U.N.'s new leader

[mcqueen625]

South Korea is maintaining ties with North Korea even after they exploded a nuclear bomb accoring to a news article. They are funding a tourist destination and an industrail project which is pumping large amounts of money to the North Korean government's coffers. This makes me question the relevance of the U.N. considering the proposed new leader replacing corrupt Koffi, is from South Korea. I believe that the U.N. has become a non-starter and a total waste of our tax dollars.

The U.N. supposedly just imposed strict sanctions on this isolated regime, and for South Korea to continue on business as usual seems to undermine the international communities will regarding North Korea and it nuclear capabilities to wage war, and to have a new leader of the U.N. coming from South Korea is even more bizarre.

Maybe it's time to cut our losses and cut off fiunding to this useless bureaucracy called the U.N. If we want to donate foreign aid ourselves without the U.N. and teh World Bank, at least we will have accountability and credit on the ground for our contributions. As it now stands neither the U.N. nor the World Bank are obliged to disclose what our foreign aid contributions are spent on nor whcih countries the money is used. For all we know this money could be going to North Korea, and China while millions of their people starve why they spend enormous sums on theri militaries.

[Figleaf]

Questioning the relevance of the UN is kind of un-American. The US drove the creation of the UN, and recently we have seen the US administration turning there to address the NK

nuke 'crisis'. Shurely America wouldn't do that if it were as bad an orgsnization as you suggest!

[Remiel]

To what extent is the Secretary General beholden to their own countries government though? If the answer is that they aren't beholden in their duties, then it would be patently ridiculous to exclude someone based on their country of origin. Using that logic, Albert Einstein should of been disqualified from the Manhattan Project on the sole grounds that he was from Germany.

[myata]

UN is a vast organisation with wide variety of mandates some of which (e.g. WHO or Atomic agency) seem to be working well. The main issues which are also interrelated, are legitimacy of UNSC and enforcement of its decisions. UNSC in its current form is absolutely skewed toward West (3 of 5 permanent members = 60% of veto holding power representing less than 10% of this planets' population). Because of that, it's decisions are often suspected of bias and interference and have problems finding resources to enforce them. The answer - I don't know. It's very unlikely that any of the permanent members would voluntarily agree to part with the seat. And as for adding new members - the arguments can go on forever.

[Riverwind]

The U.N. supposedly just imposed strict sanctions on this isolated regime, and for South Korea to continue on business as usual seems to undermine the international communities will regarding North Korea and it nuclear capabilities to wage war, and to have a new leader of the U.N. coming from South Korea is even more bizarre.

An war with North Korea would result in the deaths of millions (I am not exaggerating either) of South Koreans from the conventional weapons that North Korea has had for years. South Korea would also be faced with a huge economic crisis if the North Korean regime collapsed suddenly. IOW, I don't think any of us have a right to criticize SK for a go slow approach. The US is a guarantor of SK security so they would have a legitimate concern but it is up to the US - not the UN - to discuss that issue with SK as part of their military agreements.

[jbg]

UN is a vast organisation with wide variety of mandates some of which (e.g. WHO or Atomic agency) seem to be working well.

Atomic energy? Working well? Exhibits are NK and Iran. I don't think so.

I consider SK's dalliance with NK understandable. They do not want the wave of destitute refugees that would come from the liberation of NK.

The main issues which are also interrelated, are legitimacy of UNSC and enforcement of its decisions. UNSC in its current form is absolutely skewed toward West (3 of 5 permanent members = 60% of veto holding power representing less than 10% of this planets' population). Because of that, it's decisions are often suspected of bias and interference and have problems finding resources to enforce them. The answer - I don't know. It's very unlikely that any of the permanent members would voluntarily agree to part with the seat. And as for adding new members - the arguments can go on forever.

If it weren't skewed to the West (who funds the UN) it's highly unlikely the UNSC or the UN would receive funding. Who's going to fund the UN? Burundi?

[myata]

For a security organ, it's essential (and in my view) critical for its successful mission to be be seen as "fair". Current state of affairs gives someone like Iranian president grounds to call it illegitimate and biased.

Funding is only one of the issues and probably one of the easiest to solve. Fair composition, mandate and process for UNSC is far more challenging. Without going deep into specifics, in my view the special power such as veto should be distributed across the whole world, e.g.:

US; EU; China; India; Pakistan; Brazil; Africa (one of countries on rotating basis or organization such OAS); probably Russia too at least in the first phase because it'll never agree to let go of the priviledge.

Even if it'll make decision making process more complicated and less predictable, the benefit of perceived legitimacy will be more important in the long run.

[mcqueen625]

South Korea is maintaining ties with North Korea even after they exploded a nuclear bomb accoring to a news article. They are funding a tourist destination and an industrail project which is pumping large amounts of money to the North Korean government's coffers. This makes me question the relevance of the U.N. considering the proposed new leader replacing corrupt Koffi, is from South Korea. I believe that the U.N. has become a non-starter and a total waste of our tax dollars.

The U.N. supposedly just imposed strict sanctions on this isolated regime, and for South Korea to continue on business as usual seems to undermine the international communities will regarding North Korea and it nuclear capabilities to wage war, and to have a new leader of the U.N. coming from South Korea is even more bizarre.

Maybe it's time to cut our losses and cut off fiunding to this useless bureaucracy called the U.N. If we want to donate foreign aid ourselves without the U.N. and teh World Bank, at least we will have accountability and credit on the ground for our contributions. As it now stands neither the U.N. nor the World Bank are obliged to disclose what our foreign aid contributions are spent on nor whcih countries the money is used. For all we know this money could be going to North Korea, and China while millions of their people starve why they spend enormous sums on theri militaries.

