What Good Is The Un

[Billy_Dean]

What time is it where you are, btw? It's 1am here. Time for me to head off methinks.

Oh, shit, don't tell me he\she's Australian!

[Biggles]

I believe the veto is a hangover from the cold war and serves no useful purpose.

This cuts both ways.

Would the US and the Uk have managed to obtain UN backing without the veto? - perhaps.

Would the Palestinians feel less isolated and more prepared to engage in real dialogue without the veto? perhaps.

Something which served a purpose when two massive nuclear power blocks faced each other off in the 1950s should not be set in concrete. Let debate and negotiation in the broad forum of the UN take its place.

I appreciate there are vested interests, some poltical and some economic, but if humanity is to move on there needs to be a realignment in the way we deal with each other and, yes, with rogue states.

I also agree with the suggestion that there should (as in the EU) be minimum requirements regarding personal liberty and human rights. People don't try and avoid joining the EU they are falling over themselves to prove they meet these criteria. Turkey, for instance, is trying to turn around years of human rights abuse and has, significantly, not implemented the death penalty for some time now in order to prepare its way for membership.

I didn't really understand the comment regarding the UN's desire to see a reduction in the number of guns out there. I would have thought that was a self evident positive for the world. In the US the annual death toll of children killing themselves accidently with their parents weapons exceeds Europes murder toll of shootings (by quite a margin if I recall correctly). However, I appreciate there is a macho thing about guns in the US and many other countries like Colombia, Afghanistan and Liberia and these toys will not be given up easily.

Remember, the UN is not some alien body - it is simply the sum of its member states. What we need is for that sum to be greater than its component parts not less. It does a power of work in peace-keeping in numerous unsung places around the world and is involved in large numbers of development and teaching projects. Many of the soldiers who don the blue beret have spoken of the pride they felt at being involved in worthwhile projects and wished that their remit and support could have been stronger rather than that they had not been sent in the first place.

In summary , I think that the UN is a useful body and could, with a little goodwill, be even more useful.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Biggles@2 October 2003 - 20:03
I believe the veto is a hangover from the cold war and serves no useful purpose.

This cuts both ways.

Would the US and the Uk have managed to obtain UN backing without the veto? - perhaps.

Would the Palestinians feel less isolated and more prepared to engage in real dialogue without the veto? perhaps.

Something which served a purpose when two massive nuclear power blocks faced each other off in the 1950s should not be set in concrete. Let debate and negotiation in the broad forum of the UN take its place.

I appreciate there are vested interests, some poltical and some economic, but if humanity is to move on there needs to be a realignment in the way we deal with each other and, yes, with rogue states.

I also agree with the suggestion that there should (as in the EU) be minimum requirements regarding personal liberty and human rights. People don't try and avoid joining the EU they are falling over themselves to prove they meet these criteria. Turkey, for instance, is trying to turn around years of human rights abuse and has, significantly, not implemented the death penalty for some time now in order to prepare its way for membership.

I didn't really understand the comment regarding the UN's desire to see a reduction in the number of guns out there. I would have thought that was a self evident positive for the world. In the US the annual death toll of children killing themselves accidently with their parents weapons exceeds Europes murder toll of shootings (by quite a margin if I recall correctly). However, I appreciate there is a macho thing about guns in the US and many other countries like Colombia, Afghanistan and Liberia and these toys will not be given up easily.

Remember, the UN is not some alien body - it is simply the sum of its member states. What we need is for that sum to be greater than its component parts not less.  It does a power of work in peace-keeping in numerous unsung places around the world and is involved in large numbers of development and teaching projects. Many of the soldiers who don the blue beret have spoken of the pride they felt at being involved in worthwhile projects and wished that their remit and support could have been stronger rather than that they had not been sent in the first place.

In summary , I think that the UN is a useful body and could, with a little goodwill, be even more useful.

Are you a mind reader, that is exactly, word for word, what I was going to say.

This post has been brought to you by the punctuation mark - comma

[james_bond_rulez]

Originally posted by Calvarian2003@2 October 2003 - 14:35
I've a better five. I think the world would be a much better place if these five countries were in charge of the Security Council:

1. Libya
2. Syria
3. North Korea
4. Iran
5. China.... oops, too late!

Well who doesn't remember Tianamen Square? Oh wait, the Chinese... because their government controls their newspapers, censors their internet connections and has eliminated freedom of speech or information....

nah China can kick all their asses

North Korea wouldn't dare dissing China

[Biggles]

That is a relief. I had thought I had rather set myself up for a kicking.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Biggles@2 October 2003 - 20:32


That is a relief. I had thought I had rather set myself up for a kicking.

Shouldn't be a relief old bean, my last probably made the kicking more likely, not less.

[Rat Faced]

Nicely put Biggles.

Billy......yes he is


I think we have to get rid of the veto altogether, and look again at the role of the "permanent" members.

I believe these were made permanent because, at the time, they were the only 5 nuclear powers ( I may be wrong, i havent looked it up, and its been a long time since i was at school).........thats changed big time now.

If nuclear weapons is the criteria, then why arent Pakistan, India, Israel, South Africa.....etc etc etc permanent members?

And if some of these get in........

[j2k4]

The U.N. is fine, in theory.

If someone could only tell me why:

Taiwan is not a member of the U.N.?

The U.N. Chair of the Sub-Committee on the "Promotion and Protection of Human Rights" is a Cuban, Miguel Alfonso Martinez?

The Human-Rights Council is dominated by documented abusers of human rights?

The U.N. shouldn't be considered the exemplar of global cronyism and politicization?

Either dissolve it and replace it or pave it over and rebuild it from scratch.

Re-charter it-

Keep the idea; toss the rest.

[Biggles]

J2K4

The first one is easy

China has one of those damned vetos.

As to the compostion of various councils - well, is it a problem? The most common criticism of the UN is that these bodies are too politically correct and liberal. This would suggest that, regardless of domestic politics, the individuals selected do subscribe to the UN principles of human rights. Can't remember the last time a UN report said there should be more executions and torture not less.

The UN tends to appoint the able within its ranks and they are expected to serve all nations without reference to their own domestic politics. I think if someone was seen to be simply following narrow parochial interests they wouldn't last long. Whilst it is true that Cuba is not the most democratic country on the planet it does not necessarily follow that the individual you cite is not a good and honourable man.

On a more general level, specifically in the main gathering of ambassadors there is, unfortunately, politicisation - most of the ambassadors have to answer to political masters. I can't see, in the medium term at least, a replacement body that would be free from all political interference. I am not even sure if that would be desireable or practical.

However, If someone has a blueprint for a better body I would happily support it, but I wouldn't get rid of the current body until the whites of the eyes of the replacement were visible.

[j2k4]

I believe that for any organization that encompasses a widely disparate collection of interests, such as those of the membership of the U.N., to assume an inherent "chartered" resistance to unilateral interests is, as we say here in the U.S., whistleing Dixie".

Were the "Great Man Theory" more reliable, and "Great Men" in greater abundance, I could find myself a supporter of an international body such as the U.N., provided these Great Men were lining up for Kofi Annan's slot, but, alas, they are not.

There is no MAN capable of leading such an organization as the U.N., and that is the only thing that can make it work.


Biggles: I'm aware that China's veto is the reason; I am disappointed in my own country for not confronting them on the stupid intransigence of their insupportable position; those who think the U.S. "runs" the U.N. ignore such things.

Edit:Biggles/China addend.