After reading Carl Schmitt (fine fine he's a Nazi, but he makes good points. Go read his Nuremberg testimony then you'll understand why I think we are able to somewhat over look that), I have come to the conclusion that the UN... is useless.
It is within Chapter Six of his book, The Concept of the Political, where Carl Schmitt deconstructs the concept of the "world state." As quoted from Wikipedia:
He uses the inevitability of the friend/enemy distinction to target the liberal international order. A League of Nations or any political group claiming to represent humanity must, according to the logic of politics, dehumanize and annihilate the enemy. "To confiscate the word humanity, to invoke and monopolize such a term probably has certain incalculable effects, such as denying the enemy the quality of being human and declaring him to be an outlaw of humanity; and a war can thereby be driven to the most extreme inhumanity."[10] "Humanity" is not a political concept for Schmitt. When it becomes one, it distorts the real political groupings. The world state as it's conceived, which is to say a universal government that has successfully abolished war and conflict, cannot be anything more than a clearing house of commerce. It, as a result, strips us of all meaning. "For what would they be free?"[11] Schmitt asks of the inhabitants of this new world state.
To explain, the friend and enemy distinction is a theory that Carl Schmitt presents to the readers as an 'inescapable' component of the political. As I interpret it, Carl Schmitt is telling us that in politics or the form he uses 'the state' is pretty much an 'us' versus 'them' concept. It is impossible for me to fully explain this in one blog post so I would suggest reading The Concept of the Politcal, it's a good read.
I do agree with Carl Schmitt that the League of Nations is quite redundent and that the concept of the world state is ridiculous. Yet, ironically, I am a part of my college's Model United Nations team. Why? Simple. It looks good on my record/resume/transfer apps. Also, I get to practice my advocacy, writing, and negotiation skills. Call me selfish, call me whatever you want, but I'm at least honest about it. I don't really like the way Model United Nations runs. It's simply too easy. Just because as a body supposedly representing countries does not mean we actually understand how the United Nations runs. We are not a 'model' united nations, we're like the Pre-School United Nations. All who participate actually barely know what actually happens in the UN.
Yes, the UN does follow parliamentary procedure, yes they have things called caucuses. Yet, when we are drafting articles, sponsoring, choosing sides, creating blocs etc. In our heads as representing countries, when joining a side we only take into account of what we know of our represented countries. We have to note that we don't know everything. Supposedly China should side with America for their financial interests, but who knows? Maybe China has some shady dealings with some other country which forces them to change sides.
Sometimes I feel that MUN is pretty ridiculous, us kids sometimes go to the point of thinking that if WE were in the UN, we would fix things faster, or all in all, be 'better.' Check out the SNL M.U.N sketch by Andy Samberg and Arcade Fire (love the both of them though):
I think we can all agree that the UN makes mistakes. Sometimes really BIG ones. But I might just be overly sympathetic, but the UN is comprised of human beings. Countries, governments, etc. HUMAN. I criticize that the UN's motivations and intentions, but I do not criticize their intrinsic human characteristics within them. (Unless they do something absurd like say that we should blow up the world or Mars or anything that's just obviously... stupid).
No comments:
Post a Comment