Global Wahrman Reorganization on 1st Anniversary

We plan to try different schemes to make individual posts on larger topics easier to find and perhaps even in a logical order.  This will take some time, and I probably have to try a lot of things before I find an approach that I like.  So there will be a fair amount of chaos here until it settles down.

Global Wahrman is one year old and I am very happy with parts of it.  But it is getting larger and harder to find things, or to know what is here.   It will take at least 5 years before I work through the backlog of topics, I think.

As you have noticed, posts come in several varieties here.  Although the trivial posts do not take very long to write, the more complicated ones are coming in at between 2 - 4 hours.  Some take more time than that.   I am not sure about the numbers but I would guess that for every post that is published, there is another post that did not get finished to my satisfaction and never posted.  It is the longer posts that are usually more interesting because more thought has gone into them and there is a topic behind them that I have usually thought about for a while.

The blog is very demanding, and it will be challenging to manage my time if and when I ever get busy in other parts of my life.

A Modest Solution to the Syrian Civil War and Related Regional Problems

When the domestic situation looks unsolvable it is a time honored solution to look to foreign policy as a way of distracting the locals from the government-created misery that is their life. Not only is this approach used successfully by governments, it can be used successfully by individuals to help avoid thinking and working on their own problems, a sort-of trickle down "distract the miserable" approach. Thus I have been putting considerable time into the Syria issue and whether we should start firing missiles at that part of the world.

The answer, I am happy to say is, No, we should not fire missiles. Nothing we do there will help the situation, anything that we do could have unforseen results. It is a no win situation for us. I am sorry that the Syrians and their neighbors are killing each other, and I am sorry that some of these people are assholes. But that is not a good enough reason to go to war.

But if you say we must do something, I have a proposal for you. I am sure that the small-minded scum in Washington will ignore my suggestion, but I am used to that. Pearls before Swine if you ask me.

If you want to help that region, forget about bombing Syria, ask yourself why is this region all fucked up (using the technical terms here, "fucked up"). What do the following countries have in common: Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq? They were all created out of the former Ottoman Empire which is the country we now call Turkey. Turkey was also created at the end of WWI out of the former Ottoman Empire. This was all set up by the British and the French, mostly.

Since these countries clearly can not handle their affairs, I am referring to Syria, et alia, not England and France, and since this little British and French experiment in nation building is such a disaster, lets swallow our pride, and ask Turkey to come back, and manage the area for us. Forget about Syria, its just a province of the new Ottoman Empire, and better for it.

Bring back the Sublime Porte, the Grand Vizier, the Harem. All of it. I think that the world has given a good shot at letting the people of the region rule themselves, and they have proven to everyone how competent they are at it which is not very competent at all.

Lets admit our mistakes and bring back the Ottomans.

Furthermore, I predict that this will result in a massive increase in employment for certain technical people.  The Ottoman's were well known for the use of Unix, they had Unix everywhere, especially the Harem.

Perhaps the Harem is a problem for you, my sensitive, politically correct, white friend?  You might want to look into the role of women in the near east, first.  The Harem actually had quite a bit of power in the Ottoman empire.  More power than women have in politics in most of the contemporary Near East, I think.

Below we have a photograph of a classic Harem and concept art for a proposed anime-style modern Harem.

Also, the Ottoman's were quite stylish.  Check out the head gear, below.

Suleiman Himself

Map of the Ottoman Empire at its Largest

So in conclusion, by bringing back the Ottoman Empire to that part of the world, and getting rid of the current countries of Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq etc, we have a plan that will reduce violence, increase employment, elevate the role of women in their society, and add to sartorial elegance.  All of these things are good things, good for us and good for the region.

I hope you will support the campaign to restore the Ottoman Empire with your representatives in Washington.

Request for Information About the Origin of the .OBJ Format

I am looking for information on the origins of the .obj 3D object format.  By the time I had arrived at Robert Abel & Associates in 1980 or so, it was already in use for our vector production system which ran on E&S Picture System 2s.  

My question is where it came from originally.  I had thought that it was indigenous to Abel's, but several people have told me that it wasn't and that it originated with Evans & Sutherland.  This makes sense but I have not been able to confirm it.

