Martin
09-20-2005, 14:06
On the 19th of September a commemoration for the memory of Dag Hammarskjöld (http://www.dhf.uu.se/dh_about.html) was held in the university hall of Uppsala. I happened to be present as Hans Blix (1 (http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/ExecChair/ExeChBi.htm), 2 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/Europe/2268819.stm)) gave his lecture.
The following is a brief summary of his lecture and my thoughts about it.
Summary
Hans Blix is a smart person with evident diplomatic skills. He is not favorable to the USA and its position in the world, especially in regards to the UN.
He showed a democratic favoring and based on that stated a dislike for US hegemony. From this assertion he quoted, among other things, the US National Defense Strategy (http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf) for year 2005, “This is also a time of opportunity for America. We will work to translate this moment of influence into decades of peace, prosperity and liberty.”
His conclusion: peace is good, but like what, and with whom in charge?
In the following, he didn’t say the regime, nature of the nation, or culture, etc.
It was a comparison based on “ignoring the United Nations” and was between the USA and the Soviet Union.
In my ears, it is suggestive.
Hans Blix claimed that the mark of modern society was a monopoly on the use of violence by the government. He said, literally, that it is in “primitive societies” weapons can be found in corporations, families and with individuals.
He said that violence is justifiable if there’s a threat to international peace and security, and in self-defense. On this he argued against the policy of pre-emption and declared it unbeneficial to set as a precedent.
He mentioned the Human Rights Commission and that it probably will be reformed and become smaller. This is because of the nature of previous members. He said a problem would be in determining characteristics of eligible members.
On Iraq, he was asked whether or not he had received pressure from the USA or Iraq. At first he said that he had not had pressure from the USA. He then said that the pressure came from the media, which he also didn’t follow very closely. After that he mentioned that no pressure from “anyone else” had been put forward. (i.e., sounds avoiding)
He thought that the Security Council should be more responsible in front of the other members. Hans Blix went on to question the reasons for why the current countries should be in it, the fact being that it was created based on the situation at the end of WWII.
Hans Blix called the non-Security Council members the “disharmonious cartel”.
He stated that a world government is unlikely in the foreseeable future. He clearly seemed to want one and in the beginning expressed a desire for increased responsibility for the UN possibly leading to such. In combination with this increased responsibility, he managed to bring in democracy. I don’t remember exactly how, but I think he claimed that the UN is founded upon it (which is BS).
Hans Blix answered a question – from an American, actually - with reminding that the UN is not to be seen as a sovereign, but as a tool. How powerful do you want the tool, Blix? We’ll get back to that.
Hans Blix continued on the theme of US power and declared that a Pax Americana would be troublesome and that the USA cannot support it. One reason is the capacity of acting as a world police. An example of the problems of such enforcing is Iraq. Interesting.
He stated that Europe is slowly going federal, but was imprecise in his wording and didn’t clarify if he meant world wide/UN or EU specific.
This Hans Blix then summarized in the “first violinist” not wanting to play the right tune and the musicians having trouble keeping up. The music doesn’t sound good.
Hans Blix said that this seemed to be “bottoming out” and that a better trend is discernable. On this he referenced the US support of the EU diplomatic efforts towards Iran. Now, this is interesting. Hans Blix specifically said that the concerns about Iran are “reasonable”; in the way he said it, declaring it logical that they want nuclear weapons. Since there “is no proof”, he thinks they should be “left alone”.
My conclusion and one interesting statement from the lecture
Hans Blix is smart. Initially, I came to conclude that one of two things is true.
Hans Blix does not know the quantity and nature of despotic nations in the world. Further, he has a deep trust in institutions and democracy. That could stem from his judicial past.
Hans Blix is a bad man - that there is something murky here.
During the lecture I leaned towards the first option. I am no longer that optimistic.
Hans Blix has worked closely with representatives of the world. From people I personally know, it is clear that even if he would sit in a suit at a hotel all day, he will get to read intelligence reports and other revealing information. Even allowing for the unlikely event that he was cocooned at the UN, he has held high positions in the foreign ministry of Sweden. He did not come there not knowing who he was dealing with.
Not knowing how to classify who has enough credentials to be allowed on the “new” Human Rights Commission? With the goal of credibility in mind, is there something extremely difficult about defining regimes that torture, murder and maim their citizenry?
Personally, I think that if they are at such a level of moral indignation and functional disability, the UN should dissolve itself.
He is unhappy with the current relations with the United States. He thinks that it is good that the USA supports European diplomatic efforts to keep Iran from going nuclear, which he thinks it is “reasonable” that they will, which is why they should be “left alone”, while he said that the world should disarm of nuclear weapons, showing concern about new developments in the area in the USA. Excuse me?
Like I said, Hans Blix is a smart man. He is clearly a good diplomat. So, knowing more than many others, why would he be so lost? Possible, yet it is unlikely.
What makes it extremely implausible is what he said at two times during the lecture. In the middle and at the end, without inquiry or the public’s shown interest, he had something to say about the UN. He downplayed the corruption and claimed that it is spotty, marginal and no more than normal corporations and governments – even within the Oil for Food program. What is more, in the Oil for Food Program, he moved focus from UN corruption to Saddam Hussein, saying that “even if Saddam Hussein diverted […]”. Smoothly done. In addition, the abuses by UN peacekeeping forces are ”isolated incidents”. Especially the first point was approached suspiciously.
