Jump to content

Time to "Call it a Day" for the United Nations


August1991

Recommended Posts

theloniusfleabag

You wrote:

"Bolton was known to be arrogant and abrasive before he became UN rep. The US knew full well what stance he would take, because he made no secret that he hated the UN and what it stood for. The US gov't (and the businesses it serves) have nothing but disdain for the UN. Not because it is an ineffective beuraocracy, either, but rather because it is a hinderance to the free hand the US wishes it had in international politics."

Do you have proof the UN is an effective organization?

The problem is that the UN sees many world issue's through 'rose coloured glasses' when in many instances a more direct approach sometimes is immediately required and many world issue's are hard or impossible to resolve.

http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/ind.../310?theme=alt1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Dear August1991,

Let me get this straight. The UN deputy Sec-Gen gives a speech blaming the US (specifically a naive US heartland manipulated by the media) for the faults and weaknesses of the UN. Huh?
This is not exactly what was said, and it is a bit disingenuous for you to put it in such a light. Brown admits that the UN is not up to snuff. (the "Guilty on all counts" bit) He also said that the US is partly to blame. This is true, insofar as the US usually does not help UN missions when it is not in their direct strategic or economic interests to do so.
This does not mean that it is necessarily against the principle of an international, intergovernmental organization.
The speech doesn't mean it, it is merely an example of it, but it is true nonetheless.

Haven't you been putting the pieces together? The 'New World Order', the claim that the US shall never allow another country to even come close to matching US military capability, the declaration that the US and it's soldiers will never be tried for war crimes, and that it retains the right to pre-emptively strike anyone, anywhere, anytime it deems such an action to be 'in their national interest'. Doesn't leave much room for an international body to set any rules to which they might be bound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brown admits that the UN is not up to snuff. (the "Guilty on all counts" bit) He also said that the US is partly to blame. This is true, insofar as the US usually does not help UN missions when it is not in their direct strategic or economic interests to do so.
When has the Palestinian Authority (or other dictatorial Third World regime sitting at the UN) ever voted against its own interests? (And I'll make the subtle distinction between these regimes and the people they claim to represent.)

Thelonious, you are tacitly saying that the US should be "big enough" to vote against itself. Think of what you're saying! Maha Jafaar of Taif has no less a voice than Mary Jones of Topeka.

Haven't you been putting the pieces together? The 'New World Order', the claim that the US shall never allow another country to even come close to matching US military capability, the declaration that the US and it's soldiers will never be tried for war crimes, and that it retains the right to pre-emptively strike anyone, anywhere, anytime it deems such an action to be 'in their national interest'. Doesn't leave much room for an international body to set any rules to which they might be bound.
Thelonious, we are talking about the United Nations - not a new world government. The UN should be a place where governments can express their viewpoint. Maybe, if it works, the UN will avoid death and destruction and maybe, ordinary people will benefit. During the Cold War, the UN paid for its existence if only because it gave a credible venue for Adlai Stevenson to make America's case against the Soviets about missiles in Cuba. If the UN had existed in July 1914, maybe world history would have been different.

Nowadays, the UN is no longer an ideal or even a useful talking shop. The building itself is a rat infested cesspool with broken 1960s furniture. I think they still use IBM Selectrics.

So, I'm not surprised when a UN bureaucrat/official blames ordinary Americans for this state of affairs. The speech itself strikes me as an indication of the problem. When governments (many without any accountability to anyone) hand over wads of cash to people essentially without any accountability to anyone, you wind up with the UN, if not Versailles.

Thelonious, full disclosure. I spent one day of my life going up and down elevators, talking to different people in the UN building in New York. I also spent one day of my life going up and down elevators, talking to various civil servants in CIDA in Hull. IMHO, despite all, the day spent in CIDA was less insidious than the day at the UN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear August1991,

When has the Palestinian Authority (or other dictatorial Third World regime sitting at the UN) ever voted against its own interests?
Indeed, when has anyone? You bring forth the flaw in democracy, not in the UN, though it suffers because of it too. Think of this...
or other dictatorial Third World regime
as 'the bad Libertarian', and it puts us at square one.
Thelonious, you are tacitly saying that the US should be "big enough" to vote against itself. Think of what you're saying! Maha Jafaar of Taif has no less a voice than Mary Jones of Topeka.
If I may quote a line from killjoy,
It's one thing to have grievances. It's another to kill indiscriminately over it.
The US believes that the voice, health and welfare of 'Mary Jones from Topeka' should always be valued above and beyond 80,000+ 'Maha Jarifs from Taif'.

