[KLUG Advocacy] Re: [KLUG Members] Should the United Nations run the Internet?

[Robert G. Brown]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 06:58:10 -0800, Rusty Yonkers <therustycook@yahoo.com> wrote:
>--- "Robert G. Brown" <bob@acm.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:12:19 -0800, Rusty Yonkers
>> <therustycook@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>> >> For those readers who have some philosophical objection to this
>> >> transition, I
>> >
>> >as far as I am concerned the US should dump the UN anyway so this
>> >would be even worse than what we have currently.....
>> Why?
>...I believe that there is a large difference in basic concepts of
>freedom and justice that, although we do not always do them right, 
>give us a much better lifestyle and grant us a much better life.  
Well, that's wonderful Rusty, it really is, and I've often traveled 
outside the USA and been happy to return home. However, this really
doesn't support the point you've made. It like saying that we're too
good to be a member of the club, or something.

In reality, we are one of the creators of the UN, and much that is
good about the UN comes from our membership (along with some other
countries) in it, and our leadership of it. The UN can be (and often
has been) a major channel for US foreign policy initiatives and 
interests, and it is of great utility in numerous other ways.

>We also do not see the heavy-handed dictatorial problems that are
>evident in many other societies.  
We have been better in seeing many of these rolled back over the years
(and currently) by studious public interest groups, and an independent
judiciary. It is an ongoing conflict that the Framers in many ways had
anticipated and prepared for, and this is one critical reason why we
remain as free as we are.

>Also to subjugate our decisions and way of life to decisions of
>countries (and many in the UN are this way) that are blatantly
>anti-US is a mistake.
This would be a legitimate fear if it were only true, Rusty, but it
ain't. What we have seen, in practice, is that the UN provides a
platform, perhaps an additional platform, to confront our adversaries,
perhaps show their true nature, and show that we lead, not merely by
might, but by right, and good example. Time and time again there have
been attempts to subvert the UN or some of its agencies so that it
becomes a strong-point for those who would stand against the USA, and 
they have all come to nothing.

>Even with all of our problems I still believe
>that we are by far the best country in the world.  Capitalism with
>all its flaws still works better than any other economic form.  
So, given all of this, you are somehow not interested in participating
in the ONLY body in the world where everyone sits down and talks? We
have built this strong and proud country based on exactly the notion 
that you talk to other, allies and adversaries, and work out the 
differences. It look to me like we are meeting the world very much on
OUR terms already, at the UN.

By the way, if you want a real showcase for the ascendancy of American
democracy, freedoms, and the superiority of the economic system we have,
you need look no further than the Headquarters of the UN itself. All the
folks who work there, often the very cream of their own countries, do a
lot more than simply work at the UN itself. They live in one of the 
largest American cities, shop in American stores, read American books
and newspapers, and experience first-hand how our culture works, on 
many levels. Let me tell ya, they bring home, to many countries, a 
very clear understanding of how we REALLY live, and think. Often, this
is at odds with the "party line" they have from home.

Guess which impression lasts, and guess which one motivates these people,
sometimes years later....

>I believe that it is good to help out developing countries but we
>should do it on our terms with oversite by americans.  I have had
>friends who have moved here from overseas, some of which worked with
>or knew people that worked with the UN.  They talked about the abuses
>of the UN and how money flows like water into the hands of the UN
>personnel and not much to the intended poor people.  I have also read
>a number of articles that talk about the abuses of power by UN troops
>(almost always non-US troops) of the people that they are suppose to
>be protecting.  From the people that I have known the story in
>"Behind enemy lines" is not far off from reality in the way that we
>are often abused by world organizations for not so idealistic
>purposes.

Most of which is true or close to it, as I know from my contacts in the 
UN itself, and in some of the peacekeeping forces that have served over
the years (and won a Nobel Prize in the process).

Claiming that there are bad practices, or that the organization is not
perfect is a good argument, but not for dropping out of one. You know,
there are corrupt and brutal police, soldiers who have committed criminal
acts, and even wealthy sports and music celebrities accused of sex crimes,
all right he in the US of A. Somehow, there hasn't been a call for the 
abolition of the police, military, NBA, or the music business. We know
we need these things, and that there is far more good in them then just
focusing on the bad stuff might lead us to believe.

Let me tell ya about "Behind Enemy Lines", and Bosnia. I agree that our
participation in the UN effort there was often difficult and frustrating,
but there was something interesting about the outcome. Remember the mass
graves the pilot had to crawl through? If it hadn't been for the UN peace-
keepers, awkward though it was, flawed though it was, perhaps abusive as
it was in some isolated cases, it did prevent a lot more people from 
ending up in gory holes like that one.

>You can paint me old fashioned but I believe that we are the best and
>we should not be ashamed of it.  
I'm not going to paint you at all (I wouldn't know what takes well,
Latex? Acrylic? :).... but I will say that there are many ways to 
measure "best", and by some measures, we will NEVER measure up well.

Do we mean well? I think that, in most cases, yes.
Do we want to promote a system that we see provides optimal results in
terms of realizing human potential? Yes.
Will we be effective by bringing this attitude to everything we do?
No! No one likes a bully, or an arrogant, self-centered preacher.

>If anyone can be a "good parent" of the world I think the US would be
>better than the UN.  
But the world doesn't want a parent, in general. It wants someone who is
there to help out, ease them over the crisis, and then get out of the 
way. Where we've done this well, we are viewed upon well, and we build 
strong bonds and alliances. Where we don't, or can't, we can make foes. 

>If the UN was so good why are the nation building projects like Bosnia
>still a big CF after all these years.......
There are many reasons for this, it has been a complex situation, and a
compelling case can be made that a stronger UN, not a weaker one, would 
have brought this situation to a better end sooner. That said, it is
not at all clear that ANYTHING will be effective in Bosnia, or in other 
places.

However, I'll cite two reasons:

1. If the European powers had been more persistent and resolute about the
   whole situation, it could have been handled as a Europeans, or perhaps
   as a NATO problem. However, this was not to be. Individual European
   countries acted in ways that kept the UN and NATO (common denominator,
   the USA) OUT, and by serving their own interests, promoted war and 
   violence there for years.

2. It would really be helpful if the strongest member of the UN showed
   some real backbone and leadership, instead of pandering to a national
   electorate by claiming that "nation building" is something his
   administration will NOT do (unless it suits him, like in the 51st 
   state of that country).

>Well time to climb down off the soapbox .... I said my peace and I
>stand by it.
That's fine. I don't see that any of your arguments stand... what ANY of
this has to do with the original issue, I'm not sure...

>If the world wants to use an Internet that is standards
>based then we set the standards and they use them ... no problem. 
In practice, this is what will take place for some time to come, as long
as we maintain an active role in world affairs, as a leader. To me it seems
that continued membership in, and leadership of, the UN is an important
part of that. Perhaps this is a lesson the current administration is 
learning, perhaps more painfully than some.

For the foreseeable future, the people who set the standards will be educated
in the USA, or at very least in schools that takes their standards from the
leading democratic powers. We've seen that the Internet tends to spread these
ideas well, it has been a democratizing influence everywhere it has been 
deployed.

No, Rusty, no need to withdraw, from the UN or any other forum. Have faith,
let's go forward!

>Our only real challenge is to make sure that M$ does not create the
>standards..... 
As long as M$ doesn't join the UN, I think we'll be fine! :)

							Regards,
							---> RGB <---