# Should Canada leave the UN?



## Sythen (9 Jun 2012)

Maybe time for a UN dedicated thread?

Either way, this article on Yahoo:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/conservative-mp-larry-miller-suggestion-canada-consider-leaving-174054604.html



> Conservative MP Larry Miller -- yes the same Larry Miller who, in February, compared the long-gun registry to Hitler and Nazis --has stumbled into another controversy.
> 
> The Tory backbencher from Ontario is demanding Canada reconsider its membership in the United Nations after the world body criticized the government for its treatment of alleged war criminals, for its food security and for changes to the refugee system.
> 
> ...



I know its been sort of touched on a few times in other threads, but I would love to see either MAJOR reform at the UN, or for Canada and its allies to form a new body. Whether its ABCANZ or whatever.. countries with similar policies and ways of doing things. Everyone is a fan of saying NATO is becoming useless as well.. Maybe its time we scrapped alliances that no longer matter and make a group that can and will get things done?


----------



## Maxadia (9 Jun 2012)

I think it's time something new is formed.  The UN is becoming the League of Nations of the 21st century - a neutered entity. 

The worst thing will be when one of the large nations finally figures this out, and realizes that it can do whatever it wants by creating a political mess of redtape that the UN will be dealing with while they take action.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Jun 2012)

The UN needs to modernize if its going to have any relevance going forward. Its a self-licking ice cream cone that gives dictators a forum to spout hate (Iran), and the beaurucracy its created is just mind blowing... I don't think we need to leave the UN, but we need to take a harder stand and tell them where to go if they are going to make statements like they recently did ref food/war crimes.


----------



## fraserdw (9 Jun 2012)

RDJP said:
			
		

> I think it's time something new is formed.  The UN is becoming the League of Nations of the 21st century - a neutered entity.
> 
> The worst thing will be when one of the large nations finally figures this out, and realizes that it can do whatever it wants by creating a political mess of redtape that the UN will be dealing with while they take action.



It has always been neutered, the only time it did something useful is when a Veto Vote member was absent or when all the big players wanted to do something.  The Korean Police Action was passed because the Soviet Union stayed away, the Arab-Isreali Wars only ended when the US and USSR agreed that they should end.


----------



## Kalatzi (10 Jun 2012)

Canadian Historian, a first class one at that ,  Gwynne Dyer,   maintaines the UN's main purpose - attained  so far,  preventing an all  out nuclear war. 

Some might not consider all that relevant these days, but I'm sure appreciative    

Another organization????   I have feeling the horse is out of the barn ...


----------



## teabag (10 Jun 2012)

The United Nations charter states that its purpose is:


```
1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
```

It is not a body for unilateral or arbitrary decision making.  It is a reminder that the world does not revolve around us or our allies and that yes, even representatives who have nothing good to say may have a voice on the international stage.  Nations who advocate reform are unable to reach a consensus because they understand that any powers granted to the body could in fact be used against them.  It is hard to be a hypocrite when you have to look everyone in the eye.  

Nations and their allies still get things done.  Just that they would prefer to be able to wipe themselves clean by going through the United Nations first.  If we are implying that things should get done without consideration for international law then we are just a step away from a terrorist organization.  

What sorts of things would you like Canada and its allies to do?  And, can you think of any reason why they would be reluctant to do so?


----------



## Nemo888 (10 Jun 2012)

The UN poorly serves a needed purpose. Just like the League did.

NATO is great. Just doesn't have much to do currently. Both of these entities _*look*_ useless when things are quiet.  If the shite hits the fan they will come in very handy. NATO's "uselessness" is a supreme  testament to how effective it has been.


----------



## Sythen (10 Jun 2012)

Urmimu said:
			
		

> The United Nations charter states that its purpose is:
> 
> 
> ```
> ...



Things like Afghanistan? It wasn't a UN mission, regardless of whether the UN sanctioned it. It was a NATO mission. The UN has countries like Libya and Syria on their Human Rights watch groups, and North Korea heads the Disarmament section. You mention giving a voice to other nations? Like how Iranian and Venezuelan leaders use it to give religious sermons or just talk trash about the USA?

In the last 20 years, what "peace and security" has the UN provided anyone? What threats to peace have been removed by UN action? What "international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character" has the UN solved? In what way has the UN been a "centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends"?

All of these things are done better by other organizations (IMF, G8, G20, etc) so the UN is essentially redundant and a money sink, in my eyes. I'd actually like someone to show me something the UN actually does today that would not be better accomplished by a different organization?