The reason I am so interested is because I think I was instrumental in extending this horrible format into raster graphics.  Its a long story and I want to get all my facts straight first.

If you know, or know someone at E&S I can talk to, leave a comment here or email me.  Thanks.

Irresistable Videos on the Ancient Silk Road

In the world of archaeology, few topics are more interesting, controversial and entertaining than the whole combined issues of Indo European Language Dispersal and its dozens and dozens of mysteries and controversies.  You may not realize that you are living immersed in these mysteries, but you are, you are one of them.  You speak one (or more) of the languages that is at the heart of the mystery.

The Penn Museum had a seminar on some of these issues which had as speakers the superstars of this world: Colin Renfrew, J P Mallory, Victor Mair and so forth.

Its all online, which is wonderful.

Now you can waste another day or two of your life learning about this stuff.

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0HCs6PVnzI or all 10 seminars/talks at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QapUGZ0ObjA&list=PL286E934A56954D08

The Summer of SIGINT

The title of this post is a rip from a new blog I have been reading, the 20 Committee, which is written by a former NSA counterintelligence guy.

He has a lot of interesting things to say about Snowden, the NSA, Wikileaks, etc.  See his blog at
http://20committee.com.

I am pretty sure that recent events and disclosures do not mean what the Guardian and Snowden want you to think.    The question of the role of Wikileaks, which is not an innocent, activist, web site, looms larger.  The question of the probable moles in the intellilgence community signaled by the 10 illegals that were found in 2010 has not been answered. (For background on the illegals, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegals_Program).

I do think that big things are happening.   Are we in the opening stages of another war, or maybe its just a reminder that the intelligence war never went away.

Between the Canadian affair, the issue of the undiscovered moles, and Snowden's work for the Russians, it would appear that our intelligence community has been thoroughly penetrated.

Unfortunately, this is not a John LeCarre novel, this is real life, and I don't think there is any reason to think that the good guys necessarily have to win.

Philosophy and Shared Ideals in Computer Animation

[draft; being written; the following is at best a brief preamble to what I hope will be a major theme of this blog, which is a discussion of the history of ideas in computer animation]

Are there any ideas in computer animation?

Well, what a strange question to ask, of course there are ideas in computer animation.  For example, ray tracing, or radiosity, or antialiasing.   But that is not what I mean, exactly, although those are certainly good examples of ideas, or technologies, or inventions.

So idea is the wrong term or concept.     Maybe I am thinking of one of the other meanings of the word "philosophy".    "There are more things in heaven and hell, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy".    In this case I am referring to the underlying theory, the ideals, the shared beliefs, of the founders of a field, and whether those ideals and beliefs were vindicated, or corrupted, or forgotten or shown to be invalid or a mixed blessing or successful beyond their wildest dreams.

These beliefs might seem obvious to people today but were actually somewhat visionary when the field was being established.

Lets imagine what a shared ideal might be for another relatively recent field:  the field of modern aviation, or what was sometimes known as "powered flight".  One shared belief might be "Powered flight is possible and it will transform the world when it is invented".    Many, many people did not believe that powered flight was possible, and even if it was, they did not believe that it was practical, so this belief which may seem obvious to us, was certainly not obvious at the time.  Another example of a possible shared belief of many of the pioneers of aviation was "When powered flight is invented it will quickly obsolete all other forms of warfare".     This second belief, which was held by many of the early pioneers of flight, turned out to be more true than most people in the military believed, but less true than many of the pioneers had believed.  (See note 1)

So what would the shared ideals of the people who founded computer animation be?  What would it have been for the founders and inventors of the field, back when the field did not exist and most people did not believe that it was either possible or useful?

One of those beliefs might have been something as obvious as:  1. That we can create a formal written description of a scene (e.g. its objects, lights, materials) and translate that description into a 2D image (most images are 2D, traditionally speaking) that might appear 'real'.

Certainly that was a fundamental belief of the pioneers, so fundamental that it might never or rarely even been articulated.  Of course, I object that culturally-laden term 'real'.  "Reality is a useful measure of complexity", Alvy Ray Smith was alleged to have said, although he denies it.  Still, I personally think that many non-professionals, and far too many professionals as well, misunderstand and overemphasize this issue of apparent reality as we have argued on this blog.

