We need the UN.

Some of this is from an online discussion I had, under another name, with an anarchist about the UN.

For too long, stronger countries have been imposing their will on weaker countries. We need a UN as an organization that can provide a check against unjust war and imperialism. In current reality, we have the most powerful country in the world set to take over the world, and the best way we can do that is to ensure that there is an international rule of law where everybody is equal. Furthermore, the UN as it is right now, and the UN as it should be are two different things. In the UN right now, the bigger countries, the ones with a veto, have too much power. We need UN reform, so that power is more equally spread.

It has been said that the UN has caused harm in many instances, such as being the source of millions of deaths in Iraq. The UN did in fact cause many deaths in Iraq through sanctions. The UN is not perfect, because it is composed of many countries, all with vested interests, and because the more powerful countries with more significant vested interests have vetoes on the Security Council. What we need is a stronger UN, capable of global governance, that is resistant to the vested interests of nations.

That said, sometimes, the UN does come up with some beneficent instruments, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other rights treaties, the Geneva Convention, and the Rome Statute. I don't want to imagine a world without these protections.

Voluntary boycotts have been suggested as methods to address human rights abuses. They can sometimes work with limited effect. However, if you have more than one approach you can take, why not take it. Right now, people around the world are suffering human rights abuses, because certain countries cannot be held legally accountable. It is urgent that we put aside our theoretical aspirations, and do everything that we can to help them NOW.

Some anarchists have talked about eliminating the UN as an institution, and replacing it with a voluntary association. My response to that is: What are your core values? What are the core values upon which your ideal society would be based? If they have anything to do with compassion or cooperation, then you have to recognize that in relentless uncompromising pursuit of the society which, in your opinion would attain those values, those same values will in fact be compromised by the lack of an institution to protect us from imperialism and human rights abuses.

Contrary to the opinion of some, US dominance and exercise of power is not the result of international dynamics, except to the degree that they see a weak country that they can invade, occupy, militarize, and make money in. It's sources are forces of greed and ideological fervor within the US. If the UN can to some degree check that power, we should encourage that. To me, the whole question of institutional power vs the freedom of groups and individuals is important, but secondary to immediate questions of war, peace, and human rights.

Now, for a clarification on the meaning of "the ends justifying the means." The ends justifying the means does not only happen in the pursuit of force and power. It can happen through the pursuit of the opposite. It occurs anywhere that an end, as benevolent or well-intended as it may be, is sought, and the means to that end are adhered to, regardless of negative consequences.

It has been suggested that I am saying that people can be complicit in violence by their inaction. I won't go that far Nevertheless, I am reminded here of a quote by one of my heroes, Martin Luther King, and I paraphrase: All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. I am not asking for pacifists to be rounded up and put on trial. I am asking for an strong international framework to protect people from war and human rights abuses.

I do consider myself a pacifist, but for me, it isn't a passive pacifism, it is a pacifism that advocates taking action, any actions that are philosophically consistent with principles of nonviolence, in order to stop the threat of violence and oppression. That is the yardstick I go by, because to me, nonviolence trumps everything. Gandhi also believed in this. In my opinion, if Gandhi and King were both alive today, particularly given the current state of the world, they would support a stronger, more egalitarian UN. The Dalai Lama is one who is still alive, and he is on record as supporting such a reform of the UN.

I am not asking for pacifists to be rounded up and put on trial. I am asking for an strong international framework to protect people from war and human rights abuses.

I do think that we all should do our best to put our own ideological considerations aside (including me and mine), and if we're relatively socially aware, we should examine the consequences of our views and decisions. If we're not (and for each of us that is our own judgement to make), we should make the effort to increase our awareness (we all should anyway).

In my opinion, the concept of institutions is not an inherently violent one . It is not an inherently peaceful one. On that continuum, it is neutral. They can be developed to serve good, or to serve evil. They can be utilized and manipulated for good or evil, or peace or violence. It is the development and utilization of the institution that gives it its ethical character. With respect to the United Nations, it has been developed and used for both in different ways. Inequality among members is a negative aspect. On a much more fundamental level, however, its international legal instruments provide a positive based for human rights protection. It is an institution that needs reform, not a one-way trip to the trash bin.