Question Mark on United Nations Dignity...

[Guest Amrita]

I have read a very good article today titled “Should the UN be taken seriously?” and I totally agree with the words of Shoeb Hamid, an author of this article. According to him “The UN has become a puppet in the hands of privileged nations. The decisions taken by it in the recent past prove that it is susceptible to external pressures.” He also used the word “Omnipotent” with UN.

Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the UN, can’t just beat the culprits out. It is not a free enterprise, independent of external pressures. Consider this - 22 per cent of its finances are payable by America. Money plays an important role in the decisions taken by the UN.

The US is further playing with it, this time it is the bill, H.R.4818 introduced by the Congress to further conform United Nations to the US lines. They are supposed to cut down their contributions to half by the year 2008. In June 2005, a task force, constituted for the same, released its report entitled ‘American Interests and UN Reforms.’ This clearly shows how much power the American constitution exercises over the UN.

All this leaves all of us thinking about power, how it gets corrupted and how the system is against any change intended for a role reversal. Shoeb Hamid supported the term United Nations but with little modification. It should be the United Privileged Nations instead of United Nations. So, what do you think? Should it be really the “United Privileged Nations” instead of “United Nations”?

>> Link of his article

[yam]

There more than likely is a gradation in the ranking of priviledge between each county that probably runs parallel with each ones economic contribution. I only wish the thing was equal in voice and power and was not so heavily influenced by Bush and co. Take the recent invasion of lebanon for example, im certain that the UN on the whole would have chosen to act far more quickly than it did if it were not for Israels ties with the US whom controls the UN in the last instance before any activity.

[geoffrey]

If the US controlled the UN, the UN would have approved the Iraq invasion. They didn't, so the US isn't in control.

[yam]

regardless of what the UN approves or otherwise, the US has the ultimate sanction over all issues. The US allows the UN to 'mop up' some of the debris created between wars and economic/political transitions.

[Argus]

There more than likely is a gradation in the ranking of priviledge between each county that probably runs parallel with each ones economic contribution. I only wish the thing was equal in voice and power and was not so heavily influenced by Bush and co.

So who would you like to be in control of the UN? China? Iran? Russia? North Korea? Nigeria? The grasping, corrupt strongmen of Africa? The Muslim world, which would order Israel destroyed, and Islamicize the West?

[yam]

I was not speaking of whom should be in control.

Hence your startling insightful response is completely reactionary and irrelevent.

If you read that which you have quoted from me, is says the following

"i wish things within the UN was equal in voice and power . . . ."

And those that are involved in the US do not come from your sited countries.

But you have given yet another typical red neck argument -

You see Argus the type of control you aspire to is the 'cloak and dagger' or the inverted form of the countries you have just listed, though they are still undemocratic as seen in you and your fellow peons eyes. The US has license to simply role in the tanks anywhere it wishes because it can rely on an unimformed public. The UN is there to clean up the mess after invasion and murder.

[Army Guy]

“Should the UN be taken seriously?” By all means the UN should be, but it does need to be reformed taken apart in it's entirity and rebuilt to reflect todays modern world. the UN has taken on to many responsibilties some it excells in others it is a complete failure"peace keeping" a prime example.

The UN is great at making new inter-national laws, rights, etc but has no means to enforce them, that have proven sucessful. Human rights is one example "great concept" but we have 2 of the orginal 5 paying little heed to them. so basically we have established guide lines that a nation may or may not heed, without consquences that have proven effective to ensure that they do.

There is no equal voice in the UN, the orginal 5 have the power to veto anything. all it takes is one veto. getting approval for anything is an up hill battle. every country that is a member should have the same power one vote "with the power of veto going to the UN HQ's only" one that is elected by all the assembly. And only under exceptional circumstances.

The statement of the UN under primarily US control is an false, the orginal 5 make it almost impossable to do this. There is more examples of just the Iraqi war, the land mine issue, Lebanon issue , back dues owed, etc.