I never said that the US should be big enough to vote against themselves. Why I quoted killjoy's line was to show that the US will never acknowledge any kind of grievance, legitimate or otherwise: they claim that there are none.

Thelonious, full disclosure. I spent one day of my life going up and down elevators, talking to different people in the UN building in New York. I also spent one day of my life going up and down elevators, talking to various civil servants in CIDA in Hull. IMHO, despite all, the day spent in CIDA was less insidious than the day at the UN.
No offence meant here, but the CIDA has no expectations to meet, and no authority to implement the use of force to help achieve ends. They cannot be held accountable for any failure other than budgetary, and if they actually do accomplish something, they would likely receive 'praises and raises', rather than scorn or derision. No wonder they seemed happier, that is like a dream job to some.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darth Budda

You wrote:

"I'm no fan of U.N. beurocracy, and I think a lot of things could be improved, but Bolton is certainly no agent for change: he's the Jerry Falwell of international politics. Rude, crude, and so's his point of view."

Well Darth exactly what changes arte you talking about?

His tirades play to the far right in the U.S. and extremist Republicans in the legislature. It's not supposed to be problem solving. It's supposed to be grandstanding. It's not supposed to support legitimate conclusions. It's supposed to mix in just enough truth to dupe some few into buying into fallacious confusions. It's supposed to allow the U.S. to play the victim of some half-manufactured dreadful slight by the U.N. In this regard he is very much like Jerry Falwell, who cries out for the victimhood of his ministry versus his enemies, among them the homosexuals in the nation whom he blamed for the 9/11 disaster.

Bolton is a loudmouthed demagogue who is doing exactly what the Bush Administration and the "thinkers" of the Neocon movement want him to do. Much as in the case of the pre-GW-election papers put forth by Pearle and others, it's an approach born of dogmatism. Dogma that even before 9/11 speculated that only a major incident could provide excuse to pursue "regime change" in Iraq. Dogma that downplayed the costs of such actions to the point of idiocy that is now proven by historical fact and U.S. debt. Dogma that rejected multinationalism and international law in favor of unilateral militaristic adventures. Again, the similarity to Falwell should be obvious.

What other kind of U.N. representative would those subscribing to such a philosophy WANT? A unilaterist nation with an internationalist U.N. representative would be working against itself. A regime that wanted excuses for militaristic intervention in the Middle East would be foolish to even recognize the authority of such an international body. A movement that wants to force others to obey it's evangelical religious tenets at home and abroad must muddy up any attempt at population control with hysterical rhetoric: a problem solving approach would be inane given such goals.

The more mud he slings, the more shrill his complaints, and the more he can play out the U.S. as victim playlet, the more he serves the necessarily anti-U.N. position of the neocon agenda. Bolton is the logical appointee to such a post given the Neocon agenda.

If I subscribed to the Neocon agenda, I'd be thrilled with Bolton's performance. Even as one who sees neocons as dangerous unilateralist and anti-civil rights advocates who are really just nascent fascists, I have to admire Bolton. Just as I have to admire Goebbels and Hitler for their propagandistic posturing on the international stage prior to WWII for their success, even as I am revolted by their motives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I didn't realize that we already had a thread on this and I wrongly started a thread elsewhere.

Let me get this straight. The UN deputy Sec-Gen gives a speech blaming the US (specifically a naive US heartland manipulated by the media) for the faults and weaknesses of the UN. Huh?

Then, the US Ambassador gives a press conference in which he asks the UN Sec-Gen to repudiate the speech.

Go read Brown's speech here and then tell me that the US response is unfair.

What exactly did Brown say that was untrue or unfair?

