Ciao!

Hey Miguel,

Of note, I think your vision is crystalline and I commend your scholarship. I would like to alert you, however, to an assumption I made before reading this post. "A Modest Proposal" was a satirical essay written by Jonathan Swift. He wrote about what should be done with the impoverished youth of England in his day: he proposed the wealthy eat them. When I saw your title I assumed it was going to be a satirical essay as well. I was a little saddened at the glaring lack of a punchline.

Go ahead and insert one . . . you'll feel better.

Love,
Micah

LOL ... I think you're right. But that's my sarcasm ... See, you expect a punchline, but i don't deliver. how's that for sarcasm? ;-)

BTW, Swift's A Modest Proposal ranks as one of the all-time greatest pieces of satire in the world. I'm always amazed by the dolts who take it seriously (i.e. literally).

Hi,

Miguel I've been following your writing fopr a week now. At first I was amazed, but after following your reasoning and your discussions with Melanie, I must say I am dissapointed. Yes, your reasoning is consistent, very thoughtful, but still based on flawed and stubborn thinking. I tried to have a debate with you once about the UN, but you were just too stubborn. You do not and I think are not ready to change your opinion at all. As I told you once, you are miinterpreting the purpose and initial goals of the UN, and what it represents and why we need it. Do not give the UN sth it was not established for in the first place. I think our reasoning about the abolishment of the UN is dangerous and unnecessary. In addition, who should be the one to judge which kind of system a particular state should have. To sum up, comparing the EU and the UN is misleading. Have a nice evening, Nenad

I'm sorry if I offended you. And yes, I can be quite stubborn. But I don't think I'm unreasonable. And I'm more than willing to admit when I make a mistake - whether it be an error in judgment or of fact.

That said, I do think the UN is, in many ways, obsolete. I believe in democracy very strongly, as I suspect you do. If that's so, I would prefer a world organization based on democratic values. Don't you agree?

You stated that my argument was flawed, but you didn't give a reason. Please, do so. I'm more than happy to reconsider if that's the case. But it had better be a reason, not just a slogan like "give peace a chance". I think, if you get to know me, that you'll discover that I'm more than reasonable. But that's the ticker, I expect reasoned debate, based on fact and evidence. As such, I'm an ultra-rationalist (a Randian objectivist, in fact) - I believe, above all else, in logic.

A system of ethics, to be valid, must be based on objective reality. A system of ethics, to be valid, must be absolutely consistent w/ that reality. In short, ethical reasoning is based on one simple premise: A is A, A is not B.

Secondly, there are some errors in your accusation. I do not compare the EU to the UN. Rather, I think some factors of the EU could be incorporated into a changed UN (that is, that only democracies can be members). That is all. Anything else is a misreading of what I wrote. I'll try to be more clear in the future.

Also, the purpose for which the UN were created can, I'm sure, be debated. And I welcome that debate. Based on the knowlege I have about the UN, its struture, and its purposes, I developed my own assumptions. Of course, I could be wrong. I encourage you to present evidence to the contrary.

I kind of like your ideas for UN reform, at least in part.
This can however only remain a theoretical debate.
For once, The UN is not (going to be) abolished (within the next few years). It may be split into factions, some countries may even leave but it will remain.
Secondly, who should start this "new" organization? From the current situation it would seem like the proposers of war on Iraq would be the most probable candidates. Then what would be the incentives for nations to quit the "old" UN and join the new one? All nations are in the UN for reasons. There would be a conflict of interests for each country which organization to join.
Thirdly, two UNs would compete with each other. This cannot be fruitful. We are not talking capitalism here where competition is good for the general public. In security questions, competition is weakness.
Fourthly, a new organization cannot be founded just like that and have such great power. States need to give up part of their sovereignty to this organization. They won't do so unless they trust it to be good for their national interests. This trust has to be built up in a long process.
Fifthly, you are wrong with some assumptions about the EU. There are no United States of Europe. the EU is not "essentially" a federal republic. History of the EU tells you that it started with very small range economic agreements which were increased in depths and range over decades until we finally have a common market in the EU and a single currency in a big chunk of it.
Politically, though, the EU is far away from being one republic. The institutions are in great need of reform and some reforms are about to take place. Only since recently a commom attitude towards foreign policy and Security has been introduced. We all have seen how well it works in the Iraq crisis.
European integration has been going on since WW2 in its current form. it will take at least another 20-50 years until we are a federal republic.
Learning from this, one can see that a proposal towards a new United Nations modeled in part after the EU can merely be a theoretical one.
However, as a goal it is not a bad idea. In my opinion the way to go can only be small steps in reform of the UN as seen in the EU history not a new "Counter-UN". These small steps will have to include measures to ensure that the charter and the declaration of human rights will be followed by member states. Which also includes an international court for war crimes. Here, no country can be more equal than others. The USA have to accept The Hague to regain credibility for international cooperation. The USA are not the world police, nor are they the judges for international law.

I think you're right in great part. Yes, the EU isn't a "United States" of Europe - not yet. But perhaps in a few years it will. And the calls for united foreign and economic policy - dictated by the Maastricht treaty point to future developments. So it's only a matter of time.

As for building a "new and improved" UN. I don't see why we can't start now. We can form an international organization for the world's democracies. No harm there. After all, countries join other international organizations all the time (NAFTA, ASEAN, ECOWAS, MERCOSUR, Arab League, etc). The benefits would be great, especially if the structure gives greater protection for population size (I think, for example, that India would rather be in the kind of organization I envision than the UN). I also think the East European and Latin American countries would rather support an international institution that actively supports democracy. I'm sure there could be other benefits - perhaps international free trade agreements?

Most importantly, I don't think the UN could continue to function w/o the backing of the US and other major world powers. But it could limp along. Or it could reform itself enough to get by. Only time will tell, of course.

i don't know how to comment,just check what your opinion is?i am a chinese,my teacher ask us to write a comment about the literary work,then i choose swift "a modest proposal"