Another shared ideal might be, 2. The use of a branch of mathematics, computational geometry, in conjunction with various 3D visualization techniques as well as modelling techniques of other types such as finite-element analysis, will prove to be a qualitatively important tool in architectural and mechanical design.

Or it might be, 3. the use of various visualization techniques when applied to concepts and ideas in sciences such as astronomy or particle physics will not only result in materials to help explain those ideas, but will assist in the further development of those ideas in their respective fields.

In other words, its not just that visualization helps to understand concepts in astrophysics such as galaxy collision, but will actually help scientists develop new ideas in their field (not just outreach but a tool of the fundamental research as well).

Or it might be, "4. the use of techniques such as 3D visualization and image processing, will result in a transformation of the cinematic production process and will lead to fundamentally new types of content in traditional media such as cinema, and that this new content will be culturally important" 

I am differentiating here between traditional narrative media and emerging interactive media because I think that they are very different things.

This is not an exhaustive list, at least I hope not, nor is it intended to be.  It is a list to help stimulate discussion and better refine what "shared ideals in computer animation" might be.

But if we do look at this list of 4 points, I would suggest to you that 1 and 2 are valid, that 3 has not occurred (e.g. visualization has not been recognized as contributing substantially to the research in those fields, although it is used for outreach), and that 4, that we would help to create new and interesting content in cinema is debatable even as our techniques have been used throughout the production process. 

Why debatable?  Because the bitter truth is that not all society recognizes or is willing to acknowledge the fundamental cultural importance of giant robots and superheroes/heroines in cinema.  It may indeed be a long time until Scooby Doo in 3D is acknowledged for its impact on the cinema, and on our society as well.

In other words, sure the use of computers in general and computer graphics in particular has changed movies, television, etc, but has it make it substantially better in terms of content?  Or make it worse?  How about just different ?     I think that it has been a mixed bag, actually. 

So what are the other ideals and shared beliefs, articulated or not, behind computer animation and computer graphics?

________________________________________________

1. The history of the origins of powered flight is deeply intertwined with the history of the transformation of warfare of the 20th century.   The Wright Brothers demonstrated powered flight in 1903 in a very early form.  By 1914, or a mere 11 years later, a much more advanced version of the airplane was already flying for the armed forces of all sides in Europe and the at least one of the sides in the Middle East.   Yet ultimately the belief of many early aviators, that all other forms of warfare would be replaced by the airplane, did not turn out to be true.   "Air Power" was important, it may or may not have been "decisive", but it was not the end of warfare as we knew it.  For a good history of this, see (insert reference for makers of modern strategy essay on "air power").

The Uses of Snowden: The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights

When Ed Snowden, our pissy and so self-righteous Defender of the Faith and of All Truth, who Sees the Higher Path and knows What is Right when none of his thousands of colleagues do, who knows what MUST be done to save America when all around him everyone else is Corrupted by Mammon or one of the other Seven Princes of Hell, when this icon of moral and ethical perfection had his passport pulled by the State Department (surprise!!) he complained that the USA was violating a clause of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and inhibiting his right to travel internationally and to seek asylum.

Now that is interesting, I thought to myself. One more time, Snowden may have brought to our attention some topic of merit that is, apparently, separate from the national security ones on which his reputation ultimately depends.

What is the "UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights" anyway, where did it come from, and what does it all mean?

It was written right after WW II and at the very dawn of the United Nations.  The head of the committee that wrote it was none other than Eleanor Roosevelt, former first lady of the United States.  You can read all about it at the link I provide below.   The key to understanding this Declaration is to understand, somehow, that WW II was much worse than you think it was and that people, some people at least, were idealistic about a new beginning when the war ended.  And so, this international committee of idealists and intellectuals put together a short list of things that "would be nice".

Wouldn't it be nice if everyone could be educated?  Yes.  Wouldn't it be nice if there could be freedom of religion?  Sure.   Wouldn't it be nice if people could express their beliefs freely, and travel wherever they wanted, and made a living that allowed them to realize their potential and not be thrown in jail without due cause?  Absolutely!  And so forth, and so on.  