Not that I'm much of a fan of the UN, but be specific, because I don't really see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No offence meant here, but the CIDA has no expectations to meet, and no authority to implement the use of force to help achieve ends. They cannot be held accountable for any failure other than budgetary, and if they actually do accomplish something, they would likely receive 'praises and raises', rather than scorn or derision.
My comparison of the UN and CIDA was to say that they are both large bureaucracies. It happens that the UN is an entirely screwed up bureaucracy. At one time, the organization might have served some good but that day is long gone. Anybody with even a passing contact with the UN knows this. (To be fair, there are some UN organizations that possibly serve a useful purpose. I'm trying to think of one... WHO? UNHCR? Nyet. UNDP, UNESCO, UNCTAD - all of it - is a sad morass.)

Thelonious, to understand the UN, you have to think of the federal Liberal Party circa 1950, then imagine that it is still in power. Then take that idea, and multilply by, about say, 10. Imagine what Ottawa bureaucracy would be like.

In this context, the speech by Brown is understandable. He blames ordinary Americans for the disorganization at the UN. If the 1950s Liberals were still in power over an incompetent and corrupt Ottawa bureaucracy, the likes of Joe Volpe - having never faced a voter - would no doubt be blaming Manitobans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bolton is a loudmouthed demagogue who is doing exactly what the Bush Administration and the "thinkers" of the Neocon movement want him to do.....

The more mud he slings, the more shrill his complaints, and the more he can play out the U.S. as victim playlet, the more he serves the necessarily anti-U.N. position of the neocon agenda. Bolton is the logical appointee to such a post given the Neocon agenda....

Darth, you are letting your hatred for Bush Jnr prevent you from understanding going on here. Let me repost what I posted elsewhere. Brown admits himself that the UN is a mess!

Mark Malloch Brown is the UN's Number 2 bureaucrat, an old-style British type. Some say that he's got his eye on the Number 1 spot. Here's what Brown said recently:

Americans complain about the UN’s bureaucracy, weak decision-making, the lack of accountable modern management structures and the political divisions of the General Assembly here in New York. And my response is, “guilty on all counts”. But why?

In significant part because the US has not stuck with its project -- its professed wish to have a strong, effective United Nations -- in a systematic way. Secretary Albright and others here today have played extraordinary leadership roles in US-UN relations, for which I salute them. But in the eyes of the rest of the world, US commitment tends to ebb much more than it flows. And in recent years, the enormously divisive issue of Iraq and the big stick of financial withholding have come to define an unhappy marriage.

As someone who deals with Washington almost daily, I know this is unfair to the very real effort all three Secretaries of State I have worked with –- Secretary Albright, Secretary Powell and Secretary Rice -– put into UN issues. And today, on a very wide number of areas, from Lebanon and Afghanistan to Syria, Iran and the Palestinian issue, the US is constructively engaged with the UN. But that is not well known or understood, in part because much of the public discourse that reaches the US heartland has been largely abandoned to its loudest detractors such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. That is what I mean by “stealth” diplomacy: the UN’s role is in effect a secret in Middle America even as it is highlighted in the Middle East and other parts of the world.

Exacerbating matters is the widely held perception, even among many US allies, that the US tends to hold on to maximalist positions when it could be finding middle ground.

We can see this even on apparently non-controversial issues such as renovating the dilapidated UN Headquarters in New York. While an architectural landmark, the building falls dangerously short of city codes, lacks sprinklers, is filled with asbestos and is in most respects the most hazardous workplace in town. But the only Government not fully supporting the project is the US. Too much unchecked UN-bashing and stereotyping over too many years -- manifest in a fear by politicians to be seen to be supporting better premises for overpaid, corrupt UN bureaucrats -- makes even refurbishing a building a political hot potato.

Entire Speech

So this Number 2 at the UN blames the US for the ineffectiveness of the UN, even down to blaming the US for the decrepitude of the UN building in New York. Once a remarkable piece of architecture, it has turned into a Third World government office. An organization that can't manage its own real estate has no business trying to manage anyone else's.

Understandably, John Bolton, the US Ambassador to the UN responded:

Well, on that speech, this is a very, very grave mistake by the Deputy Secretary General. We are in the process of an enormous effort to achieve substantial reform at the United Nations. And it's a difficult effort, but it's an effort that we feel very strongly about. And to have the Deputy Secretary General criticize the United States in such a manner, can only do grave harm to the United Nations. Even though the target of the speech was the United States, the victim, I fear, will be the United Nations. And even worse was the condescending and patronizing tone about the American people. That fundamentally and very sadly, this was a criticism of the American people, not the American government, by an international civil servant, it's just illegitimate. So we've thought about this a good deal and we didn't respond to it yesterday evening when we got a copy of the speech. But what we think the only way at this point to mitigate the damage to the United Nations is that the Secretary General Kofi Annan, we think has to personally and publicly repudiate this speech at the earliest possible opportunity. Because otherwise I fear the consequences, not just for the reform effort, but for the organization as a whole.

