| Submit your comments on this article |
| International |
| New Zealand |
| 2003-05-03 |
| One of Tony Blair's closest foreign political allies has warned Britain and America that they may live to regret unleashing the "law of the jungle" in international relations when China becomes the dominant world power later this century. The Labour prime minister of New Zealand, Helen Clark, told the Guardian that Washington and its allies had created a dangerous precedent by going to war without a UN resolution. "This is a century which is going to see China emerge as the largest economy, and usually with economic power comes military clout," she said. "In the world we are constructing, we want to know [that the system] will work whoever is the biggest and the most powerful." She understood why Britain had stood beside the US, its closest ally. But New Zealand had taken a different view, because of the danger of setting a precedent for ignoring the UN. "It would be very easy for a country like New Zealand to make excuses and think of justifications for what its friends were doing Said one of the Lilliputians. Ms Clark said the the damage to the UN had to be repaired to prevent the world returning to 19th century style anarchy in international relations, which could leave countries like New Zealand at the mercy of the great powers. Whole lot fewer people died in the 19th century compared to the 20th, Helen. "New Zealand has always argued for the rights of small states," she said — one of her predecessors, the wartime Labour prime minister Peter Fraser, helped to write the UN's founding charter. "We saw the UN as a fresh start for a world trying to work out its problems together rather than a return to a 19th world where the great powers carved it up ... Who wants to go back to the jungle?" "Who wants to be ruled by the French and Belgians?" The multilateral system had been damaged by the rifts over Iraq, but countries were now redoubling their efforts to cooperate in the Doha round of global trade talks. So let me get this straight: Helen thinks that because the end of the 21st century might belong to China, we should — now — honor "precedent" and refuse to deal with thugs and tyrants. That way when China gets its due it will have the examples of an ineffectual UN and multiple thugs getting their way. God forbid we actually show China what would happen if they cross the enlightened world. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #15 Helen is just in a hissy fit because Howard was taking his rightful place at the head table today at Bush's ranch in Texas. Bush said that Admiral Kelly said that Australian Special Forces are "the best in the world". She's realizing that NZ will be recorded in history as being not only absent, but obstructionist to the prevention of cruelty to children in paper-shredders for inappropriate comments made by their parents. No seat at the winners table for you, witch. Deal with it. |
| Posted by: Becky 2003-05-04 03:57:24 |
| #14 If China is around in a dozen years as it sits today, I'd be very surprised. China assumptions abound, if China wanted to be a world power it would begin acting like one, it would deal with n korea all by itself. China wont do that because its leadership does not have the Right Stuff, to be anything more than a bunch of thugs, grateful to be holding on at the table of larges being created due to rampant capitalism. The world Needs lots of revolutions, but mostly it needs leaders of countries to face the facts. leftist ideology is bakrupt, Liberty is a necessity for Economic sustenance. To this bag of wind I say...put a sock in it. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-05-03 23:04:04 |
| #13 Relax - it's New Zeland. |
| Posted by: mojo 2003-05-03 21:28:27 |
| #12 Scott, I wouldn't have exact figures here. What I know is that Germany gives three times as much as the USA in official foreign aid (percentage of GDP). I believe you when you say that you make up for it with private donations although I know that Germans donate very liberally as well. Our tax code does encourage us as well. There may be less need for domestic charity in Germany because the welfare system is better. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-05-03 19:23:18 |
| #11 TGA - you must be talking about gov't spending only. That's not the whole story. We give three times more as individuals than our official foreign aid (which is STILL more than Germany's) Our tax code encourages individual giving and politically, we have been burned by foreign aid. Hey, we ain't looking for worship. Or tribute. Many in our place would be. Know what I mean? |
| Posted by: Scott 2003-05-03 19:09:27 |
| #10 If by charity you mean giving aid to poor countries Germany is way ahead of the United States, Scott... at least with aid per inhabitant. And yes I'm glad that there is a place like the USA. Did I ever say otherwise? |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-05-03 17:44:57 |
| #9 TGA, I do not doubt that. And I actually believe that you may very well be a caring, sensitive person. But I do not trust your that your country's (or France's, Russia's, China's, Japan's, India's - to NOTHING of the Islamic states) leadership will do anything for anybody else that is not in their narrow self-interest. Is our government better? Yes. With notable lapses. And both are expressions of our people. Cowboys with a good heart - mostly. Americans, generally, have a compassion for the underdog, that I find completely lacking elsewhere (with small exceptions). Isn't it interesting that the country with the most overwhelming military superiority in the history of the world also gives the most to charity? I know our modern liberals give lipservice to compassion, (it wasn't always that way) but most Americans see thru that and as such have rejected their agenda. Only our media elites haven't caught on. Or are trying to reframe the argument. I know there are other places in the world, but after reading your posts, you for one, ought to be dang glad there is a place like the U.S.A. A little gratitude from Europeans would be appropriate. |
