Talk:Multilateralism
|
|
Shouldn't "politician UN" be "political UN"?
I was tempted to correct it but I was afraid maybe it is a UK usage? -rhk, 20040221
Utopian dream
- The idea of mutilateralism is that with all the world's nations acting in concert wars can be avoided and trade and other issues can be better dealt with.
I think this is not the chief meaning -- rather, it's one POV. I'm not sure who it's prime supporters are, though.
Certain internationalists count on the U.N. as being some sort of idealized pure, unselfish body whose members all sincerely follow wonderful ideals (with the exception of America and its closest allies). By virtue of having a high-minded charter and organizations which espouse human rights, etc. supposedly the votes and actions of the UN should inevitably or automatically be good, noble and lead the world into peace and happiness. Is this a fair summary? --Uncle Ed 19:45, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Shouldn't trilateralism and bilateralism be removed, as they are both forms of multilateralism and mean essentially the same thing?
Cleanup
I added the {{cleanup}} tag to this article after wading into the morass of dense, directionless paragraphs toward the end of the article. At the very least I plan to return to add some more headings. —Ryanaxp 21:58, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
- My preference would be to simply cut the last four paragraphs. They are are jumbled mess that add little to the article. - SimonP 22:54, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)