Here is what it says:

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

My goodness, that is nice.  Constantly in mind!  Shall Strive by Teaching!  Progressive Measures!

Forgive me for being a little cynical here but we are talking about 1948 or so: Stalin is wiping out entire minority groups, people are being thrown out of windows in Czechoslovakia, Mao is demonstrating what he meant by "all power comes out of the barrel of a gun", the colonial empires of various western empires are meeting the post-WW 2 anti-colonial movements of S.E. Asia and Africa, and these fluffy liberals are making Universal Declarations of Human Rights.

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights is about 2.5 typewritten pages long, and is very easy to read. It is at: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Now that you have read it, ask yourself how many of these have been violated by this country, the United States of America, in letter or in spirit, at least occasionally?

Just off the top of my head I can make arguments that we are or have been in violation of Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11.1, 12, 13.1 and 13.2, 14.1, 15.2, 16.1, 17.2, 21.1, 21.2 and 21.3, 23.1, 23.2, 23.3 and 23.4, 25.1, 26.1, 26.3 and I can make a case for a few of the others as well.

I doubt that there is a country on earth that could live up to these standards if they are interpreted as they are probably meant to be interpreted. So what is this anyway? Is it treaty? Is it law? Is it international law? It is none of these things.  In the words of Eleanor Roosevelt, Chairperson of the UN Commission on Human Rights, when the declaration was being drafted and when it was introduced to the General Assembly to be adopted:

In giving our approval to the declaration today, it is of primary importance that we keep clearly in mind the basic character of the document. It is not a treaty; it is not an international agreement. It is not and does not purport to be a statement of law or of legal obligation. It is a declaration of basic principles of human rights and freedoms, to be stamped with the approval of the General Assembly by formal vote of its members, and to serve as a common standard of achievement for all peoples of all nations.

In fact, the impact of the Declaration and its legal status many years later makes more interesting reading than the declaration itself. Its a complicated tangle but it can be said that the Declaration has in fact had some influence, presumably positive influence, in many situations internationally over the years. Whether this influence has affected peoples' lives or whether it is in words and paper only, I couldn't tell you.

But I can tell you, that no country on this planet would believe that this Declaration prevented them from trying to bring into custody someone they considered a criminal, and that therefore Snowden accusing the US of being in violation of this Declaration is somewhere between naive and comical.

Which is how I think history will judge Snowden overall.

Naive, very naive.

Lawrence in Damascus

I can not think of anything more pointless and certain to backfire than getting involved in the internecine wars between various factions in the Islamic Near East.    May as well shoot yourself for all the good it will do.

And furthermore it will just make one side or another hate us even more.  I admit that in some of those cases they may already hate us as much as they can so it might not do much more harm, but that seems to me to be a very negative way to see the world.

If you have not read a history of the area and you do not yet understand where Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Jordan came from, then stop right now and go read about it.   They were created by the British and the French after WW I out of provinces of the former Ottoman Empire.  We also had something to do with it but mostly indirectly as far as I can tell. We become more involved in the area after WW II.

Lawrence of Arabia enters Damascus in a wood-body Rolls that has been adapted for desert warfare.

So, why, oh why, would we ever get involved militarily in this sewer of shit?  (holding back my real feelings).

It is for one reason and one reason only, as far as I can tell.  There has to be a real cost to using chemical and biological weapons, a cost that even a stupid thug, like the ones that run most countries, can understand and appreciate.   If one does not respond to their use, their deliberate use, then those people now and in the future will draw a lesson from that inaction.

That is the only reason.   I doubt it will help the Syrian's one bit.

It might help some people somewhere in the world, as yet unknown, who would otherwise have such weapons used against them.  Maybe if we act now, some desperate leader of some country or military in the future will not use these weapons.

That I think is the idea here.

_______________________________________________

Footnote.

Because people always seem surprised when they get into a war and discover that it is expensive, that there is history, that people hate each other, that it goes on longer than it should, etc, I wrote a list of "things to consider before getting involved in a war that is in any way discretionary".  Some wars are not discretionary but some of them are and, where possible, it is wise to remember that discretion is the better part of valour.

