U.N In NYC

[Christopher M Welch]

Hi All (that is whoever may see this), I'm ashamed to say that I am yet to write a blog on Ambition. I'm not exactly sure how this works but hopefully some of you may get a chance to read this. It's going to be interesting to see what many of the nations attending the United Nations General Assembly have to say about their thoughts concerning global issues. With every day seeming like the turmoil has only become more prevalent, in countries including the obvious, but also, in countries that people know little about, it is important that the global community effectively communicates. One of the most highly anticipated speeches may come from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (who received a welcome, during his visit to Columbia University, that left much to be desired) the president of Iran. He, and the nation of Iron, have become main focal point of the Western World. Issues of the ethics, applied to using nuclear energy, and in my opinion that may be suffering from apparent cultural disparities, are a sensitive subject and have come to have implications of the direction American affairs in the middle east. Also, President George W Bush's speech will be critically analyzed for any indication of future policies in the middle east and south asia as well as here at home. Although the U.N has been an organization founded in 1945 it is still in a very primitive stage of development which has been slowed by the conception of state sovereignty. Yet, i believe that this opportunity to speak on a global stage will give many of these nations leaders an equal opportunity to share their ideas. With all this said I also advocate being weary of media coverage. Remember that cultural discrepancies can be easily misinterpreted (either intentionally or unintentionally). I'm excited to have finally posted something on ambition. It is brief but hopefully provocative. Check it out, let me know your thoughts. Chris

[DJ Schro]

There's so much going on there. And although I agree with many of your sentiments, I have boiled this down to some basic things.

- How do we coincide on a global level when we all have different ideas on how we're supposed to live?

- How does a country that is rich in natural resources share with countries who aren't so lucky. Countries, nations, etc. are constantly vying for power to secure their citizens or their specific needs.

- We really have no formal system in place that protects our commons. Although some countries pollute/degrade more than others, we all have to deal with it. Air, water, etc is things we all share yet some of us do a better job preserving them more then others. i.e. Why should a person who lives in the Amazon and lives off of the land, feel the negative effects of another's pollution.

- If we have nuclear capabilities then why is it wrong for other countries to have the same. And if we're scared of what they will do with such power, then we're just scratching the surface of the problem. The question is why are we afraid of these countries possessing such powers?

- Why must we import so many things. Why can't we be more self sufficient and be happy with what we have. We have to stop relying on cheap labor in other countries, and stop stressing bottom lines. Capitalism itself has to be revamped. It's an old system that worked in its time but those times are over.

I feel as though it all comes full circle and we have to start looking at issues from their roots. As bad as it sounds, I'm beginning to regret what "we", Western civilization have become. I empathize with a few countries who despise us and thats a poor way to feel but, they have every reason to feel the way they do. Our nation is plagued by over abundance, and the thirst for bigger and better. I have trouble understanding why we need more then what is required for basic survival. Why do we continue on a path that we know only leads to more problems. I feel like turning around and running the other way. Sometimes you have to take two steps back to get three steps forward.

[Christopher M Welch]

I can't agree with you more. Beauracracy prevents the U.N from taking any real objective measures to end such agregious acts against humanity in the world. Yet, as you mentioned, it does allow leaders to speak on a global stage, which I feel can be a great place to begin communicating ideals and better understanding each other's policies and cultures. Pertaining to nuclear power, an obvious critique comes from the very fact that America is indeed the only country to have ever used it in a bellicose manor. Unfortunately the politics behind the acquistion of nuclear power are much to intricate to allow a society deemed terrorist to enjoy its benefits on a benign level. The majority of the press within America and the greater western world is predisposed to condemning leaders from nations where our foreign relations are weak. This is apparent in the connotation associated with Hugo Chavez, and obviously vocal critic of American policy, meeting with the Iranian President. I can't find the real danger in meetings such as this. Aren't world leaders entitled to their opinions, and entitled to create ties to improve their nations, would that not be considered democracy? Yet, it's just not convenient to our democratic (Capitalistic, which our friend Immortal technique reminds us are not synomous despite what 21st century American Culture has come to assume) society. I'm not necessarily condoning friendships such as these or claiming that they are indeed purely acting in a soveriegn nature, rather implying that politics go much deeper than reading BBC. Yet, to take it back to the U.N, yes it is weak. Perhaps because it's "largest" participants are in fact it's most frequent hippocrits. I won't patrionize anyone by listing the outstanding and multiple offenses America has committed under it's democratic shield, and cozy eupemisms (I.E Manifest Destiny). Yet, rather point to the fact that as you also mentioned, everyone is essentially out for themselves which is a simple way to wrap up what the state soveriegnty is, the insistence of giving up none of your local power (in our case any consitutional rights). Perhaps if people were out to accomplish a sense of global harmony we could try to repress the feeling that the big bad U.N wants to abolish our rights to bear arms, which is laughable. With globalization happening faster and on a much larger scale it will be interesting to see how the world, which will need to, comprise on important issues pertaining to scarce resources (food, oil, etc.) Our population global continues to rise yet, people are trying to micro manage on a national level, how long until they realize they will need to invest more respect (I.E power) into the U.N?

[Merrittorious]

You know, Chris, I give thought to the UN from time to time, and it seems to me that it is a great thing, it has the promise to do a rediculous good, if given the chance. They attempt to bring peace to war torn countries, they are hell bent on feeding the poor, and they have alot of great things that they want to do. the problem, as I see it, is that it is like Congress, in that its a big debating society, except that it is essentially neutered in all respects. IT has no real power, due to the fact that the only way anything can be achieved is through unilateral decisions, and at all times, one country disagrees with another on some problem. They cant do all the good they want to because they dont have the funding, and lets face it, money builds the army that is needed alot of times to get something good going. People say that war doesnt fix anything, and it doesnt, but at the same time, you cant expect to go into the Sudan with just a bunch of bags of food and hand them out; a bitch of a thing called human nature gets in the way, and those in power, who happen to be douche bags or whatever ,they just go all, oh gimme that food, dont worry about it, or they go and massacre the people that got the food. Some people just dont care about others, which is fucked, but hey, thats how it is sometimes. I have a lot of hope for the UN, and its great that it gives an international voice for countries that normally would be silenced. I mean, Iran gets a chance to speak, and thats a basic ideal for Americans. He says alot of shit sometimes- his speech at Columbia was kind of moronic at times, I thought (apparantly they dont have the "phenomenon" we have here called gay people) but still, just them having nuclear power isnt a reason to think they are going to nuke somebody, i.e. isreal. Any country that would do something like that would basically fuck themselves, brutally.
By the way, yeah, I agree with you about the brutallity of media these days, I posted somethign about that earlier, but it was more in regards to how the media will ruin somebodies reputation, because it makes good copy. It was focused on Bill Belichick,but still, it seems to be poignant to me. Anyway, thanks for giving me something else to ramble about, and hey, nice to have you.