| Posted by: Scott 2003-05-03 16:51:12 |
| #8 The Coalition went to war under the authority of UN resolutions. Unfortunately, a majority of States rejected the Coalition' interpretation of the resolutions. In my opinion,using force to deal with rogue States is a founding principle of the UN. And I could care less if the Krauts and Frogs disagree. |
| Posted by: Anonon 2003-05-03 15:32:56 |
| #7 Scott, the world is bigger than the U.S. And Germany is part of it, whatever Schroeder's ideas about the Iraq War might be. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-05-03 14:29:07 |
| #6 TGA - at the risk of sounding ugly - the U.S. IS the United Free Nations. (with apologies to U.K., Poland, small assortment of others) deTocqueville said as long as America is good she will be great. G.B. understands the concept, few else do. |
| Posted by: Scott 2003-05-03 14:14:30 |
| #5 The one situation that everyone (especially the folks in Commywood) refuses to entertain any discussion on is the fact that the avowed goal of both the lefties here and many of the governments of the world "represented" by the UN and the "Security Council" is the domination of the world by a one world socialist government which would naturally take its guidance and inspiration from governments like the ones in China, Cuba, or Venezuela. The Lefties here foment at the mouth about the violation of their constitutional rights by the changes in goverment laws (to protect us from psychopathic illegal aliens - none of which has affected any of them, only folks likely to fly more planes into buildings) and the fact that their fellow citizens are voicing with their pocketbooks about how THEY feel about that socialist crap, but they won't talk about their real plans in the UN. We on the right know what they are planning when they get control again. Forget people not buying your records or watching your movies. Think "worldwide politically correct speech laws" where what I am writing here will get me jailed for "diversity violations" for not wanting my kids to be taught how to be gay, that murdering babies is good citizenship, Christianity is an evil oppressive superstition, or that all white people need to be punished to pay for their genetic evils (or their failure to speak french or chinese). |
| Posted by: wayne 2003-05-03 12:39:44 |
| #4 The United Nations is a dead fish, and beginning to smell. Time to toss it out. It cannot be rescusitated in its current form. The "Coalition of the Willing" should be codified into a more responsive, multi-member organization of shared beliefs (rule of law, rights of individuals, personal property rights, etc.), shared institutions, and shared vision of the future. Such an organization can have a positive role in the building of world peace and respect of individual national sovereignty and national respect. I doubt seriously a future that has China with the "largest economy, and usually with economic power comes military clout". China has reached a point where internal policies and the desire for external connections conflict so seriously that there will be massive internal upheavals within that nation, much like those that broke apart the old Soviet Union. While there may continue to be a "China", it won't be the one we see now. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-05-03 12:21:43 |
| #3 Last year I was still tempted by the argument she makes: If the U.S. doesn't respect the Security Council, nobody will. The thing is: the UN can't protect anyone without the U.S. And without the U.S. military force the Chinese (or whoever has a few missiles) wont respect what the SC says anyway. Do we really think that China would refrain from attacking Taiwan because the SC tell her not to do that? No, it's the risk of a conflict with the U.S. that makes China behave. Did China respect the UN when occupying Tibet? Did the Soviets respect the UN when occupying Afghanistan? Maybe it's time for the "United Free Nations" with a Security Council that speaks with the voice of reason, but backed up by the power of all military forces of the free world. As long as dictators, thugs and terrorist nations succeed in dividing countries that share the same principles of freedom and democracy, only the U.S. can make a difference. If the U.S., Europe, Australia and all the other democratic nations in the world formed one block, it would effectively contain China and spell doom to intolerant (islamocratic or not) regimes in the world. That's unipolarity at its best. It's too bad that our petty interests stand in our way. It will (very unfortunately) need another catastrophic terrorist atack to make us realize what we have to do. Even then I'm not so optimistic. But until we reach that point I'd rather have the power in Washington than anywhere else. The "multipolar world" France dreames about would doom Europe in the long run. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-05-03 10:26:48 |
| #2 Beijing is as jealous of maintaining its sovereignty as any country in the world. Explain to me why they're going to be impressed even more by international restraints then we are? |
| Posted by: Hiryu 2003-05-03 10:08:28 |
| #1 This "precedent" argument is meaningless. If I recall correctly, of the some two dozen major military conflicts that have occurred since WWII, only two- Korea in the 1950's and Desert Storm in 1991- have been sanctioned by the UN; and the only nation that has ever even sought UN sanction for military interventions has been the USA. All those wars without UN blessing, and now this one somehow creates a "precedent"? Sorry, I don't buy it. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2003-05-03 08:56:39 |