point that nobody cares about it anymore.
Oh boy oh boy... (Score:3, Funny)
Getting married with her sure sounds exciting!
**Maybe I can have flings with PCs and Macs when the net is busy transiting to IPV6 too!
He fails to understand why they are anatgonistic (Score:2)
The internet is about freedom and choice. Partly, it works because of mutual cooperation for mutual profit. Partly, it works because of the liberty to NOT cooperate, be a maverick, and invent something new (which might be better), and sell it o
UN is nothing more than a bash Israel community (Score:2, Interesting)
Jump over to the Security Council where VETO power protects the big 5 from any world responsibility or rebuke.
This same organization cannot even stop obvious cases of genocide because they take too damn long to act. They always want to review the issue, then sanction the bad guy, and only act after the opp
It's obviously part tongue in cheek (Score:3, Interesting)
in a very short paragraph, he's expressing some views which basically say that the effects of capitalism - which you are taking for granted as sacrosanct - are causing some really serious world-wide problems; that the internet is viewed by those who support capitalism is a threat _to_ capitalism.
except he's not quite come out and said that directly, because, of course, capitalism _is_ sacrosant.
i recommend anyone who believes that capitalism is good, or that corruption and bribery is bad for trade, or that racism extends just to skin colour, to read _all_ of Ian Macleod's sci-fi books, back-to-back.
if you can't hack Ian Macleod then at least go read some of Anne McCaffrey's co-authored books.
The ultimate solution: cyberdemocracy (Score:3, Interesting)
What should be the best solution?
We, the users take the "cyberlaw" into our own hands! The only crime will be that against freedom of speech and the only recourse will be a permanent disconnection from the net!
Once the People have spoken, everybody on the planet (presumably we all will have one small client running) will start sending little packets to those turds.
That should teach them!
Spam from china?
Scam from nigeria?
Well, if nobody does anything, their entire nation's link is not going to live very long under the People's action!
Until the UN/Iraq "Food for Oil" Scandal is... (Score:3, Interesting)
Saddam Hussein would have fallen from power long ago and the Iraq war never occurred had Kofi and Company not taken billions of dollars in bribes in return for helping Saddam circumvent the trade sanctions levied against Iraq after Gulf War I.
United Nations Oil for Food Scandal [google.com].
Griping about the internet a new fad? (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh god, the internet is broken, oh god, the internet is doomed. Oh there's no control over the internet (isn't that a GOOD thing, even with some of the bad stuff?)
I keep hearing over and over from certain individuals that the internet is broken and doomed. I get on it every day and read up on topics of interest, chat with others, download files, etc and it doesn't seem very broken to me. Yes there are a lot of unsavory types and sites out there, but the same applies to the real world. The internet right now seems to work just fine as is, so why made such a radical change to who runs it if most of the problems on the internet are avoidable today? How is making the UN run things going to change the corporate corruption and 'stock kiting?' I don't see how this helps or changes anything.
The UN Isn't Legitimate (Score:2)
The United Nation's policies on self-determinati
Let's do the math! (Score:2)
UN and Internet Both UnDemocratic (Score:2)
If something as important to me as the Interent is going to be regulated, I want then regulation done by someone I can vote out of office. I can't vote for my UN ambassador (neither can you).
Nor can I vote for the people running the Internet today. It may be supported by a lot of good people, and perhaps it
SO behind the times (Score:2)
Vigilantes (Score:2)
This is a travel report (Score:3, Insightful)
But he wasn't there to get anything done. The hard part is when you're there to do a real job, like making global roaming for cell phones work.
Future of the Internet Hive Mind (Score:5, Interesting)
We're making an Internet Hive Mind. [communitywiki.org]
It's started with commited group efforts like Free Software. As communications technology develops, we start seeing things like Wikipedia. [wikipedia.org]
As it develops further, we will see things like the project-space network, [communitywiki.org] and local economies and sharing networks. As it develops still further, local governments will be mediated over by well organized electronic communities online.
Really, if this all seems strange to you, you have no idea the power of communications technologies.
Before "wiki," a piece of software, there could be no wikipedia. After that piece of software, it's almost impossible for there not to be a wikipedia. Details could be different, but the basic idea is almost an inevitabilitiy.
