Chavez at the UN

[myata]

CBC link

While Chavez (as Ahmadinejad earlier this week) may have certain image problems, there's a ring of truth in that the UN's current structure as a talking club controlled behind the curtains by few and mostly Western powers does not bode well for its credibility and legitimacy in the feature.

Has the UN been stillborn from the start? Has it's mandate been too ambitious?

Most human communities have some notion of authority. Power is either imposed from the top (authocracy) or delegated from the bottom (democracy). The problem is, in its current state the UN is lacking the first and does not have credibility to garner it through the second. Perhaps the whole idea was a bit premature?

[Argus]

CBC link

While Chavez (as Ahmadinejad earlier this week) may have certain image problems, there's a ring of truth in that the UN's current structure as a talking club controlled behind the curtains by few and mostly Western powers does not bode well for its credibility and legitimacy in the feature.

Has the UN been stillborn from the start? Has it's mandate been too ambitious?

Most human communities have some notion of authority. Power is either imposed from the top (authocracy) or delegated from the bottom (democracy). The problem is, in its current state the UN is lacking the first and does not have credibility to garner it through the second. Perhaps the whole idea was a bit premature?

Chavez and Ahmadinejad are good examples of why the UN will never be trusted with power that isn't tempered by the vetoes of "sane" countries.

The majority of the members of the United Nations are petty dictators, crooks, murderers, and fruit-loops like Chavez. People in countries like Canada, Finland, or Australia will never trust themselves to a one-man, one-vote general assembly which is made up mostly of petty tyrants and crooks. Especially when a big chunk of what's left, ie, most African nations, etc., sell their votes on anything which doesn't concern them.

Chavez and Ahmadinejad, and people like them, are what's wrong with the UN. How many kooks and butchers without the slightest real legitimacy as legitimate representatives of their people have stood on that podium thumping their fists and shouting out their rants to the world? And you seriously think we're going to remove the veto right of the western powers? What do you think the assembly would have done over the past thirty years with unfettered power? I wouldn't want to know. If there was a United Nations without vetos by the West I wouldn't want us to be members.

[bradco]

CBC link

While Chavez (as Ahmadinejad earlier this week) may have certain image problems, there's a ring of truth in that the UN's current structure as a talking club controlled behind the curtains by few and mostly Western powers does not bode well for its credibility and legitimacy in the feature.

Has the UN been stillborn from the start? Has it's mandate been too ambitious?

Most human communities have some notion of authority. Power is either imposed from the top (authocracy) or delegated from the bottom (democracy). The problem is, in its current state the UN is lacking the first and does not have credibility to garner it through the second. Perhaps the whole idea was a bit premature?

Chavez and Ahmadinejad are good examples of why the UN will never be trusted with power that isn't tempered by the vetoes of "sane" countries.

The majority of the members of the United Nations are petty dictators, crooks, murderers, and fruit-loops like Chavez. People in countries like Canada, Finland, or Australia will never trust themselves to a one-man, one-vote general assembly which is made up mostly of petty tyrants and crooks. Especially when a big chunk of what's left, ie, most African nations, etc., sell their votes on anything which doesn't concern them.

Chavez and Ahmadinejad, and people like them, are what's wrong with the UN. How many kooks and butchers without the slightest real legitimacy as legitimate representatives of their people have stood on that podium thumping their fists and shouting out their rants to the world? And you seriously think we're going to remove the veto right of the western powers? What do you think the assembly would have done over the past thirty years with unfettered power? I wouldn't want to know. If there was a United Nations without vetos by the West I wouldn't want us to be members.

to be fair to chavez he is a legitmate ruler.....won his first election with 56% of the vote (election was validated by the Carter Center), won reelection handidly but there was some allegations of hanky-panky leaving the Carter Center to not validate the results, however they did certify that the election of Chavez followed "the will of the people"....he also survived the recall referendum in 2004. In all likelihood he enjoys MUCH more support than Bush or Harper do. He may be a horrible leader with no understanding of economics, but he is legitimate.

"What do you think the assembly would have done over the past thirty years with unfettered power?"