I can not, not, not believe we are about to get involved in another middle east conflict.

Some Points to Consider Before Starting A War

The Uses of Snowden: Perception of the Death Penalty in the World at Large

This is the second of three essays on how Ed Snowden has been very helpful in bringing matters to our attention outside of the area which he intended, e.g. surveillance.  In this part we discuss the issue of how the death penalty is perceived in the world, something brought up because of Snowden's applications for amnesty in which he mentioned his concerns about being tortured or executed should he return to the United States.

Ah, the death penalty. What could be more American? An eye for an eye! Hang the bastard. String em up. Hang em high! A necktie party. A rough frontier justice. "And may God have mercy on your soul.... you may proceed", said the preacher.

There are regional differences of course. My favorite is Texas' "Justifiable Homicide" laws. In Texas you can get away with murder if you can convince a jury that 'he needed killing'.  

"You remember Jack. He was always drunk. Never did a day's honest work in his life. When he ran over Sam's dog, I had enough and I shot the good-for-nothing sonofabitch until he was dead".

So all is well and good, after all cultural diversity works many ways. Some countries have spicier food, we have the death penalty. Each to his own, I say.

What could be more American than a good hangin'?

But the world is filled with a bunch of damn foreigners. Damn it, its true, I have seen them myself. And many of them look on in horror at our death penalty, seeing it as barbaric, as "cruel and unusual punishment" and drawing far too many conclusions from the trivial and irrelevant detail that it is only the poor people who get executed while the rich go free. Oh yes, and that there *may* be a correlation, some say, between race and wealth and therefore of who gets the axe and who does not. Of course this isn't true! P'shaw I say! Certainly not in Florida!

How do I know that much of the world does not share our appreciation of the death penalty? Well it is due to that savior of modern man, that icon of all that is moral and pretentious in America, everyone's favorite martyr and photographic opportunity, Ed Snowden.

Yes, you see, in order to apply for amnesty in various countries it is useful, perhaps even required, that you articulate the case that if you were returned to the country you were trying to flee from, that you would be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. For example, you might be tortured or put to death. So Ed made that case and many countries responded well to the argument.

Because, you see, the fact is that this country is now famous for torturing people. Yes, we can thank the illegal Bush administration for that. But its not all Bush's fault, imho, because you see when Obama came in he refused to have members of the Bush administration tried for their crimes. Had he done so, then he would have made the clear statement that American's found torture to be unacceptable. But he didn't and instead made the point that people of one Presidential Administration can commit any crime against humanity and get off.

On top of that, famously there was one way to get shot in America, legally that is, and that was to commit what was called "treason" back in the day. But since one can easily use that word, and people do, they went to the trouble of defining it. Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1 of the US Constitution defines treason as giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy during time of war. And war is defined as being declared formally by Congress, none of this namby pamby "police action" or "humanitarian mission" stuff back then. Therefore, someone who may or may not be considered to have given "aid and comfort" during a time when Congress has not declared war could not be considered for treason. On paper, that is.

In fact, you can try anyone for anything and leave it up to the courts to decide.

Which is why, when Snowden got international sympathy for the fact that if he returned to the US he might be tried for treason and shot, the US Department of Justice went out of its way to say that they would not seek the death penalty.

They would not have done so had not the argument that we are a cruel and murderous country rang true in the eyes of people of the world. Two thirds of the countries of the world have outlawed the death penalty (which is different of course from whether or not their government kills people, oh by the way). The USA is the number 5th country in the world for executions, coming in after China, Iran, North Korea and Yemen. Now that is a list right there to give one pause and wonder just what is going on.

I was not aware of how we were seen in this area by many people of the world until it was Snowden who brought it to my attention.  Well, I knew a little about it I guess, but hadn't given the issue much thought.

Is there a possible way out of this dilemma?  A solution that lets us keep our death penalty, so important to so many Americans, yet avoids the onus that accompanies "stringing someone up"?

