viernes, diciembre 10, 2004

IZQUIERDA, ONU y Estado mundial: no os perdáis esta anotación de Antonio Peña. Para mi, el problema crucial es que -a diferencia de los estados nacionales-, si a uno no le gusta lo que ocurre en ese Estado mundial es imposible emigrar o pedir asilo político en otro. Sé que el que nadie pueda escapar de las garras del Estado es el sueño húmedo de tantos neo-orwellianos, pero qué queréis que os diga: tal posibilidad me pone los pelos de punta.

ACTUALIZACIÓN. Leed también este artículo de Max Boot en el Los Angeles Times (Golan ha traducido buena parte del mismo).

ACTUALIZACIÓN II. Y este de John O'Sullivan en el New York Post.

ACTUALIZACIÓN III. Arthur Chrenkoff:
So if you look at the composition of the United Nations' General Assembly it is clearly made up of majority of countries that are struggling in the freedom's stakes and and even greater majority of countries that their own citizens consider to be quite crooked. Any wonder that the UN behaves as it does, both as an international player and in its own internal governance?

A simplistic analysis? Of course. After all, some of America's staunch allies are among the unfree and the corrupt, just as many of America's detractors are both free and clean. Yet, one cannot escape the conclusion that in the end, the United Nations is merely a sum of its parts and its actions merely reflect the nature and the sentiments of the majority of its members.

To put it in simple terms, we are asking countries with their own freedom and democracy deficiencies to be enthusiastic about the spread of democracy and liberty around the world, and we are expecting countries which are corrupt and ethically challenged at home not to tolerate corruption at the highest levels of international governance. It is as if we decided to elect a fair number of residents of penitentiaries to represent us in the Congress, and subsequently expected this august body to legislate meaningfully on law and order issues, much less the Congressional ethics.