-General Assembly has no power, read the UN Charter....all power is and will continue to be vested in the security council

"Especially when a big chunk of what's left, ie, most African nations, etc., sell their votes on anything which doesn't concern them."

-examples?

To make the UN more successful two things need to happen:

-SC reform

-UN permanent force

1. SC reform

-as it stands the SC has questionable legitimacy. Vetoes allow for selective action and exposes the council to bias (ie. israel). Inconsistancy exposes other motives then what the UN is there for, "the maintenance of international peace and security", and renders the SC illegitmate. Its amazing how countries that cry about the undemocratic nature of other countries are fine with an undemocratic international body calling the shots.

-permanent member vetoes is what will stop the SC from reaching its full potential

-reform of the security council to make it more democratic is not going to give "unfettered power" to "petty tyrants and crooks" since to pass a resolution it would still need some sort of majority support, in my opinion 10 votes or 67%, assuming it remains 15 seats (any reformed SC would realistically still include permanent members who would lack vetoes). I see the council as having a set amount of seats for regions of the world which would likely eliminate any of your worries of crazy dictators running the show. Either way a prerequisite of being on the council should be having a leader who represents "the will of his/her people", which doesnt necessarily require democracy.

-along with, or included with, SC reform is the need to set limits on the councils power by coming to an agreement on what actually constitutes a "threat to international peace and security". Leeaving the security council with absolute power to define what a "threat" is will allow the council to extend its reach as far as it wishes. The potential reach of the security council (even with vetoes) was illustrated after the end of the cold war, specifically regarding Somalia and Haiti. In addition, allowing for some sort of judicial review of SC resolutions would give another check to power and is an option that should be debated. It would be rather easy for the ICJ to take over this role.

2. UN Permanent force

-if people are serious about having a "useful" UN that fully realizes the charter goals then a permanent force under UN Command would be necessary. It would not only address failures of the UN to respond to crisis but could act as a deterrant, with countries knowing an army will be there (not an army being there dependant on whether or not member states will send them)

[myata]

Chavez and Ahmadinejad are good examples of why the UN will never be trusted with power that isn't tempered by the vetoes of "sane" countries.

You're right and that's one of the causes of the problem. UN pretty much ran its course as the pocket vehicle of the West to legitimize its projects in the world. And the West is highly unlikely to agree to any kind of reform that'll make it appear more democratic (and diminish its powers). So, a stalemate? Will it eventually end up as just a talking club (i.e. -SC) plus cultural, humanitarian and medical organizations?

[bradco]

Chavez and Ahmadinejad are good examples of why the UN will never be trusted with power that isn't tempered by the vetoes of "sane" countries.

You're right and that's one of the causes of the problem. UN pretty much ran its course as the pocket vehicle of the West to legitimize its projects in the world. And the West is highly unlikely to agree to any kind of reform that'll make it appear more democratic (and diminish its powers). So, a stalemate? Will it eventually end up as just a talking club (i.e. -SC) plus cultural, humanitarian and medical organizations?

"Will it eventually end up as just a talking club (i.e. -SC)"

confusing comment.....security council is the only organ of the UN that has any power....everything else is already just a talking club (which isnt a bad thing-- where we would have been without talking clubs during the cold war is anyones guess)

[myata]

Well, there's UNESCO, WHO and they run projects of their own - but, no, no "physical" power.

In my personal opinion, there isn't sufficient will and trust in the world yet to come up with a real and legitimate power delegation scheme. Short of that, all attempts are bound to be muddled in power struggles and ad hoc.

[jbg]

I fail to understand why the US hasn't deposed Chavez. He is a seirous danger to our vital interests.

[bradco]

I fail to understand why the US hasn't deposed Chavez. He is a seirous danger to our vital interests.

Im starting to think he actually wants the American government to overthrow him to prove some sort of point of their long and continued meddling in Latin American politics.... or he is just stupid

[gc1765]

I fail to understand why the US hasn't deposed Chavez. He is a seirous danger to our vital interests.

Which interests?

[bradco]

I fail to understand why the US hasn't deposed Chavez. He is a seirous danger to our vital interests.

Which interests?

world domination???

