To: markaerwin who wrote (520 ) 7/26/2000 8:19:01 AM From: Neocon Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1013 Whereas we are in general agreement about the provenance of the John Birch material, and I am a free trader with no problem with international law, and therefore The Hague, in its place, there are reasons to be leery of a push to a super- federation built on the UN. Fortunately, those reasons also make such a thing unlikely. Too much of the world is mired in despotism and archaic social tensions to want to be subject to global majority rule. The UN has been a hot bed of bureaucratic abuse and socialist ideology, under the "North- South" slogan, and we do not need that sort of exploitation. It has also been fairly ineffectual as a peacekeeping organization, except when a truce has been brokered and needs light policing. Otherwise, the United States and NATO do the heavy lifting. Why, then, kowtow to it? The future is less with the UN, except, perhaps, as a shell, than with NATO, which ensures the preservation of an Atlanticist element in Europe's security arrangements, and makes it unlikely that the EU will become too exclusive. The triumph of PAN in Mexico may portend a time of greater regional cooperation in North America, and the GATT and G- 7 (8), with NATO, create a framework for increasing cooperation between North America and the EU. With movement to improve trade relations in the Pacific Basin, and continued defense ties with Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines, as well as Australia and New Zealand, we may look forward to a day when the more developed countries provide a nucleus for a revamped UN. But all of these things will take time, and will not likely occur in our lifetimes.........