Lebanese situation

Just made a little post on the Lebanese situation on my wordpress blog, the place I usually reserve for semi-serious rants that shouldn't be placed in Livejournal-like casual environment.

Seriously, the military in Lebanon wasn't as pronounced as they are now, and I'm beginning to suspect that certain chain of circumstances stemming from the widely publicized (and criticized) Israeli invasion of Lebanon led them to gaining certain political and cultural momentum they were prevented from attaining in pre-war Lebanon. Of course, I'm no expert on the matters of international politics and their subterfuge which tend to be rather too subtle for public consumption, but still, the logical reasons to suspect so are clearly in place, I think.

All the more reason to lament the lack of backbone present in contemporary United Nations. Have I ever mentioned that I am a great supporter of the concept of United Nations and such related ideals of internationalization? Some would cry foul at such sentiments, but I view the problem of internationalization as the problems of implement rather than idea, so there it is.

In this world, where the powers of individual states fluctuate and condense into arms-based absolute levels (am I the only one finding it ridiculous that the only permanent members of the security council happen to the the biggest arms manufacturers and sellers in the world?), the only sure way for peace would be to place some sort of international laws, enforcements for such laws, and forums to discuss such laws beyond the narrow aspirations of any single nation. Unlike what some amazingly complacent people seem to believe, population in misery have a habit of wanting to be rid of the source of their misery, and within the cycle of the world economy, which is a physics applied with human emotion, the source tend to be (justifiably?) those who are more advantaged than themselves due to environment/stroke of luck, slant of the system itself and etc. Such a world system is innately unstable in that the very moment it is implemented upon real people, it begins to manufacture dissidents with significant energetic potential and logical reason to overturn the whole system. Such a system maintained by human beings able to perceive the threat to their relatively priviliged way of life, then must spend significant amount of energy and resources to manufacture the 'antibodies' against such dissidents, the very dissidents who are in fact also the result of the materials and resources that might have been spent to further the causes of general human philanthropy.

In such a world, composed of such examples of humanity, the only efficient way (physically and economically, in long term) would be to provide a forum in which disadvantaged nations and individuals might be able to speak out on equal footing as the ones with the most nuclear weapons on subjects that affect them. And economical and diplomatic fairness guaranteed by the international organization (United Nations) would provide the incentive for the groups of weaker nations and middle-of-the-way bourgeoisie nations (like many nations in the Europe region) to seek diplomatic methods to their conflicts that would in the end be significantly less violent and damaging to the infrastructure and civilians of the world (though I expect that they will be no less fierce).

The problem, then, is how such international organization would rise to such prominent position amidst all the scheming supernations of the world, and how such an organization would be able to guarantee fairness and diplomatic coverage to the less advantaged portion of the globe, preventing them from turning into groups of violent dissidents like so many supernations had done before.