----------



## Sythen (10 Jun 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> NATO is great. Just doesn't have much to do currently. Both of these entities _*look*_ useless when things are quiet.  If the shite hits the fan they will come in very handy. NATO's "uselessness" is a supreme  testament to how effective it has been.



Quiet, except the 10 year shooting war that's just ending, right? Definitely NATO worked out well there, with 3 NATO countries doing all the heavy lifting is definitely a testament to its usefulness.


----------



## Nemo888 (10 Jun 2012)

Compared to WWI, WWII, Korea and the threat of global nuclear annhilation when battling the Soviets,...

It's a police action when put in that context. Our enemy is a negligible threat to most of NATO(probably why they weren't interested) and even to us outside their own borders. No navy, airforce or armour. No comparison really.


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Jun 2012)

Interesting.

I'm not sure that the UN, in its present form, is doing what its intended purpose was in the post-war world.  In spite of everthing, however, by giving any member states a "veto" only suggests that some member states are "more equal" than others, as opposed to being a group of equals.

So, if people don't mind admitting that what we (the West) have as a culture is superior to what they (the Others) have, and this is paid tribute to the fact that They migrate to Us, not the other way around, then perhaps it's time for a new international body.  Perhaps that group would be the Anglosphere.  It would be a neo-English Empire (of sorts), but if the US, the UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada got together and left the UN (even booting its HQ from New York), then what?  Would the UK leave the EU completely?  Would NATO dissolve, or form around a new Europa? 

Thoughts?


----------



## Sythen (10 Jun 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> perhaps it's time for a new international body.



Something that has extremely strict rules for joining/remaining in as a member. If nations want a seat at the table, they must prove they can handle the responsibility by ensuring their own countries are reasonably free, and that they are willing to help and enforce R2P. Things like are happening in Syria, and all over Africa should not be allowed. I don't care much if people call me a war monger or whatever, something needs to be done and the UN is powerless and NATO is useless. I'm not saying that every time something happens that every nation must mobilize, but there should be a reasonably easy way to ensure an equal distribution of the work load. And someone far more intelligent than me could write it up in a way that doesn't allow countries to weasel out of their turn type of thing.


----------



## aesop081 (10 Jun 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> R2P.



You say that like R2P is a good idea.


----------



## GAP (10 Jun 2012)

The easiest way to instill change in the UN is to let it go broke. Stop paying dues like all those other "participating" clowns. 


Then again, the UN provides useful, convenient diplomatic cover sometimes....


----------



## Allgunzblazing (10 Jun 2012)

Technoviking: 

You're bang-on in saying that that folk immigrate west and not the other way round. This includes people from the developed and developing countries in Europe. 

I too am an immigrant, so please bear with me if I'm wrong in saying that as far as culture and governance is concerned - the US, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the UK have a lot of similarities. 

As for the UN, in my opinion and as pointed out by RJDP, it is going the same way as the League of Nations - an organization with no teeth or the conviction to carry out its mandate. The slaughter that is going on in Syria is a fine example. That being said, for Canada to leave the UN might alienate us from a number of trading countries. 

I second your thought about Canada, US, UK, New Zealand and Australia forming an organization limited to themselves only. Apart from better civilian ties, this organization could focus on making our armed forces even more inter-operable.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Jun 2012)

Kalatzi said:
			
		

> Canadian Historian, a first class one at that ,  Gwynne Dyer,   maintaines the UN's main purpose - attained  so far,  preventing an all  out nuclear war.






HUH?

The UN has had little to do with saving the world from "all out nuclear war" since Korea, and possibly not even then.  The US has been the main deterrent to nuclear war, and the US led SEATO and NATO.  SEATO is no more.  Until "the Wall" came down, it was NATO, and Five Eyes that keep the 'Balance of Power' and nuclear threat at bay.  The UN has been a neutered organization, all talk and no real action.  UN Missions have met very little success in any of their world deployments to bring peaceful resolutions to regional disputes.  

Warsaw Pact and NATO brinkmanship maintained the "peace", not the UN and all its ineffective postulations.


----------



## Sythen (10 Jun 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You say that like R2P is a good idea.



Guess you and I differ on this point. I hate sounding like a hippy but if we're not willing to use our strength to help others, then what's the point? It sounds sort of like a Socialist ideal, I know.. But I don't see it that way.. I see it more like Habitat for Humanity.. A hand up, not a hand out. Remove the militias and dictators, and allow the people to forge forward. It didn't work in Afghanistan, because we weren't fully committed. We can do better, and we must do better. We can't advance as a species while some of us live a nightmare every day.


