There's a couple stumbling blocks here.
First, surrounding the meaning and use of the word paragon. Shouldn't be so surprising, since it seems most of our conversations end up being distilled to definitional disputes. <g>
To start, it doesn't matter whether you or I believe the UN is a paragon, or fits the class that could be called a paragon. Others DO. If you want proof of that, wander around SI's political threads a bit longer.
Second, it is not necessary to set oneself up as a paragon to be considered a paragon. That the UN does not say "do as I do" is not relevant, because others point to the UN and say, "do as they do". For that matter, a verb isn't even required. Einstein was a paragon of intelligence. He neither declared himself to be a paragon nor does it make much sense to say "be as intelligent as Einstein". The UN is viewed, to my dismay, as the height of objectivity, fairness, justice, and efficacy. Laugh, it's ok. I had to choke that out.
because the UN includes all countries and because it has a formal process for expressing it's judgments, which, as a result, take on an air of legitimacy.
This is the next misconception, IMO, in how others view the UN. You and I may realize that the UN is not greater than the sum of its parts. That's a very "Right" insight not much shared on the transie Left. Otherwise, it wouldn't be necessary to argue endlessly about the fine points of the competing interests in the UNSC, and that a lack of consensus there is not the "US v. UNSC" but "US v. France, Russia, China...."
The UN is viewed as an entity in and of itself. In large part, it is as far as the transnational bureaucrats are concerned. The problem lies in the perception of this transnational bureaucracy and the institutions of the UN. It is not viewed as a "process", as you outlined. It is viewed as a GOVERNMENT of GOVERNMENTS. And an ultimately morally superior one, at that.
Derek |