...

REPORTER: This could be interpreted by some in this institution as a US attempt to silence its critics. How would you address that criticism?

AMBASSADOR BOLTON: The organization is an organization of member governments. The Secretariat works for the member governments. So that when a member of the Secretariat criticizes a member government, and as I said, criticizes the intelligence of the people of a member government, that's a very questionable activity.

Entire Press Conference

Frankly, if Brown thought his speech would help the UN, he was sorely mistaken. In fact, this is very much what is wrong with the UN. It's OK to bash the US or the West. But no one can criticize the poor victimized governments in Third World countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The United Nations was established for idealistic reasons at the end of WW II. It was supposed to abolish the need for war, and replace warfare and killing with debating. Something has gone dreadfully wrong, and the UN needs to be abolished.

The UN's budget is contributed overwhelming by such nations as the US, Japan and the UK. The US contributes about 22% of the UN budget, Japan 19.63%, Germany 9.82%, France 6.50%, the UK 5.57%, Italy 5.09%, Canada 2.57%, Spain 2.53%, and Brazil 2.39%. These nations thus account for over two-thirds of the UN's funding. The donor nations, though, have little influence over the spending of those moneys. Even worse, the recipient nations have no reason to be amenable to policy preferences of the donor nations, since the money comes from the UN.

Thus, the donor nations can do little about the petty, despotic and warlike nature of the recipients of aid. Vast Palestinian refugee camps are being sustained by the UN while their inhabitants see little but misery and propaganda. The people are trained to be literally walking bombs, on our dime.

Sometimes the Security Council, which in theory is dominated by "important" rather than "polstage stamp" nations passes resolutions that are actually quite fair. The fact that the US and UK have a veto helps insure this. The problem is tha twhen Israel, a member nation, seeks to enforce a resolution, only a US veto prevents a resolution from then condemning Israel. An example is Security Council Resolution 1559:

2 September 2004

Resolution 1559 (2004)

Adopted by the Security Council at its 5028th meeting, on

2 September 2004

Recalling all its previous resolutions on Lebanon, in particular resolutions 425

(1978) and 426 (1978) of 19 March 1978, resolution 520 (1982) of 17 September

1982, and resolution 1553 (2004) of 29 July 2004 as well as the statements of its President on the situation in Lebanon, in particular the statement of 18 June 2000 (S/PRST/2000/21),

Reiterating its strong support for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized borders, Noting the determination of Lebanon to ensure the withdrawal of all non- Lebanese forces from Lebanon,

Gravely concerned at the continued presence of armed militias in Lebanon, which prevent the Lebanese Government from exercising its full sovereignty over all Lebanese territory,

Reaffirming the importance of the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory, Mindful of the upcoming Lebanese presidential elections and underlining the importance of free and fair elections according to Lebanese constitutional rules devised without foreign interference or influence,

1. Reaffirms its call for the strict respect of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity, and political independence of Lebanon under the sole and exclusive authority of the Government of Lebanon throughout Lebanon;

2. Calls upon all remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon;

3. Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias;

4. Supports the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory;

5. Declares its support for a free and fair electoral process in Lebanon’s upcoming presidential election conducted according to Lebanese constitutional rules devised without foreign interference or influence;

6. Calls upon all parties concerned to cooperate fully and urgently with the Security Council for the full implementation of this and all relevant resolutions concerning the restoration of the territorial integrity, full sovereignty, and political independence of Lebanon;

7. Requests that the Secretary-General report to the Security Council within thirty days on the implementation by the parties of this resolution and decides to remain actively seized of the matter.

Obviously, Lebanon's territorial integrity is being undermined daily by Syria and Hezbollah. Israel is now trying to expel them. The UN Security Council''s reaction? To try to condemn Israel (prevented only by US veto).