----------



## aesop081 (10 Jun 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> then what's the point?



The problem lies in the rush to help. Take Libya for example. Who did we really support ? We don't know.

R2P is a convenient name for ill-considered interventionism.


----------



## Sythen (10 Jun 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> The problem lies in the rush to help. Take Libya for example. Who did we really support ? We don't know.
> 
> R2P is a convenient name for ill-considered interventionism.



While you're probably right, I really hate that we sit idle. I agree that action for the sake of action is rarely a good idea, but I remember reading something one time.. It was someone's strategy for winning Vietnam back in the day.. Basically make a safe zone, and administer it.. And expand it slowly.. And the people within the zone would slowly become more educated and learn what peace and stability really were.. Soon they would crave it and not want war at all.. And though I can see a million and one holes in this plan, I can see it working with a few adjustments. How does that old saying go? A good plan now rather than a perfect plan next week?

I realize I am sort of derailing my own thread here, but I see a discussion on the UN also focusing on things like the purpose of such a group. Responsibility To Protect I think should be one of the main aims, as I really don't see us going to war with a major power. Not that we wouldn't prepare for that as well, just need to do something..


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Jun 2012)

Canadians identify with being in the UN.

We'll sooner see a national white English male appreciation month than we will see even the slightest flicker of movement towards moving away from being in the UN.


----------



## Rifleman62 (10 Jun 2012)

> Perhaps that group would be the Anglosphere.  It would be a neo-English Empire (of sorts),



Quebec would undoubtedly whine about that.

The UN has been useless for decades. The US should stop paying the bills. We have a bunch of fifth world, no consequence "diplomats" living in Manhattan luxury apartments, riding in limos who would be barefoot living in their own dictatorship country.

The appointments of countries to the various positions in the UN is a joke.

Does Canada have the guts to leave the UN?


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Jun 2012)

Sir Winston Churchill famously said (1954) that: "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war." The UN is the world's top level "jaw jaw" place.

The problems, and here are many, that exist in he UN are minor compared to what it does.

First: don't forget hat the UN is much, much more than the gang in New York. Many of the UN"s member agencies, some over 100 years old, do excellent work on our collective behalf: think of the International Telecommunications Union, the World Health Organization, the International Maritime Organization and the World Intellectual Property Organization. All these agencies would exist even if there was no UN - some existed over 100 years ago before the UN, or even the League of Nations, was born. They, not the gang in New York do the real, day-b-day, essential work of he UN. Consider, just for example, radio frequencies: radio waves do not recognize international boundaries so we need some mechanism to _coordinate_ their use so that e.g. channels used for TV studio to transmitter links in Canada do not interfere with channels, in the same frequency band, used by public safety/first responders in the USA; equally, when you travel to Europe or Asia you want your mobile phone to work seamlessly - someone has to do the highly technical coordination work that ensures that will happen. The ITU does both: one of its output document, the ITU's _Radio Regulaions_, for example, are under constant review and revision by dozens then hundreds and, every few years, thousands of technical experts from many of the ITU's 193 members and the document is a treaty with the same weight in law as e.g. the Canad/US Free Trade Agreement, the Maastricht Treaty (which created the Euro (€) and the North Atlantic Treaty which binds us to NATO. You don't hear much about the ITU or WHO (unless there are fears of a global pandemic) but they ARE the UN in action and the long term consequences of their work actually matter more than the UNSC Resolution that _authorized_ our Afghanistan mission or the one that asked us to intervene, militarily, in Libya in 2011. 

If the UN, imperfect as it is, didn't exist we would be busily inventing it. The Security Council is an anachronism, as was demonstrated nearly 65 years ago (3 Nov 50) when _United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution 377 A_, the _Uniting for Peace_ resolution, was adopted as a means of circumventing further Soviet vetoes during the course of the Korean War. Eventually it, the SC, will wither and die. The staffing of the UN, and many of its members agencies is wasteful, at best, often corrupt - but only a small handful of the UN's 193 member states are, themselves, anything other than inept and corrupt so we ought not to be surprised or even overly concerned when countries like Gabon, Russia and Saudi Arabia are 'elected' to e.g. the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and when UN agencies are staffed with highly paid nincompoops just because they 'represent' a region.

Doing away with the UN is a silly idea - it is far from ideal, but it is better than any alternative.