[myata]

Wouldn't they need to find some kind of weapon of mass destruction for that? Or at least, a clear and present danger of an attack, if all else fails?

[Liam]

I fail to understand why the US hasn't deposed Chavez. He is a seirous danger to our vital interests.

I don't see at all how Chavez is a threat to US interests. Chavez is, at most, an international mosquito: more buzz than sting. By inflating his peskiness to US interests, you make him more important than he is. Yes, he has oil, but oil is a commodity that is (pretty much) globally pooled in the marketplace. For example, if Chavez wants to redirect his country's supply away from the US to China, the oil from Kuwait and Nigeria that would have gone to China comes back into the market for US consumption.

The only threat Chavez poses is to Bush's standing -- or do you think Bush's being on the receiving end of inflated and outright silly rhetoric are vital interests we need to defend and depose foreign leaders over? Please, I'd rather we use our military resources and focus our attention on global threats that are real.

[Remiel]

JBG, you just stated quite succinctly why most of the world despises the United States. And their reason is a good one, too. The United States wouldn't know what democracy and justice were if God clubbed them with them.

As for UN Reform, they should expand the veto members to include India and maybe Pakistan, or India and drop France, or if we were to indulge in a little narcissm, add Canada while we're at it, but with the caveat that a veto must be either a majority or unanimous vote among the permanent members. Whatever you decide, just restructure the elite club so that it is representative of by population, power and influence, and that nothing can be blocked by just one member in their own petty interests.

[August1991]

JBG, you just stated quite succinctly why most of the world despises the United States. And their reason is a good one, too. The United States wouldn't know what democracy and justice were if God clubbed them with them.

Between you and jbg, I don't who to criticize.

jbg's remark is just silly.

Remiel, the US was arguably the first democracy in the modern world and it's certainly one of the most successful democracies. It has had the same constitution for almost 250 years.

I agree with Clinton. Here's what he had to say about Chavez:

“Obviously I think he made a mistake,” Mr Clinton said in an interview on CNN. “He’s not hurting us, he’s just hurting himself and his country.”

Link

Chavez's remark doesn't help Venezuela - and it doesn't matter to the US. It's pure empty rhetoric. Chavez is a blowhard.

[Leafless]

I fail to understand why the US hasn't deposed Chavez. He is a seirous danger to our vital interests.

I generally agree.

In Venezuela the headlines read:

"Chávez denounces US"

http://www.thedailyjournalonline.com/

[Remiel]

So what if it has been around for 230 some odd years? Bush has been ignoring the U.S. constitution, or at least significant parts of it... like violating division of power, civil rights, etc.

I agree with Clinton insofar as Chavez isn't hurting anyone else.

Also, who do you think would really be the betting choice for the Security Council? Venezuela, or Guatemala?

[August1991]

So what if it has been around for 230 some odd years? Bush has been ignoring the U.S. constitution, or at least significant parts of it... like violating division of power, civil rights, etc.

Bush will be gone in two or so years and everyone knows that. How many countries know for certain that government power will pass peacefully to someone else except by death? The Russians have only done it once. The Cubans seem incapable of it.

The test of civilized society is whether government power passes peacefully, from one living soul to another. In this regard, the Americans are remarkable in the modern world. They've achieved it using more or less the same rules about 35 times. That's a phenomenal tradition imitated nowhere else. Since beheading a king, the French have had five constititutions and a dictatorship or two.

BTW, the US Supreme Court struck down the Patriot Act.

I agree with Clinton insofar as Chavez isn't hurting anyone else.

Also, who do you think would really be the betting choice for the Security Council? Venezuela, or Guatemala?

Who cares. The Security Council (and UN) are irrelevant now. At this point, Bush Jnr (and Harper) patronized the UN and I'm surprised that no one noticed.

Name Zimbabwe, North Korea, Zaire and Iran to the Security Council. Make them permanent members. Who cares. The Cold War is over and the UN is as useful now as the League of Nations in 1940 or - using my father's expression - it's as useful as a witch's tit.

[jbg]

JBG, you just stated quite succinctly why most of the world despises the United States. And their reason is a good one, too. The United States wouldn't know what democracy and justice were if God clubbed them with them.