The UN has clearly gone from being a debating society to a "hate the West" society. If tinpot dictators countries like Cameroon or Central African Republic want to criticize the West, that's fine (except in view of the non-model handling of their own minorities and own economy). The UN, put simply, has accomplished nothing. Moneys that citizens of democracies are willing to allocate to foreign aid should go directly to needy countries, if possible bypassing their governments. Let that aid money buy influence, not insults.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your argument is incredibly weak. Basically, you're saying the entire UN should be dismantled because the nations with money and power don't get their way.

Is this how assemblies work on the national level ? No.

There are many problems with the UN, but dismantling it could lead to more global warfare, and given recent experiences the US and Europe will be less likely to intervene. Rather than destroy the UN, I think they should reform it - keep what works, rework what doesn't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your argument is incredibly weak. Basically, you're saying the entire UN should be dismantled because the nations with money and power don't get their way.

Is this how assemblies work on the national level ? No.

There are many problems with the UN, but dismantling it could lead to more global warfare, and given recent experiences the US and Europe will be less likely to intervene. Rather than destroy the UN, I think they should reform it - keep what works, rework what doesn't work.

It is the very nations that hold a veto that wish to keep it weak. It easier to blame the U.N. inaction than to take blame yourself for world problems.

No, the five permanent members wish to leave the U.N. in place to act as a scapegoat rather that to reform it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also:

Obviously, Lebanon's territorial integrity is being undermined daily by Syria and Hezbollah. Israel is now trying to expel them. The UN Security Council''s reaction? To try to condemn Israel (prevented only by US veto).

Lebanon's problems are well known, but should a responsible country be allowed to invade a neighbouring nation without comment from the UN ? That's what Iraq did in 1990.

These systems of governance have to be set up with the understanding that dissent exists and there is no such thing as a shining truth that will prevail. It's about process and what works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have had several threads on this topic.

Here

Here

Here

I suppose there's no harme in having another thread but when I once asked whether we should close threads, the general response was that we should just leave them open.

----

Is this how assemblies work on the national level ? No.

The UN is not like a national assembly or legislature.

Whatever the reason for its creation, the UN became an institution to deal with teh Cold War by providing a place where the Soviets and Americans could regularly confron one another. That raison d<etre has been lost.

I think the UN is unreformable but no one has the courage to put it out of its misery. It will live on as an expensive anachronism.

Steyn had a good line. Bush seeking UN approval before intervening in Iran would be like Churchill seeking approval of the League of Nations before starting the D-Day invasion.

To understand UN bureaucracy, you have to imagine what Ottawa would be like if the Liberal Party had remained the sole governing party in Canada since 1950 and had never lost power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your argument is incredibly weak. Basically, you're saying the entire UN should be dismantled because the nations with money and power don't get their way. Is this how assemblies work on the national level ? No.

Read more carefully. My point is that the impact of our foreign aid dollars are diluted two ways going through the UN:

  1. Their massive overhead and fraud saps the money; and
  2. The receiving nations and people perceive the money as coming from the UN, not from the countries/taxpayers actually putting up the money.

That's my point.

There are many problems with the UN, but dismantling it could lead to more global warfare, and given recent experiences the US and Europe will be less likely to intervene. Rather than destroy the UN, I think they should reform it - keep what works, rework what doesn't work.

What war or atrocity has the UN ever stopped, other than preventing Israel or other Western democracies from finishing the job?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To understand UN bureaucracy, you have to imagine what Ottawa would be like if the Liberal Party had remained the sole governing party in Canada since 1950 and had never lost power.

That's a scary thought.. :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To understand UN bureaucracy, you have to imagine what Ottawa would be like if the Liberal Party had remained the sole governing party in Canada since 1950 and had never lost power.

That's a scary thought.. :unsure:

Not that Diefenbaker got much done, or that Mulroney did any bureaucracy trimming. Wasn't Mulroney big on patronage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have had several threads on this topic.

Here

Here

Here

I suppose there's no harme in having another thread but when I once asked whether we should close threads, the general response was that we should just leave them open.

I apologize. I'm a newbie, having come here after a recent purge at www.freedominion.ca. The only recently used thread of those was "Bolton Demands UN Apology", which does not quite relate to the need to use the UN facilities for vitally needed low-income housing.

