United Nations and the creation of new nations

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

i'm curious regarding folks overall views... perhaps i should have made a poll about it but i'd prefer more thoroughly explained ideas.

my question is primarily thus: does the United Nations have the authority to create new nation states through the re-drawing of political boundaries?

i'm quite curious to know, for the negative respondents, if this view applies to all nation states which the UN has created or only to selected ones?

to be frank with you this is the sort of thing for which i turn to history to guide my views yet there has never been a thing like the United Nations and thus it really leaves me without any historical precedence to compare it with. to a certain extent, i suppose, it could be viewed in the same manner as a newly formed nation which then composes political boundaries for its' territory.



metta,

~v

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

my question is primarily thus: does the United Nations have the authority to create new nation states through the re-drawing of political boundaries?

I see the UN as a regulatory agency that brokers treaties and has the ability to promulgate and enforce laws and territorial obligations. The UN derives these powers from member states. With respect to specific issues of sovereignty and boundaries, the UN provides a place to discuss and negotiate.

In the case of Israel, I gather the UK was a member of the UN. The Brits wanted to decolonize Palestine. The UN helped them do it.

I would be interested in seeing a rationale for the UN to act autonomously rather than on behalf of member states.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Netti-Netti,

thank you for the reply.

i can infer from your reply that you don't have a particular issue with the UN drawing up new political boundaries provided that it is acting at the behest of a member state.

is your view different depending on the nation in question? do the modern nations in the Balkans differ as they were not created in the same situation that provided for the creation of Pakistan and Israel, for instance?

metta,

~v

[Francis king]

I do not think that the UN should have the power to redesign a nation's boundaries/and or create new ones... but they do...

I do not care when, or why these boundaries are reassigned, and mainly because, as Netti-Netti infers, these re-designs are often not for the sake of good, but are based on other motives...

I do not see any difference between this and between forced occupation, and while I am aware of the historical fluidity of national boundaries I am also aware that this fluidity is usually at the expense of the people it supposedly serves, ie, the people...

Although, as well as this, I think that nationhood, patriotism, are excuses...they are excuses used by the people in power to maintain their dominion... I am not a fan of this mentality, as I see it as a lie, and a con. I do not think that the world should have such boundaries, and I also think that the world maintains these artificial boundaries, not between people, or between cultures, but between those who have and those who don't... they maintian these boundaries so that the capitalist sytem survives and flourishes...

for instance, we in Britain and the US spend billions in our immigration departments- billions spent capturing and detaining and repatriating illegal entrants... the nations they flee from do not spend the same amount of money preventing people coming in, though... why do people flee in the first place?

Because where they live is crap... they have MTV, but spend 4 hours queueing for bread... because there is no work, because their lives are in danger because they don't support the right political party... becuase they are poor, and we are rich, and they want some of what we have...

collectively, it is the UN's place to intervene, to step in when nations are oppressed by tyrants, to step in and ensure democracy and opportunities are available for people who have no voice, but instead... no... they will work for the man, and risk their own lives in the process... for peanuts...

Creating a new country for people nobody else wants.... creating a wall, and physically dividing a country... forcibly containing people, forcing them into poverty and illegality... these are not wholesome actions- these should be last resorts, but no....

We occupy Iraq, have parades and parties, and pat ourselves on the backs, but we won't stop the un-democratic elections in Zimbabwe, as there's no money in it for us.... and that's the bottom line...

in my opinion...

[wil]

In the past as today political/nation/tribal boundaries exist wherever someone can conquer, occupy and defend them.

Whilst a lot of this used to happen in a vacuum, aka colonists invading native lands with no world oversight, or Romans, Persians, Englishman, Americans, Russians, Germans, whatever/whoever just taking over whatever they claimed to be theirs.

Now as we've taken up most of the desirable space we've decided to create entities to regulate same.

But it will reappear on the moon, mars or antartica as it melts...folks will move in and start occupying and mining and then provide the wherewithal to defend it or lose it to whoever can. Unless that is treaties are developed to create agreements and decisions by groups of countries prior, and then the big guys will overwhelm the little anywho.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Francis king,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Francis king

I do not think that the UN should have the power to redesign a nation's boundaries/and or create new ones... but they do...

from whence does this power originate? is it not the member nations which empower the UN to engage in such actions?

I do not care when, or why these boundaries are reassigned, and mainly because, as Netti-Netti infers, these re-designs are often not for the sake of good, but are based on other motives...

if the motives are mainly not for the interest of the people that would seem to indicate that sometimes they are for the interest of the people.

are you opposed to the UN drawing political boundaries when it is for the benefit of the people?

collectively, it is the UN's place to intervene, to step in when nations are oppressed by tyrants, to step in and ensure democracy and opportunities are available for people who have no voice,

in your view is this the only legitimate function of the UN?

Creating a new country for people nobody else wants.

is that how you view Libya and Pakistan, for instance, as countries full of people that nobody wanted as their own citizens?

We occupy Iraq, have parades and parties, and pat ourselves on the backs, but we won't stop the un-democratic elections in Zimbabwe, as there's no money in it for us.... and that's the bottom line...

in my opinion...

how would you suggest that the UN or independent nations ensure that the elections in Zimbabwe are democratic, fair and independent?

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Wil,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by wil

In the past as today political/nation/tribal boundaries exist wherever someone can conquer, occupy and defend them.

Whilst a lot of this used to happen in a vacuum, aka colonists invading native lands with no world oversight, or Romans, Persians, Englishman, Americans, Russians, Germans, whatever/whoever just taking over whatever they claimed to be theirs.

Now as we've taken up most of the desirable space we've decided to create entities to regulate same.

But it will reappear on the moon, mars or antartica as it melts...folks will move in and start occupying and mining and then provide the wherewithal to defend it or lose it to whoever can. Unless that is treaties are developed to create agreements and decisions by groups of countries prior, and then the big guys will overwhelm the little anywho.

i can infer from this that you view the UN has having the implicit obligation to create political boundaries. does you view extend to alteration of existing nation states to create new nation states? further would it depend on the particular nation state in question?

metta,

~v

[wil]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

i can infer from this that you view the UN has having the implicit obligation to create political boundaries. does you view extend to alteration of existing nation states to create new nation states? further would it depend on the particular nation state in question?

Oh, no, I'm not a fan of the UN. With the leaders that are chosen to run it, the status of the folks on the security council, the human rights violations of those in power to regulate others, the whole thing is beyond me.

I also have no answer. Frankly don't know why folks wage war when rape, pillage and plunder is out of the picture. I'm not saying I'm in favor of it, but I understand when the big gorilla goes and takes the bananas from the other guy and takes his women. I understand tribes enslaving other tribes and utilzing the labor to create wealth. I understand privateers and pirates. Again I don't agree with them or their methods but understand the reasoning behind it, the ego, greed, power, control, etc.

Same stuff is behind the UN under the guise of peace and justice, it just doesn't really seem it is doing either.