UN Proposal on Nation-Building: DON'T SEND IN THE CLOWNS! [Archive]

04-01-2004, 03:22

So-called "nation-building" has long been a favorite tactic of imperialist regimes seeking to create a puppet nation. Even attempts by the best-intentioned nations tend to fail miserably, chaotically, and recklessly due to a lack of understanding on the part of the "builder" of the local cultural and socio-political dynamics that are second nature to the natives. Given this, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

1) No UN member state shall engage in acts of nation-
building in any other pre-existing nation except in the case where that member state was engaged in a war of self-defense against the target of the nation-building immediately preceding the act of nation-building.

2) Should any nation, UN member or not, be found to be engaging in acts of nation-building not specifically authorized under section (1) above, all UN member states are granted license to pursue diplomatic and military hostilities against the offender if they should so desire.

3) Under no circumstances is a UN member state compelled to engage in nation-building after a war of the type described in section (1) above.

4) Under no circumstances is a UN member state compelled to engage in the diplomatic or military hostilities provided for in section (2) above.

5) For the purposes of this resolution, "nation-building" shall be defined as any attempt to alter the political structure of a nation, region, or other political entity.

6) For the purposes of this resolution, a "pre-existing nation" shall be defined as a political entity with sovereign political control over a given region.

7) For the purposes of this resolution, a "war of self-defense" shall be defined as any military action by a nation (the "defender") against a pre-existing nation (the "aggressor") taken in response to unprovoked military action on the part of the aggressor against the defender.

Currently on page 18

The Global Market

04-01-2004, 04:12

5) For the purposes of this resolution, "nation-building" shall be defined as any attempt to alter the political structure of a nation, region, or other political entity.

While I support the spirit of this resolution, this clause above is, unfortunately, somewhat too broad... Under this, any sort of human and individual rights intervention could be considered nation building ... ordering a country to stop killing its Jews would be considered nation building as it might alter a fundamental pillar of the government.

In the words of the Supreme Court, narrow-tailoring :lol:

04-01-2004, 07:21

Since I might eventually have to vote for it, it might be helpfull to have a more clear explanation of what "nation-building" means. You know for an uneducated person like me in these matters.

04-01-2004, 07:41

1) No UN member state shall engage in acts of nation-
building in any other pre-existing nation except in the case where that member state was engaged in a war of self-defense against the target of the nation-building immediately preceding the act of nation-building.
7) For the purposes of this resolution, a "war of self-defense" shall be defined as any military action by a nation (the "defender") against a pre-existing nation (the "aggressor") taken in response to unprovoked military action on the part of the aggressor against the defender.
(Clauses slightly re-organised for visual purposes).
This looks fine to me, but the problem will always be that some clever hawk will be sitting in an office somewhere attempting to construe belligerent comments as belligerent action.
Additionally, at what point do we define a war as beginning and ending? You march troops over my borders - making you the aggressor and me the defender. So far I'm with you. I fight back and make your pig-dogs in military fatigues flee before my advancing divisions (poetic licence borrowed from Mohammed S. Al-Shahhaf) until you've crossed back to where you came from.
Now, as far as I can tell, it's my nation that needs the building in this situation - not yours. But if we extend the war of self-defence to one which involves my troops pushing home their advantage and entering your country, am I not now the aggressor? I'm taking the territory away from you and, in NFL parlance, I'm "turning my defense into offense".

6) For the purposes of this resolution, a "pre-existing nation" shall be defined as a political entity with sovereign political control over a given region.
This could be a bit of a problem. I can't think of any NS-based examples, so I'll try some real-world ones.
What happens if, in the course of a war with Morocco, a country happens to liberate the Western Sahara? The Saharawis don't officially have sovereign political control anywhere, so can this nation be built in the manner which the attacker desires?
Same goes for a hypothetical liberation of Tibet from China.

04-01-2004, 08:36

Grin do we love diplomacy.

It lasts as long as somebody strong enough desires to disagree :P
In the end, there is not UN court ;).

04-01-2004, 12:25

It lasts as long as somebody strong enough desires to disagree
*steals this line for his next poli. sci. assignment*

04-01-2004, 12:40

be my guest :)

However the spelling is wrong I think :-S.

It seems to me it now says You will succeed as long as somebody very strong disagrees with you. :P....actually there is dept in that statement as well.....but it was not what I intended :P

But I am not an expert in english sayings :(

05-01-2004, 05:11