Perhaps, if Mecca isn't a good place for the UN, how about Tuktuyutok?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, well Bush won't be in office forever

No, but he is fairly representative of the US people. Any Democrat hoping to be elected needs to occupy the right side of the spectrum as well as the left side.

Kerry learned that lesson to his sorry. Bill Clinton learned it more successfully and resuscitated his Presidency after a disastrous start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bolton is a loudmouthed demagogue who is doing exactly what the Bush Administration and the "thinkers" of the Neocon movement want him to do. Much as in the case of the pre-GW-election papers put forth by Pearle and others, it's an approach born of dogmatism. Dogma that even before 9/11 speculated that only a major incident could provide excuse to pursue "regime change" in Iraq. Dogma that downplayed the costs of such actions to the point of idiocy that is now proven by historical fact and U.S. debt. Dogma that rejected multinationalism and international law in favor of unilateral militaristic adventures. Again, the similarity to Falwell should be obvious.

Hardly. He is an excellent diplomat who remembers that he represents the United States, not the United Nations.

What other kind of U.N. representative would those subscribing to such a philosophy WANT? A unilaterist nation with an internationalist U.N. representative would be working against itself. A regime that wanted excuses for militaristic intervention in the Middle East would be foolish to even recognize the authority of such an international body. A movement that wants to force others to obey it's evangelical religious tenets at home and abroad must muddy up any attempt at population control with hysterical rhetoric: a problem solving approach would be inane given such goals.

I guess Syria and Saudi Arabia are you model government. You'd lose your head posting in this manner in those countries.

The more mud he slings, the more shrill his complaints, and the more he can play out the U.S. as victim playlet, the more he serves the necessarily anti-U.N. position of the neocon agenda. Bolton is the logical appointee to such a post given the Neocon agenda.

And who pays for the UN?

If I subscribed to the Neocon agenda, I'd be thrilled with Bolton's performance. Even as one who sees neocons as dangerous unilateralist and anti-civil rights advocates who are really just nascent fascists, I have to admire Bolton. Just as I have to admire Goebbels and Hitler for their propagandistic posturing on the international stage prior to WWII for their success, even as I am revolted by their motives.

Please don't use Hitler analogies. They are extremely offensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been to Tuk, not many have by the way and it would not be the last choice for those that have been there. If you are talking about UN reforms and moving the UN, then you folks are on the right track.

New York is a bad place to place the headquarters because it is easily accessible and decidedly pro American. If you want the UN to work, the home of the headquarters needs to be at least on nuetral ground, not on the home turf of the most powerful nation of the world. It looks bad this way. Many see the UN as a puppet organization just because of its structure and location.

Move the headquarters, restructure the international body, eliminate the veto and then you can begin to utilize this international body to do some real progressive work. It needs to be utilized as a judicial institution. It should be the home of world opinion that can be legally enforced through democratic means.

If the organization was moved to Canada, or any other nation for that matter, a new city could be created for the sole purpose of functioning as the home for international organizations. The city could be constructed with embassies from the nations of the world housing the representatives of each nation. Each nation could have a large compound to showcase their unique cultural identities. Security could be provided by having each nation provide a military escort to their embassy as well as providing an additional contingent for a multinational force. The city should be constructed with only air access possible to provide an additional means of protection. The multinational force can become the first world tactical deployment force. This new force would be under the control of the UN.

There are lots of ways to change the face of the UN to make it more functional. The key is perception, it must look like it is not subject to partisan control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been to Tuk, not many have by the way and it would not be the last choice for those that have been there. If you are talking about UN reforms and moving the UN, then you folks are on the right track.

Maybe an Islamic capital would be better. The female delegates, and the non-Muslim ones, might even go out of their head there.

New York is a bad place to place the headquarters because it is easily accessible and decidedly pro American. If you want the UN to work, the home of the headquarters needs to be at least on nuetral ground, not on the home turf of the most powerful nation of the world. It looks bad this way. Many see the UN as a puppet organization just because of its structure and location.

Move the headquarters, restructure the international body, eliminate the veto and then you can begin to utilize this international body to do some real progressive work. It needs to be utilized as a judicial institution. It should be the home of world opinion that can be legally enforced through democratic means.

Maybe the easiest thing would be to cut off the funding, and let the holders of the "world opinion" pay its way.

