League of Nations II: Electric Boogaloo
Besides politics, my other intellecutal passion is history. History, I truely believe, shapes how the world is today, and I doubt many will disagree. I also believe we can learn from history. Thus my dislike of the United Nations and France, which are somewhat tied together. Let me tell you a little story.
November 11, 1918. World War I armistice is signed. President Woodrow Wilson, the academic liberal (who'd have guessed with all these socialists running around now), issues the Fourteen Points, and prepares for the Treaty of Versailles. Besides the years of French dominance on the European contintent due to irreprehensible war reperations, the League of Nations is born.
Now, even the most liberal, in the International Relations theory-sense, meaning promotion of democracy, free trade, and collective security (I'm on board except for the last one), people will agree with me that the League of Nations was a failure. Not really a disputed argument.
However, I am coming at it from a different direction. Liberals will point out that the League of Nations was a failure becuase it excluded Germany and Russia, the United States never got involved, and Great Britain gave up, leaving France in charge. However, they want the League to have been stronger, will military-backing like some want for the UN. I see the League as a testament to failure in trusting the League of Nations to achieve anything. If you start from that basic premise, you see how World War II was inevitable becuase so many (like Kellogg and Briand) assumed the League of Nations would be able to settle any conflict. These are the same people who feel that UN sanctions will rid the world of Kim Jong Il and his ilk.
I really don't mind the United Nations in the idea form. However, when people trust it to solve their problems, it will inevitably let them down. It could not stop, only escalate, Rwandan genocide, and is doing a crack job in the Sudan. I am not surprised at these outcomes. I do not expect the UN to regulate the seas, try crimes in an International Criminal Court, or stop nuclear proliferation. I expect it to be a place where countries can come to settle disputes and discuss issues, but not really solve major problems. The United Nations needs a reboot. And it needs to start from the top.
Give Kofi the heave-ho.
I knew it from the get-go.
November 11, 1918. World War I armistice is signed. President Woodrow Wilson, the academic liberal (who'd have guessed with all these socialists running around now), issues the Fourteen Points, and prepares for the Treaty of Versailles. Besides the years of French dominance on the European contintent due to irreprehensible war reperations, the League of Nations is born.
Now, even the most liberal, in the International Relations theory-sense, meaning promotion of democracy, free trade, and collective security (I'm on board except for the last one), people will agree with me that the League of Nations was a failure. Not really a disputed argument.
However, I am coming at it from a different direction. Liberals will point out that the League of Nations was a failure becuase it excluded Germany and Russia, the United States never got involved, and Great Britain gave up, leaving France in charge. However, they want the League to have been stronger, will military-backing like some want for the UN. I see the League as a testament to failure in trusting the League of Nations to achieve anything. If you start from that basic premise, you see how World War II was inevitable becuase so many (like Kellogg and Briand) assumed the League of Nations would be able to settle any conflict. These are the same people who feel that UN sanctions will rid the world of Kim Jong Il and his ilk.
I really don't mind the United Nations in the idea form. However, when people trust it to solve their problems, it will inevitably let them down. It could not stop, only escalate, Rwandan genocide, and is doing a crack job in the Sudan. I am not surprised at these outcomes. I do not expect the UN to regulate the seas, try crimes in an International Criminal Court, or stop nuclear proliferation. I expect it to be a place where countries can come to settle disputes and discuss issues, but not really solve major problems. The United Nations needs a reboot. And it needs to start from the top.
Give Kofi the heave-ho.
I knew it from the get-go.
| Permalink | 