Between you and jbg, I don't who to criticize.

jbg's remark is just silly.

Remiel, the US was arguably the first democracy in the modern world and it's certainly one of the most successful democracies. It has had the same constitution for almost 250 years.

I agree with Clinton. Here's what he had to say about Chavez:

“Obviously I think he made a mistake,” Mr Clinton said in an interview on CNN. “He’s not hurting us, he’s just hurting himself and his country.”

Link

Chavez's remark doesn't help Venezuela - and it doesn't matter to the US. It's pure empty rhetoric. Chavez is a blowhard.

I believe the US is hurt to the extent that Chavez may very well spin South and Central America out of control. Let me explain.

Latin American countries (with the possible exceptions of Mexico and Costa Rica) have a bad habit of alternating between military rule (often though not always pro-US) and populist, bombastic rulers (often anti-US, sometimes from right, sometimes from left). These gyrations have a disastrous effect on the well-being of the people, since big business generally avoids areas with unpredictable politics (extractive industries such as oil aside).

Quite simply, the US is then deluged with immigrants, of varying levels of ability to assimilate, from these countries. The bottom line is the US cannot ignore its back yard, given the relative affluence of the US and its attractiveness.

[bradco]

So what if it has been around for 230 some odd years? Bush has been ignoring the U.S. constitution, or at least significant parts of it... like violating division of power, civil rights, etc.

Bush will be gone in two or so years and everyone knows that. How many countries know for certain that government power will pass peacefully to someone else except by death? The Russians have only done it once. The Cubans seem incapable of it.

The test of civilized society is whether government power passes peacefully, from one living soul to another. In this regard, the Americans are remarkable in the modern world. They've achieved it using more or less the same rules about 35 times. That's a phenomenal tradition imitated nowhere else. Since beheading a king, the French have had five constititutions and a dictatorship or two.

BTW, the US Supreme Court struck down the Patriot Act.

I agree with Clinton insofar as Chavez isn't hurting anyone else.

Also, who do you think would really be the betting choice for the Security Council? Venezuela, or Guatemala?

Who cares. The Security Council (and UN) are irrelevant now. At this point, Bush Jnr (and Harper) patronized the UN and I'm surprised that no one noticed.

Name Zimbabwe, North Korea, Zaire and Iran to the Security Council. Make them permanent members. Who cares. The Cold War is over and the UN is as useful now as the League of Nations in 1940 or - using my father's expression - it's as useful as a witch's tit.

Ill argue that the UN still has many uses....ignoring the GA and SC for a moent there are many other organizations affiliated with the United Nations doing a lot of work that shouldnt be dismissed

As far as the SC goes....if its so irrelevant than why do nations go to such great lengths to have it justify their military actions. Bush and Blair both spent enormous time at the SC trying to get it to give them chapter 7 authorization against Iraq (which they argue they have.....thats another debatable topic). If it is so irrelevant than why bother? I think the fact that those two nations, especially the US, are on the hook for all the costs associated with the war shows how important SC authorization is. You can bet if it had been clearly authroized by the SC many other nations would be contributing to the war (dont forget the Canadian govts one reason for not being involved was that it was not authorized by the SC). To that end the SC is very relevant...

And even the US loves the SC at times. It enabled them to pick and choose which conflicts they wanted to get involved in during the 90's. By using the SC to determine humanitarian conflicts as threats to international peace for reasons such as causing refugee problems, they could intevene without starting a precedent that would force them into helping out during all humanitarian conflicts without coming across as self-interest motivated jerks.

Just because the Cold War has ended does not make the UN useless...in fact it was the end of the Cold War that enabled the SC to finally start to begin to extend its reach and do something. If Saddam had moved against Kuwait say 5 years earlier we may never have seen chapter 7 resolutions passed against him and things may have played out a lot differently.

Any permanent member on the SC has great interest in seeing the UN continue under its current form (and that includes the United States). They have the ability to use the UN for its purposes and can safeguard against any action taken against them with the veto....whats not to like about that.

[bradco]

So what if it has been around for 230 some odd years? Bush has been ignoring the U.S. constitution, or at least significant parts of it... like violating division of power, civil rights, etc.

