Kofi Annan(The GS of the UN)made it clear yesterday,that places where security be threatened,intervention will be in view.That is to say: Souvereignty may not be used as an umbrella for Crimes anymore.The same had Annan said 5 years ago.His Millennium speach has been giving a green light for Mr.Bush to invade places,where human rights be depending irrelevantly on the decision of illegitimate local authorities.
Intervention policy has become the new tradition of the USA since the collapse of the Soviet Union,the Legitimacy of using force be usually given through the Approval of the Security Council.The reason why do the super powers finance actions against other governments is known for every one through intuition,and the question is not whether the super poewrs do have some special hidden goals or not.
The use of force is theoretically and morally legitimate,if Crimes and terror be the Cause.while the practical legitimacy of actions is not based on the mere principles of the UN,but on the decision of few in the UNSC. One might ask:what is the relation between legitimacy and moral or ethics?legitimate is every action,that doesn't oppose the law.the laws be at variance sometimes,so the legitimacy of the use of force is viewed in the relation between action and law,not merely between law and moral or Ethics,through which the actions may gain justification,but not nesessarily legitimacy.
The global or universal intervention legitimacy must be assessed as relation to some international laws.Laws can not be made by some,but must be the decision of all that are subjected to.The international conventions prove,that the world society is still in the primitive state,many conventions are still refused from many.The conventions and agreements,that have been managed by the UN,are very promising.He who looks at,may predict,that a World Society contract will be soon real.The Multilateral treaties have treated almost every possible case of international relation,and those who refuse to sign some for some individual reasons,would be considered as anti-abolitionism(in southern US historical development sense).If we look at some authoritary countries,we see,that slavery and right individualism is evident.They are the cause of reducing the World society to its primitiv state,despite all that have been done on the theotetical political stage.
The good function of the GA seem to have its opposition in the security council,where countries are demanding Veto equality,and that despite the fact,the Veto right is exactly the enemy of integration and social life.Suffer in Irak,Palestine,Chechnya,former JUG,Irland,and in so many parts of the world, is the outcome of Vetoism.
More veto members means;less UN authority,and less UN authority would lead to more Violence freedom in the world.
The UNSC will still embarassing and aborting the Growth of international social contract,unill the vetoists give up,and follow the historical US abolitionism.The representation in the council should extend,and an universal suffrage should be aimed.
The abolitionism in the american civil war is needed on internatioal level.
In Addition to the veto members;there are some who have their black veto out side the circle.North coria,spain and Israels are examples of illegal vetoism.The Ku Klux klan seem to have moved from the american south to the middle east those days,and the biggest hope for the palestinians is,that a new Abraham Lincoln may appear to end the KKK black veto in the arab world.
The UN Campaigns against international crime,overlooking the resolutions that have been insulted by Israel,turning toward lebanon,to take part in the crazy liberation of the lebanese,helping the french to set foot in lebanon and have their right as a rival in the arab world,as such,the UN affirm the Idea of the american south,where liberty had excepted the black for over two centuries of southern vetoism and laissez fair Barbarism. We must admit;that Bush gave the palestinians some little hope in the last two months,but was oblidged to have some flirt with france.The lebanese opposition supported by the french laissez fair napoleonism declared:the last country that will have peace with Israel would be Lebanon(this was said by the band leader michael Aoun,by genblat and many others,who want to enter the kimgdom of peace throgh oncle Jack chiraq.
The UN should try to free the Arab-israeli dialog from the foreign will,and make it possible for the peace dialog to be free from foreign colonial mediations and engineering think-tank.
The UN may do that,if the Americans and other dominant powers agree to protect the freedom of the mentioned natural dialog,and base their protection policy on the UN declarations,which don’t differ from the Nato principles.To do that,the UN should stop the support for the streaning Veto into Israel and the napoleonization of the Democracy and freedom in the arab world.To understand what the napleonization of freedom means,take this;when Napoleon invaded spain,his Moto was:we want to set the spaniards free,but what he had done was:removing the king of spain,and leting the brother of napoleon (joseph)be he king of spain.So the freedom concept was:french free “rio” istead of spanish royal.