We are not done. There's still a hoard of communications software in the pipes. We're just now getting our event systems [taoriver.net] online. We'll start seeing things like "OverHear," [communitywiki.org] allowing you to hear your friends' public conversations, with voice even. As we get the ability to index the world's voice conversations (with voice-to-text software), we'll be able to ask, "Who in the last 5 minutes said this world," we'll see that the online world will become one gigantic OpenSpace [communitywiki.org] conference. We'll see the conferences, we'll see the group affiliations, we'll see the projects, we'll see it all.
I predict that between 2015 and 2020, the Hive Mind [communitywiki.org] (by some other name) will be a recognized and powerful force. It will also recognize itself and it's own power. We could call this the day that the Hive Mind achieves "self-awareness."
It may even have a military force- I don't know what else to call a gigantic networked mess of sympathetic hackers, chemists, biologists, and lawyers. It is not unthinkable that "the Internet" may become it's own "sovereign nation," of sorts, lack of an independent land be damned.
So, connecting the idea of the UN and the Internet is not all that strange. I mean, what else? What else could it possibly be?
Our next generation "communications software" isn't so much about making it so that messages can be sent from person to person in different ways, but about organizing the existing communications, and about organizing ourselves. We're putting in individual-to-group affiliations, and affiliations amongst groups with each other.
There's no reason to believe that our communications will stop networking and developing.
People do not have their attention on our trajectory. They see half the people downtown walking around with cell phones stuck to their ears, but they don't think that anything can "come next." But it will. There's much much more on the way.
The "Hive Mind" will look less rediculous, I think.
In 5 years, VoIP will be mature, and have basically taken over. Online group VoIP conferences may be primitive, but some ordinary people will be using them. Semantic web technologies like RDF [w3.org] will be in mainstream understanding and use (like XML right now), and our computers will be noticably "smarter" than the information desplay we have today. Tablet's will be cheap and accessible, and we'll tighten up the "I drew something"-to-"There it is on the web" loop. In short, our conversations will be full of napkin diagrams, Visual Language [communitywiki.org] will take off beyond web comics. Our user interfaces will have transcended (finally) the box-ish interfaces, because graph data-structures have taken on new-found importance, and with the new interfaces, we'll see component lan
Has anyone actually RTFA... (Score:3, Informative)
And I have to applaud this idea. We have all seen how good the net is at getting people to talk to each other from very far flung communities - here I am ranting against yanks yet again after all ;-) The processes and mechanisms of the UN are derived from the great committees and councils that were the best way we knew to organise nations over a hundred years ago. Now it is time to move on and utilise 21st century means of communication and organisation within the UN. Committees can now meet virtually on the web. Non-members can contribute even if not present. We can all see what is going on. Surely we netizens can appreciate the possibilities. Sure it may degenerate into flame wars again and again (much as the security council has done for the last 40 years when Israel comes up).
Perhaps the United Nations of the 21st Century will be a Bazaar not a Cathedral [catb.org]?
Re:The UN is Evil (Score:5, Funny)
Too late. Your IP has been tracked and the CIA will be by shortly to assist your enrollment in a 're-education' program. You'll be wearing Nikes, bopping to Britney Spears, and taping Survivor in no time.
Don't worry, you'll still be allowed choices. Specifically "Coke or Pepsi" and "Doritos, Doritos Extreme and Lo-Carb Mega Doritos Extreme".
Re:Smash the State (Score:2)
By what authority?
Reverse that... (Score:2)
"Germany could not forbid nazi-propaganda spread by german servers"
Who says that the UN will change Germany's law and not just outlaw nazi-propaganda anywhere on the internet?
Re:Reverse that... (Score:2)
The laws of the country you are connected in already apply. More crooked politicians is one of the last things this world needs.
Re:Not really... (Score:2)
Could you provide examples?
In general, I'm reasonably impressed with the UN -- I'd say that it's one of the greater diplomatic achievements the world has ever seen.
Re:Not really... (Score:3, Interesting)
Nasty, Nasty UN - they want the laws on war crimes to apply to the USA as well, and they want to ban land mines, chemical weapons, biological weapons and all kinds of mean and nasty stuff where the USA wants the law to apply to everyone but them. Big republican party donor Saharto - President of Indonesia at the time, invades East Timor and the USA uses it's veto to stop the UN giving one of Nixon's fr
Re:Not really... (Score:2)
In general, I'm reasonably convinced that the UN is a den of corrupt thieves - theirs is one of the greater abuses of diplomatic immunity the world has ever seen.
Saddam Hussein would have fallen from power long ago and Gulf War II never occurred had Kofi [heritage.org] and Company not taken billions of dollars in bribes in return for helping Saddam circumvent the trade sanctions impos