Bush will be gone in two or so years and everyone knows that. How many countries know for certain that government power will pass peacefully to someone else except by death? The Russians have only done it once. The Cubans seem incapable of it.

The test of civilized society is whether government power passes peacefully, from one living soul to another. In this regard, the Americans are remarkable in the modern world. They've achieved it using more or less the same rules about 35 times. That's a phenomenal tradition imitated nowhere else. Since beheading a king, the French have had five constititutions and a dictatorship or two.

BTW, the US Supreme Court struck down the Patriot Act.

I agree with Clinton insofar as Chavez isn't hurting anyone else.

Also, who do you think would really be the betting choice for the Security Council? Venezuela, or Guatemala?

Who cares. The Security Council (and UN) are irrelevant now. At this point, Bush Jnr (and Harper) patronized the UN and I'm surprised that no one noticed.

Name Zimbabwe, North Korea, Zaire and Iran to the Security Council. Make them permanent members. Who cares. The Cold War is over and the UN is as useful now as the League of Nations in 1940 or - using my father's expression - it's as useful as a witch's tit.

Ill argue that the UN still has many uses....ignoring the GA and SC for a moent there are many other organizations affiliated with the United Nations doing a lot of work that shouldnt be dismissed

As far as the SC goes....if its so irrelevant than why do nations go to such great lengths to have it justify their military actions. Bush and Blair both spent enormous time at the SC trying to get it to give them chapter 7 authorization against Iraq (which they argue they have.....thats another debatable topic). If it is so irrelevant than why bother? I think the fact that those two nations, especially the US, are on the hook for all the costs associated with the war shows how important SC authorization is. You can bet if it had been clearly authroized by the SC many other nations would be contributing to the war (dont forget the Canadian govts one reason for not being involved was that it was not authorized by the SC). To that end the SC is very relevant...

And even the US loves the SC at times. It enabled them to pick and choose which conflicts they wanted to get involved in during the 90's. By using the SC to determine humanitarian conflicts as threats to international peace for reasons such as causing refugee problems, they could intevene without starting a precedent that would force them into helping out during all humanitarian conflicts without coming across as self-interest motivated jerks.

Just because the Cold War has ended does not make the UN useless...in fact it was the end of the Cold War that enabled the SC to finally start to begin to extend its reach and do something. If Saddam had moved against Kuwait say 5 years earlier we may never have seen chapter 7 resolutions passed against him and things may have played out a lot differently.

Any permanent member on the SC has great interest in seeing the UN continue under its current form (and that includes the United States). They have the ability to use the UN for its purposes and can safeguard against any action taken against them with the veto....whats not to like about that.

[newbie]

deleted

[myata]

Who cares. The Security Council (and UN) are irrelevant now. At this point, Bush Jnr (and Harper) patronized the UN and I'm surprised that no one noticed.

I agree with the assessment about the SC. It's very much lost its legitimacy in the eyes of many and now serves exclusively as a power trading club. Even if it were to be extended now (which in itself may take close to forever given all the underlying power currents), without a trasparent and legitimate framework of delegation, it's bound to have the same problems.

On the UN as a whole though, I'd give it a benefit of doubt: there's a benefit in having a place to talk, even for the sake of it (after all, these were the origins of the "Parliament").

[Remiel]

Latin American countries (with the possible exceptions of Mexico and Costa Rica) have a bad habit of alternating between military rule (often though not always pro-US) and populist, bombastic rulers (often anti-US, sometimes from right, sometimes from left). These gyrations have a disastrous effect on the well-being of the people, since big business generally avoids areas with unpredictable politics (extractive industries such as oil aside).

That's funny, I could of sworn the US was directly responsibly for your " gyrations " . I must have been mistaken, since the US obviously can't harm anybody by backing assassinations and military coups.

[jbg]

Ill argue that the UN still has many uses....ignoring the GA and SC for a moent there are many other organizations affiliated with the United Nations doing a lot of work that shouldnt be dismissed

I would argue that even the so-called "good" parts of the UN are destructive. They are all extremely expensive, with overhead ratios that would put March of Dimes and United Way to shame. Even worse, to the extent that their largesse isn't absorbed by overhead or baksheesh-seeking "leaders" in recipient countries, the actual donors are being deprived of credit for helping. The people in the miserable, earthquake stricken Pakistani or Indonesian villages have no idea that their benefactors, the real contributors, the US and Japanese taxpayers, are vilified by their representatives daily at the UN.

