Quote:
Originally posted by John D Harris:
Sounds like your international relations tutor is honest in his beliefs, looking for the truth and not justifier for his side. Listen to what he says, you don't have to agree with it. But based on the little info you've parted with about him, He's not being blinded by his political leanings.
|
You haven't heard him talk about the Arab-Israeli conflict! Don't give him too much credit JD
But yeah, you're right and I do generally try to keep an open mind when people with more 'wordly' experience are trying to tell me something.
Re. the validity of the source, Aragorn1 makes a good point. However, in a sense, we have to ignore that to a certain extent otherwise we'd never get any debating done. Usually those whose writings make it into the public domain are automatically the most passionate about issues and therefore generally occupy positions that are open to criticisms from the other side.
I would also probably agree with Aragorn's points about the US viewing it as a 'rubber stamp' institution but if we take the more pro-active view he suggests, what kind of reforms could be made to improve the UN? Is it even possible?
I have a natural aversion to large committees of any sort, but I understand that the security council is probably going to get two more permanent members in the near future (Germany and was it China?) which would only decrease the likelihood of a consensus being reached. If we move the other way and reduce decision making power to just resting with a select two or three countries then the UN loses what legitimacy and representation it has left.
It's certainly a tricky one...