it ain't gonna get any better unless we all decide to live together and exert our energies on improving the lot of mankind instead of making it worse.
I agree with this absolutely, and also with the premise that it will eventually be necessary for states to surrender some measure of sovereignty to multilateral bodies. This is of course difficult; the difficulty is underscored by the reactions of different countries to the concept. Americans terrified of the emergence of the much-babbled-about "New World Order" claim that multinational bodies exist solely to redistribute the wealth of the rich to the smaller and poorer countries. Residents of the poor countries, many of whom have only recently attained sovereignty, feel that these bodies are dominated by the large and wealthy countries, and worry about a return to the days of colonialism.
Actions like the one in Kosovo have an unfortunate tendency to underscore this gap: residents of small countries easily note that the US and its allies are much more likely to impose their will on the Serbs than they would on a more militarily significant opponent.
There is of course no easy solution, but one thing that might help would be a step I've long advocated: hiring the Nepalese Gurkha regiments as a permanent UN peacekeeping force. There are no better soldiers anywhere, Nepal needs the money, and nobody is likely to get upset at the prospect of creeping Nepalese imperialism.
Complicated, obviously, but I do think the idea has merit.
|