I'm basically questioning the viability of the U.N. period considering the fact that even when sanctions are ordered getting some countries like France, China and Russia to comply wuth them is shaky at best, and even less likely if those countries are doing business with them, as was the case with Iraq. There was supposed to be an oil for food program which all of these countries mentioned above skirted, and even Koffi's son was embroiled in that scandal, as was Maurice Strong, Paul Martin's friend. All of those involved in the skirting of those sanctions, made mega-dollars skirting them.

The U. N. at this point can't or won't even enforce their own sanctions which member states agreed to unanimously IE: Sudan Orders U.N. Envoy to Leave Country . Why because he was telling it like it is? The U.N. ordered an international force to intervene into the Sudan to stop the killing, raping and looting in Danfur, but the Sudanese government has now said that they will attack and such force. What good is the U.N. if they don't even have the where-with-all to tell Kartoum that those tropps are coming whether they like it or not. For some reason the Sudanese government is attempting to bring up the Jewish conspiracy into this fight, when they have nothing whatsoever to do with this. This is all about a totalitarian state killing their own people, and the U.N. does not have the balls to stop them.

[jbg]

US; EU; China; India; Pakistan; Brazil; Africa (one of countries on rotating basis or organization such OAS); probably Russia too at least in the first phase because it'll never agree to let go of the priviledge.

Even if it'll make decision making process more complicated and less predictable, the benefit of perceived legitimacy will be more important in the long run.

I can guarantee you one thing; with such a composition, we're out of there, both moneywise and obedience-wise.

[myata]

Well, if anything, it's at least attempting to be fair (not very likely to happen though). It's understandable that you prefer the others to be the obedient side, but it can only work both ways.

[jbg]

Well, if anything, it's at least attempting to be fair (not very likely to happen though). It's understandable that you prefer the others to be the obedient side, but it can only work both ways.

You remember the golden rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules".

[myata]

I do, as long as he who makes the rules doesn't preach freedom and democracy.

[mcqueen625]

I do, as long as he who makes the rules doesn't preach freedom and democracy.

I would prefer someone who preaches freedom and democracy, rather than be under the thumb of a totalitarian regime such as China, who has one of the worst human rights records in the world. The U.N. has become a toothless tiger, and if they can't even enforce their own resolutions which were unamously supported by member states, than what is it's prupose. You can't vote on sanctions at the U.N. and then go home and speak and act as if the vote never took place. That is exactly what some of teh member states is doing including China and South Korea.

Back in the days when Saddam was still runnig rough-shod over his own peoples, several votes took place at the U.N. regarding escalating sanctions to bring this rogue state into line, but countries like France, Russia and China balked at enforcing those sanctions, and many individuals from those countries made $million by skirting the sanctions, and maknig side deals for ill gotten oil credits. Koffi's own son was involved in that scandal himself, and we will never know whether Koffi himself was involved.

The U.N. became reduntant when it was unable to fulfill it function of protecting human rights around the world. The most hypocrital part of the U.N. is that countries can still become member states even if they abuse their own people, like China, Iran, Iraq, Cuba, Venezuela, etc, etc. The U.N. should be totally disbanded and started anew with only countries who have demacratic principals and human rights legislation, that is enforced. If one of these countries ceases to be a democracy they should immediately be expelled from the organization. The excuse way back was to allow China to join and they would adopt freedoms and human rights for their people. How many years ago was it that China was made a member of the U.N. and they are still denying freedom and human rights to their own people, and the U.N. even gave them a veto on the Security Council, what a hypocritical organization.

[myata]

UN cannot and will not be better than the average of the countries of this world. To think that it can somehow "lead the way" or force better, more progressive way of life on its members is a total illusion (and, as Iraq example shows, can lead to delusion). The choice is between making it work in the world as it is now, or not to have it at all. The nations will not agree to dictate even if it's coming from benevolent "democratic" source.

[jbg]

UN cannot and will not be better than the average of the countries of this world. To think that it can somehow "lead the way" or force better, more progressive way of life on its members is a total illusion (and, as Iraq example shows, can lead to delusion). The choice is between making it work in the world as it is now, or not to have it at all. The nations will not agree to dictate even if it's coming from benevolent "democratic" source.

I couldn't have said it better. The money that the US pours into the UN could be far better spent on direct aid, or "Peace Corps" type activity.

[bradco]

South Korea is maintaining ties with North Korea even after they exploded a nuclear bomb accoring to a news article. They are funding a tourist destination and an industrail project which is pumping large amounts of money to the North Korean government's coffers. This makes me question the relevance of the U.N. considering the proposed new leader replacing corrupt Koffi, is from South Korea. I believe that the U.N. has become a non-starter and a total waste of our tax dollars.

What good is the U.N. if they don't even have the where-with-all to tell Kartoum that those tropps are coming whether they like it or not.

The failure to do anything in Sudan is because no country cares enough to get invovled. (ie.there is no oil in the region....just poor, starving black people) The UNSC did its job and authorized force. If you feel something needs to be done send a letter off to your prime minister and tell him to get togther with other nations and send some troops.

[myata]

I have seriouos doubts that after Iraq the mantra with "authorised force" will work anymore (or at least, for a long time). UN needs a renewal process, including improving its credibility, legitimacy and policies. That should include some kind of a solution for a standby force (or Peace Corp), authorised by a balanced and representative organ.

[jbg]

I have seriouos doubts that after Iraq the mantra with "authorised force" will work anymore (or at least, for a long time). UN needs a renewal process, including improving its credibility, legitimacy and policies. That should include some kind of a solution for a standby force (or Peace Corp), authorised by a balanced and representative organ.

Suspending its operations and imploding its physical building would help.