If the organization was moved to Canada, or any other nation for that matter, a new city could be created for the sole purpose of functioning as the home for international organizations. The city could be constructed with embassies from the nations of the world housing the representatives of each nation. Each nation could have a large compound to showcase their unique cultural identities. Security could be provided by having each nation provide a military escort to their embassy as well as providing an additional contingent for a multinational force. The city should be constructed with only air access possible to provide an additional means of protection. The multinational force can become the first world tactical deployment force. This new force would be under the control of the UN.

There are lots of ways to change the face of the UN to make it more functional. The key is perception, it must look like it is not subject to partisan control.

Who do you propose would pay for this dream city? Pierre, err, Justin? From their own funds?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The United Nations was established for idealistic reasons at the end of WW II. It was supposed to abolish the need for war, and replace warfare and killing with debating. Something has gone dreadfully wrong, and the UN needs to be abolished.

The UN's budget is contributed overwhelming by such nations as the US, Japan and the UK. The US contributes about 22% of the UN budget, Japan 19.63%, Germany 9.82%, France 6.50%, the UK 5.57%, Italy 5.09%, Canada 2.57%, Spain 2.53%, and Brazil 2.39%. These nations thus account for over two-thirds of the UN's funding. The donor nations, though, have little influence over the spending of those moneys. Even worse, the recipient nations have no reason to be amenable to policy preferences of the donor nations, since the money comes from the UN.

Thus, the donor nations can do little about the petty, despotic and warlike nature of the recipients of aid. Vast Palestinian refugee camps are being sustained by the UN while their inhabitants see little but misery and propaganda. The people are trained to be literally walking bombs, on our dime.

Sometimes the Security Council, which in theory is dominated by "important" rather than "polstage stamp" nations passes resolutions that are actually quite fair. The fact that the US and UK have a veto helps insure this. The problem is tha twhen Israel, a member nation, seeks to enforce a resolution, only a US veto prevents a resolution from then condemning Israel. An example is Security Council Resolution 1559:

2 September 2004

Resolution 1559 (2004)

Adopted by the Security Council at its 5028th meeting, on

2 September 2004

Recalling all its previous resolutions on Lebanon, in particular resolutions 425

(1978) and 426 (1978) of 19 March 1978, resolution 520 (1982) of 17 September

1982, and resolution 1553 (2004) of 29 July 2004 as well as the statements of its President on the situation in Lebanon, in particular the statement of 18 June 2000 (S/PRST/2000/21),

Reiterating its strong support for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized borders, Noting the determination of Lebanon to ensure the withdrawal of all non- Lebanese forces from Lebanon,

Gravely concerned at the continued presence of armed militias in Lebanon, which prevent the Lebanese Government from exercising its full sovereignty over all Lebanese territory,

Reaffirming the importance of the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory, Mindful of the upcoming Lebanese presidential elections and underlining the importance of free and fair elections according to Lebanese constitutional rules devised without foreign interference or influence,

1. Reaffirms its call for the strict respect of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity, and political independence of Lebanon under the sole and exclusive authority of the Government of Lebanon throughout Lebanon;

2. Calls upon all remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon;

3. Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias;

4. Supports the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory;

5. Declares its support for a free and fair electoral process in Lebanon’s upcoming presidential election conducted according to Lebanese constitutional rules devised without foreign interference or influence;

6. Calls upon all parties concerned to cooperate fully and urgently with the Security Council for the full implementation of this and all relevant resolutions concerning the restoration of the territorial integrity, full sovereignty, and political independence of Lebanon;

7. Requests that the Secretary-General report to the Security Council within thirty days on the implementation by the parties of this resolution and decides to remain actively seized of the matter.

Obviously, Lebanon's territorial integrity is being undermined daily by Syria and Hezbollah. Israel is now trying to expel them. The UN Security Council''s reaction? To try to condemn Israel (prevented only by US veto).

The UN has clearly gone from being a debating society to a "hate the West" society. If tinpot dictators countries like Cameroon or Central African Republic want to criticize the West, that's fine (except in view of the non-model handling of their own minorities and own economy). The UN, put simply, has accomplished nothing. Moneys that citizens of democracies are willing to allocate to foreign aid should go directly to needy countries, if possible bypassing their governments. Let that aid money buy influence, not insults.

Give your head a shake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,766
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    CouchPotato
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...