Marques, Jorge writes:

> "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".

I'm sorry that I gave you that impression.  That is not what I meant.
The members of NATO can stop it by withholding their support.  The US
leads NATO because leadership is needed and the members choose to
recognize the US as the leader.  The US isn't forcing the other
members to do this, and it could change.  Members could leave, or
members could simply refuse to support an action.  The US is not going
to bomb France if France chooses to opt out.  If the other 18 members
decide they don't want a US presence in Europe anymore, then NATO will
be disbanded.  I think the US would encourage that if the EU decided
to create its own defense force.

> 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?

Yes, because it *is* doing it.  Of course it matters to the people who
get hurt, and the truism is important precisely because it is a
truism.  It shouldn't be a truism.  If what you want is an
organization like the current UN, then an organization like NATO will
appear to fill what its members perceive as their need.  It will
always happen that way.  If the UN can't, won't, or doesn't solve what
some powerful subgroup perceives as an important problem, then that
powerful subgroup will create a structure to solve the problem.

What you're doing is standing on the sidelines waving your little blue
flag and pouting, "Hey, come on, you guys, no fair. We were having fun
and you messed everything up." You make valid points, but it's as if
you expect people to say, "Gosh, you're right, let's all pull out of
NATO and support the UN," which, I agree, would be the right thing to
do.  But it has always been the right thing to do, and the UN still
doesn't work in these situations.

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