or: my dad could beat up your dad, et al.
Recently, influential countries have been exerting their power to promote change in the world. Social injustice and international unrest abounds, but now major players on the global stage are standing up to ensure the righting of these wrongs and conquest of these evils. Iran remains embroiled in protests and violence stemming from alleged election improprieties. North Korea continues a foreign policy strategy of intimidation and calculated posturing. Countries, such as the United States, and collective governing bodies, including the United Nations and the G8, achieved this monumental advance by...expressing their displeasure?
Several stories stuck out within the past week describing the responses of supposedly powerful and influential countries to other nations' aggressively antagonistic or repressive actions. An emergency meeting--followed by the customary protracted debate--of the U.N. Security Council resulted in promises for sterner sanctions against North Korea and an
'Angry Letter' detailing the unhappiness caused to the U.N. by Korean missile testing and nuclear threats. Similarly, the United States recently strengthened its reputation as global watchdog with regards to Iran President Ahmadinejad's repressive and reactionary handling of post-election protests. President Obama's condemnation of the developing situation in Iran precedes the
G8's expected "statement to deplore post-election violence". Apparently world leaders have yet to find an alternative to passing a nasty note--a practice most people give up as childish and ineffective sometime during middle school. How do broadcast journalists report on such stories and manage to maintain a straight face? What could possibly be the purpose of putting such dross on paper or having it clog up the newly analog-free airwaves? No angry letter will change course of an offending country's actions. More likely these proclaimations purpose to pacify politicians' consituencies and the citizens of the nations that issue these letters in the first place. But even this plan seems irreparably flawed. It's doubtful whether any G8 nation's citizens would have have thought their nations approved a free-speech infringement and voting inequity before the issuance of their official disapproval. Likewise, it probably did not require an official U.N. statement to clue in most people in the U.S. and elsewhere that lots of countries are not greatly pleased by North Korea's nuclear showmanship. The U.N., the G8 and the United States all remained consistent by achieving nothing of actual consequence in their reactions to current events in Iran and North Korea. Instead of paying international postage rates, maybe organizations and governements should find pen pals that are actually interested in hearing from them. A quick perusal of my local paper yields a promising "SWF, 40+, looking for special someone". The U.N.'s officially important time would be better served by sending her a letter, angry or otherwise.