I believe that there is.   What if we amended the law so that only the rich would be at jeopardy to being sent to "Ol' Sparkey" (the electric chair) for their crimes?  Its only fair after all, they are the only ones who can afford the legal system in this country; a poor man or woman certainly can not.

I think that world opinion would respond to this change and recognize that we had significantly made progress on the issue of the death penalty and furthermore that we were taking a very progressive step on the issue of the very wealthy people in a world filled with unbelievable poverty.

I hope that all good Americans will join me in calling for the death penalty for the rich.

Thank you.
____________________________________

Notes

1, "Old Sparky" -- The Electric Chair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Sparky

The Uses of Snowden: Passports are Given and Passports are Taken Away

[revised 8/27/2013]

One commonly held theory is that Snowden is useful for stimulating dialog and discussion in America on a variety of topics, and that this process of discussion is valuable independent of whether or not Snowden is actually the traitor that he wants to be or is merely guilty of narcissistic self-delusion.

For a quick review of Narcissistic Personality Disorder see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

But whether actual traitor or merely a self-proclaimed martyr, his public travel dysfunction has stirred up at least three notable topics, none of them particularly to do with national security or surveillance. The topics are

1. What is a Passport and when can it be revoked ?

2. How does the rest of the world see our death penalty and use of torture ?

3. What is the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and what does it mean?

We will take this one piece at a time. First, the Passport.

1. The Passport

When Snowden's passport was revoked, righteous indignation spewed from the usual sources accusing the US Government of doing something illegal or immoral. So what is a passport and do you have a right to one? A passport is three things, two of them formal and one of them implied.   It is first identity paperwork and second a request that courtesy be shown the holder of the passport when travelling in another country.    By convention and by treaty it has accrued a third meaning, which is the de facto right to travel internationally at all.  The passport has a long history but as we know it in its modern incarnation it came into existence during WWI in order to control the passage of people of various nationalities across borders in Europe.  This specific need for border control evolved into the right to travel internationally in general.  No passport or diplomatic papers of some sort meant no international travel, for the most part.

The most famous fictional "letter of transit" for Victor Laszlo travelling through Casablanca

As it is currently conceived of, a passport is issued by a country's foreign service, in this case our Department of State, at their discretion and it may be revoked at their discretion. In our country, failure to pay child support is cause to revoke someone's passport, even if that passport is required for them to make a living, or to exercise any of their other interests or rights to travel. It can be pulled without recourse to law and is so pulled every day of the week in this country. So why shouldn't they pull the passport of someone who claims to be violating American law and releasing classified information ?

Furthermore, not having a passport is not a barrier to travel if another country wishes you to visit them.  Those countries can issue one of several types of diplomatic documents (usually temporary) that will enable someone without a passport to travel to them. They do it all the time, when they want to. In the case of Snowden, I guess they didn't want to.  (Of course a little pressure on them by our Government might have been applied behind the scenes, do you suppose?)

If Americans wish to change the process by which a passport can be revoked and the rules involving who can have a passport and what their rights are, I am all for it. But that would be a major change and would probably require the cooperation of congress and the courts.

But maybe a better question is why a "government" is necessary to have a passport at all?   How many people who are alive today chose the government they live under?   Is it perhaps 1% of the people?   I certainly did not choose this oppressive government that protects the rich and humiliates the poor. Why should governments have such control over international travel at all beyond what they permit at their own borders?

Recall, a passport is identity and a request for courtesy, combined with an implied third meaning: which is the right to travel internationally.   Why not have another, presumably international, body, certify the identity of a person and negotiate by treaty (1) the right to travel?  Maybe the UN could do this and actually be good for something beyond getting their diplomats immunity from traffic tickets in NYC. 

In parts II and III we will go over how the world sees our death penalty and how that affects the Snowden matter and then review the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Snowden has accused the US of being in violation of. He is right, by the way, we are. They all are. All countries are.

Just wait until you read this thing.

______________________________________________

1. So far as I know treaties are made by sovereign countries and their descendants (e.g. when Soviet Russia picked up the treaties of Imperial Russia).   So is the UN allowed to make treaties of this type? What is funny about this question is that I do not have a clue what the answer is, but I suspect the answer is "its complicated".