"The NATO structure is better because it functions."

That statement does not hold any water. The point is that as an institution gets more and more authoritarian and power is concentrated in fewer and fewer individuals, the decision making process will simplify itself and the institution will "function"
even better. So, again, taking your logic that the NATO structure is better because it functions, a totalitarian regime with one person making all the decisions and with a considerable military power at his/her disposal will function even more
effectively, and by your standards would be even "better".

The above is nothing more than a truism. The problem lies in the nature of the "function" and who decides what it is that the institution is doing more effectively. Who cares if NATO functions while the UN doesn't? If it's functioning at making a bad
situation worse, does it really matter that it is more effective at doing that?



-----Original Message-----
From: Martin William Smith [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 1999 12:16 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CHOMSKY] Bombs and the ad campaign


Marques, Jorge writes:
> I would agree that there is no logic to what you are espousing, but
> that was the closest thing I could find that at least resembled a
> logical argument: that the NATO structure is better and should be
> supported because it can make quick decisions and act on them. That
> was the only argument you used to back up your claims, so that was
> the only thing I could go on. I simply extended that "logic" one
> step (actually two steps) further and asked whether it was still
> valid.

The NATO structure is better because it functions.  You don't like my
analysis.  Fair enough.  Then what is your explanation for why NATO is
acting to correct a problem and the UN isn't?  Don't bother saying
there is no real problem that required NATO to act, or that NATO
caused the problem, because those points really don't matter.  What
matters is that there is NATO and NATO acts, and if you want NATO to
disappear, then you have to show the way to making the UN into an
organization that is more efficient and more effective than NATO.

I'm all for it.  I've indicated what I believe are the two most
important changes (a) get rid of the veto, (b) make the UN both
willing and capable to enforce its decisions.  I don't hear you
offering anything but bitterness about US domination.

> As for the 19 members of NATO being there of their free
> will. Fine. There they are, and despite the considerable coercive
> military and economic power of the US, I'll grant that they could
> possibly choose to disagree and leave if they want. Great. But where
> do they derive the right to exercise any authority whatsoever over a
> non-member country?

Where indeed?  They're doing it, aren't they.  I guess you'd have to
say they're doing it because the UN can't stop them.  Where do *you*
think they get the right?  Don't bother telling us they don't have the
right, because that doesn't matter unless something stops them.

martin

Martin Smith                    Email: [log in to unmask]
P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet       Tel. : +47 330 35700
N-3194 HORTEN, Norway           Fax. : +47 330 35701