🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug10.215329.700@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>f > "Frank" (robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins))
>
>f > Perhaps it is time the United Nations became a united nations organization
>f > instead of a harlequin for the United States to dress up in.
>
>  Puhleeze. The UN has hardly been the plaything of the US. Do you recall all
>  those wonderful votes by the so-called Non-Aligned Nations that were cur-
>  iously pro-USSR? Now, with the SU gone, the UN will start acting like a
>  civilized body.
>
>  Wait, don't tell me, you're in favor of World Government. Bzzznt. Join the
>  decade, "Frank". The '60s *ARE OVER*.
>
>--
>Gary Strand

Geez, I've been "catch up"ing this group as a habit for a couple of years,
now, but I stop in for a look and see Mr. Strand still looking at the world
through red, white and blue glasses.  So much crap packed into such a small
paragraph!  Where do I start?

IMHO, the U.N. has recently (last two years) become exactly a "plaything of
the U.S."  Bush/Baker et al bullied, bribed and blackmailed most of the pro-
Gulf War votes in the U.N. in Autumn, '90, as I'm sure was widely discussed
here at the time (I didn't have access to the net).  This was widely touted
as "the U.N. finally functioning."

I do "recall all those wonderful votes" of which Mr. Strand writes.  The ones
I remember were usually with ratios of 150-2 or 140-6, etc. when the matter
at hand was U.S. behavior in Latin/Central America, Israeli behavior toward
the Palestinians or in Lebanon, etc.  The minority was consistently the U.S.
and Israel, the U.S. and Guatemala, etc.  Often Thatcher's U.K. joined "us".
With lopsided votes like these, Mr. Strand's definition of "non-aligned" is
quite strange (though not surprising).  It means any country not aligned with
the U.S.  Obviously, if the vote was anti-U.S., it MUST have been pro-USSR :-)
I can't conceive of any country coming to the independent conclusion that
the mining of the harbors of a country at which we were not at war should be
condemned - they must have been under the control of those insidious commies!

No, my memory is not entirely selective - the USSR was also on the minority
end of landslide U.N. votes (deservedly), e.g. with regard to Afganistan and
the downing of KAL 007.

Now, with the former SU gone, the US is the only superpower capable of dishing
out sizeable "aid" and violence.  This results in the U.N. becoming more of
a lap-dog and less of a civilized body.  At least, however, this new-found
faith in the "unity" and legitimacy of the U.N. manages to slow things down.
Imagine if the U.S. had tried to get U.N. backing for Panama, Granada or the
bombing of Libyam, even without the evil commies foiling our benevolent plans!

Finally, while I'm a little too young (born 1960) to remember clearly, I don't
recall "world government" being too hot a topic in the 60's.  This idea has
had two periods of popularity in this century: first, around the time of the
League of Nations after WWI and second after the unleashing of atomic weapons
on Japan at the end of WWII.  The post-WWII movement was spearheaded by atomic
and other scientists - far from the counter-culture Mr. Strand would like to
associate the movement with in efforts to ridicule and discredit it.