As to his comments in regards to pre-emption, the result of thinking like that is that all levels of integrity and nature of regimes are the same and should be treated as such. That is simply not true and he knows it.
I don’t like Hans Blix anymore.
Martin
The following is a brief summary of his lecture and my thoughts about it.
Summary
Hans Blix is a smart person with evident diplomatic skills. He is not favorable to the USA and its position in the world, especially in regards to the UN.
He showed a democratic favoring and based on that stated a dislike for US hegemony. From this assertion he quoted, among other things, the US National Defense Strategy (http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf) for year 2005, “This is also a time of opportunity for America. We will work to translate this moment of influence into decades of peace, prosperity and liberty.”
His conclusion: peace is good, but like what, and with whom in charge?
In the following, he didn’t say the regime, nature of the nation, or culture, etc.
It was a comparison based on “ignoring the United Nations” and was between the USA and the Soviet Union.
In my ears, it is suggestive.
Hans Blix claimed that the mark of modern society was a monopoly on the use of violence by the government. He said, literally, that it is in “primitive societies” weapons can be found in corporations, families and with individuals.
He said that violence is justifiable if there’s a threat to international peace and security, and in self-defense. On this he argued against the policy of pre-emption and declared it unbeneficial to set as a precedent.
He mentioned the Human Rights Commission and that it probably will be reformed and become smaller. This is because of the nature of previous members. He said a problem would be in determining characteristics of eligible members.
On Iraq, he was asked whether or not he had received pressure from the USA or Iraq. At first he said that he had not had pressure from the USA. He then said that the pressure came from the media, which he also didn’t follow very closely. After that he mentioned that no pressure from “anyone else” had been put forward. (i.e., sounds avoiding)
He thought that the Security Council should be more responsible in front of the other members. Hans Blix went on to question the reasons for why the current countries should be in it, the fact being that it was created based on the situation at the end of WWII.
Hans Blix called the non-Security Council members the “disharmonious cartel”.
He stated that a world government is unlikely in the foreseeable future. He clearly seemed to want one and in the beginning expressed a desire for increased responsibility for the UN possibly leading to such. In combination with this increased responsibility, he managed to bring in democracy. I don’t remember exactly how, but I think he claimed that the UN is founded upon it (which is BS).
Hans Blix answered a question – from an American, actually - with reminding that the UN is not to be seen as a sovereign, but as a tool. How powerful do you want the tool, Blix? We’ll get back to that.
Hans Blix continued on the theme of US power and declared that a Pax Americana would be troublesome and that the USA cannot support it. One reason is the capacity of acting as a world police. An example of the problems of such enforcing is Iraq. Interesting.
He stated that Europe is slowly going federal, but was imprecise in his wording and didn’t clarify if he meant world wide/UN or EU specific.
This Hans Blix then summarized in the “first violinist” not wanting to play the right tune and the musicians having trouble keeping up. The music doesn’t sound good.
Hans Blix said that this seemed to be “bottoming out” and that a better trend is discernable. On this he referenced the US support of the EU diplomatic efforts towards Iran. Now, this is interesting. Hans Blix specifically said that the concerns about Iran are “reasonable”; in the way he said it, declaring it logical that they want nuclear weapons. Since there “is no proof”, he thinks they should be “left alone”.
My conclusion and one interesting statement from the lecture
Hans Blix is smart. Initially, I came to conclude that one of two things is true.
Hans Blix does not know the quantity and nature of despotic nations in the world. Further, he has a deep trust in institutions and democracy. That could stem from his judicial past.
Hans Blix is a bad man - that there is something murky here.
During the lecture I leaned towards the first option. I am no longer that optimistic.
Hans Blix has worked closely with representatives of the world. From people I personally know, it is clear that even if he would sit in a suit at a hotel all day, he will get to read intelligence reports and other revealing information. Even allowing for the unlikely event that he was cocooned at the UN, he has held high positions in the foreign ministry of Sweden. He did not come there not knowing who he was dealing with.
Not knowing how to classify who has enough credentials to be allowed on the “new” Human Rights Commission? With the goal of credibility in mind, is there something extremely difficult about defining regimes that torture, murder and maim their citizenry?
Personally, I think that if they are at such a level of moral indignation and functional disability, the UN should dissolve itself.
He is unhappy with the current relations with the United States. He thinks that it is good that the USA supports European diplomatic efforts to keep Iran from going nuclear, which he thinks it is “reasonable” that they will, which is why they should be “left alone”, while he said that the world should disarm of nuclear weapons, showing concern about new developments in the area in the USA. Excuse me?
Like I said, Hans Blix is a smart man. He is clearly a good diplomat. So, knowing more than many others, why would he be so lost? Possible, yet it is unlikely.
What makes it extremely implausible is what he said at two times during the lecture. In the middle and at the end, without inquiry or the public’s shown interest, he had something to say about the UN. He downplayed the corruption and claimed that it is spotty, marginal and no more than normal corporations and governments – even within the Oil for Food program. What is more, in the Oil for Food Program, he moved focus from UN corruption to Saddam Hussein, saying that “even if Saddam Hussein diverted […]”. Smoothly done. In addition, the abuses by UN peacekeeping forces are ”isolated incidents”. Especially the first point was approached suspiciously.
As to his comments in regards to pre-emption, the result of thinking like that is that all levels of integrity and nature of regimes are the same and should be treated as such. That is simply not true and he knows it.
I don’t like Hans Blix anymore.
Martin