----------



## aesop081 (10 Jun 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> It was someone's strategy for winning Vietnam back in the day.. Basically make a safe zone, and administer it.. And expand it slowly.. And the people within the zone would slowly become more educated and learn what peace and stability really were.. Soon they would crave it and not want war at all..



Same "ink spot" strategy employed in Afghanistan.

As for R2P, IMHO, we are incapable of considering 2nd, 3rd, and further order effects and we do not have the will and the attention span to follow up for decades.


----------



## Rifleman62 (10 Jun 2012)

I stand by my silly opinion. 

The genocide that has taken place in many states in Africa, in the FRY out weights management of radio waves. 

Let the CRTC take over from the UN.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Jun 2012)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I stand by my silly opinion.
> 
> The genocide that has taken place in many states in Africa, in the FRY out weights management of radio waves.
> 
> Let the CRTC take over from the UN.




Actually, I disagree ~ while the pain and suffering in Africa, and many, many other places are sad, they are part of the _natural_ order of things. It is true that the UN has done precious little to help and, in some cases, has actually made things worse for some people, but no other organization or _grouping_ or _coalition of he willing_ was able to do anything because, simply: no on was willing.

Managing radio waves, on the other hand,  has promoted the exchange of ideas and information and, arguably, has helped people and countries resolve, even prevent problems that could have become crises and wars; managing the radio waves has promoted economic productivity and prosperity, helping to lift millions out of poverty and into, at least, the ranks of the lower middle class; managing the radio waves and similar activities like establishing safety of life at sea standards, international labour standards and flu vaccines (all things that UN member agencies do) has probably saved more lives than international failures to _peacemake_ or _peacekeep_ have cost.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jun 2012)

Many international organizations (especially ones that set standards) predate the UN by decades, such as the International Postal Union. I think what some people are trying to say here is we can and should continue to support these sorts of organizations (even if they now operate more or less under the ambit of the UN), while relying far less on the UN bureaucracy for anything approaching day to day governance.

I certainly care little about what the UN says about anything anymore, get annoyed when their busybodies come here and try to lay down some sort of guilt trip on how badly we do things in Canada and shake my head when we are expected to take seriously an organization that elects criminal regimes to head bodies on human rights or disarmament. The only thing that seems to be worse than the UN sitting aside and doing nothing when conflicts and civil wars break out is when they actually do get involved (see former Yugoslavia, for example).

Since the usual thing in international relations is to make the least worst choice, I suppose we have to agree with Edward that the marginal utility the UN provides on some issues is still worth the expense of maintaining membership, since there are few other alternatives out there.


----------



## Rifleman62 (10 Jun 2012)

> while the pain and suffering in Africa, and many, many other places are sad, they are part of the natural order of things



Agree. Tribalism.


----------



## Rifleman62 (12 Jun 2012)

Russia has reportedly shipped Attack helicopters to Syria. There were photos/video of the helicopters firing at ground targets.The UN refuses to (and Russia also) institute an arms embargo against Syria. 

P.S. It would be ignored anyway.


----------



## 57Chevy (12 Jun 2012)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Russia has reportedly shipped Attack helicopters to Syria. There were photos/video of the helicopters firing at ground targets.The UN refuses to (and Russia also) institute an arms embargo against Syria.
> 
> P.S. It would be ignored anyway.



Shouldn't your post be in the Syrian thread ?

They can't institute an arms embargo because somehow,
international law allows them to comply to contracts
that were made prior to the Syrian crises. 

New demands may be treated differently.


----------



## Sythen (18 Jun 2012)

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/world/archives/2012/06/20120618-161342.html



> OTTAWA - As Canada comes under UN criticism once again - this time for Quebec's new law on demonstrations - some legal experts here are wondering whether it's time Canada reconsiders its membership to the 193-nation international body.
> 
> The UN's top human rights official, Navi Pillay, included Canada in a list of the world's worst on human rights, and criticized Quebec's Bill 78 for restricting freedom of assembly. The emergency legislation requires protesters to notify police eight hours ahead of assembly, restricts education employees' ability to strike and gives the Minister of Education the right to change the act.
> 
> ...



More on link. These are the announcements you get when places like Iran are on the Human Rights committees. I wonder if these recent attacks on Canada by the UN have anything to do with our refusal to send funds to bail out the EU, or our support of Israel?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Jun 2012)

In response to the original question and based on the latest, my answer is ...........................
...


*Yes!*


----------