As far as the SC goes....if its so irrelevant than why do nations go to such great lengths to have it justify their military actions. Bush and Blair both spent enormous time at the SC trying to get it to give them chapter 7 authorization against Iraq (which they argue they have.....thats another debatable topic). If it is so irrelevant than why bother? I think the fact that those two nations, especially the US, are on the hook for all the costs associated with the war shows how important SC authorization is. You can bet if it had been clearly authroized by the SC many other nations would be contributing to the war (dont forget the Canadian govts one reason for not being involved was that it was not authorized by the SC). To that end the SC is very relevant...

In a vain attempt to appease mass media like the New York Times, Toronto Star, BBC and CBC.

Just because the Cold War has ended does not make the UN useless...in fact it was the end of the Cold War that enabled the SC to finally start to begin to extend its reach and do something. If Saddam had moved against Kuwait say 5 years earlier we may never have seen chapter 7 resolutions passed against him and things may have played out a lot differently.

Any permanent member on the SC has great interest in seeing the UN continue under its current form (and that includes the United States). They have the ability to use the UN for its purposes and can safeguard against any action taken against them with the veto....whats not to like about that.

It should, must and ultimately will be abolished.

[bradco]

Ill argue that the UN still has many uses....ignoring the GA and SC for a moent there are many other organizations affiliated with the United Nations doing a lot of work that shouldnt be dismissed

I would argue that even the so-called "good" parts of the UN are destructive. They are all extremely expensive, with overhead ratios that would put March of Dimes and United Way to shame. Even worse, to the extent that their largesse isn't absorbed by overhead or baksheesh-seeking "leaders" in recipient countries, the actual donors are being deprived of credit for helping. The people in the miserable, earthquake stricken Pakistani or Indonesian villages have no idea that their benefactors, the real contributors, the US and Japanese taxpayers, are vilified by their representatives daily at the UN.

As far as the SC goes....if its so irrelevant than why do nations go to such great lengths to have it justify their military actions. Bush and Blair both spent enormous time at the SC trying to get it to give them chapter 7 authorization against Iraq (which they argue they have.....thats another debatable topic). If it is so irrelevant than why bother? I think the fact that those two nations, especially the US, are on the hook for all the costs associated with the war shows how important SC authorization is. You can bet if it had been clearly authroized by the SC many other nations would be contributing to the war (dont forget the Canadian govts one reason for not being involved was that it was not authorized by the SC). To that end the SC is very relevant...

In a vain attempt to appease mass media like the New York Times, Toronto Star, BBC and CBC.

Just because the Cold War has ended does not make the UN useless...in fact it was the end of the Cold War that enabled the SC to finally start to begin to extend its reach and do something. If Saddam had moved against Kuwait say 5 years earlier we may never have seen chapter 7 resolutions passed against him and things may have played out a lot differently.

Any permanent member on the SC has great interest in seeing the UN continue under its current form (and that includes the United States). They have the ability to use the UN for its purposes and can safeguard against any action taken against them with the veto....whats not to like about that.

It should, must and ultimately will be abolished.

"It should, must and ultimately will be abolished."

ya really we dont want to at least attempt some form of international cooperation, at least attempt to put forth and follow laws governing armed conflict......its much better to say the hell with it and go back to slogging it out on the battlefield.....

maybe you should realize why the UN was formed....because the leaders who actually lived through the horrors of the second world war wanted to save our sorry asses from its unimaginable destruction...its right in the preamble to the charter "we the peoples of the united nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind"...sounds like pretty honourable intentions to me, too bad theres to many nations (one in particular) concerned primarily with their own self-interest to care about humanity. Ya the UN has its problems and is dysfunctional but its the only option and Ill take it over nothing any day of the week. Because to pick nothing is to pick a state of anarchy that has proven itself time and time again through human history to not be conducive to international peace.