# Has the UN proven itself to be impotent? Who Cares? Road Ahead?



## Student Sapper (20 Mar 2003)

Is the UN proven to be ineffective now?  Is that what the last few days have proven?

France would Veto any motion that could eventually lead to war, and the USA would Veto anything that would not authorise war now.  Both countries claimed to have the support of the majority of voting nations . . .so why threaten a Veto?  We will never know what the world thinks.

Would elimination of Veto powers make the UN a more effective instrument of the international voice?


----------



## Bert (20 Mar 2003)

I think the UN has served its purpose well in the current situation, perhaps not as well as what was hope in its idealistic beginning.

The reality is every country is like an individual.  Everyone has their own interests, hopes, desires,
and agenda.  The very act of creating a forum where the "individuals" can talk and discuss is an achievement in and of itself.  The UN has many agencies that do make a difference in the poorer parts of the world.  In this respect, I think the UN is unchanged.  The UN is not obligated to find solutions but facilitates the way to find solutions only if the parties seek that avenue.

The United States has its own reasons and justification for invading Iraq.  The situation is much more personal to the US than France or Russia. Other countries do not agree or are not of the same opinion.  At least there was a process of discussion.

The veto system is dysfunctional and self serving.  Yet, in a security council of many members, concensus is hard to achieve too.

Without a process over-haul to solve all problems, I think the UN as an institution is not impotent as its potency is self-serving.  Could people expect too much?


----------



## Infanteer (30 Apr 2003)

Here's a good summation of my support for the future of the UN.   I've heard similar stories from my Ptn Warrant on scams these clowns pulled in Somalia and Yugo.   If you ask me, Canada should pull right on out of the UN.

 http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?id=8D176C1C-C288-431D-A0D1-85D61A68219B 

The United Nations: Unfit to govern
   
Mark Steyn   
National Post 


Monday, April 28, 2003
ADVERTISEMENT 

   
Iraq: Should the UN have "a" vital role, as Messrs. Bush and Blair have suggested? Or should it have "the" vital role, as M. Chirac is demanding?

If you want the short answer to that question, consider the matter of whether UN sanctions should now be lifted, so that Iraqis can sell their oil and start rebuilding their country. Here is the official Russian response:

"This decision cannot be automatic," says the Foreign Minister with a straight face. "For the Security Council to take this decision, we need to be certain whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or not."

Got that? Last month, the Russians were opposed to war on the grounds that there was no proof Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. This month, the Russians are opposed to lifting sanctions on the grounds that there's no proof Iraq doesn't have weapons of mass destruction.

There are a few striped-pants masochists in the State Department who enjoy this sort of thing and have spent the last four weeks pining for M. Chirac to walk all over them in steel-tipped stilettos one more time. But most Americans, given a choice between being locked in Security Council negotiations with the Russians, French and Germans or being fed feet-first into one of Saddam's industrial shredders, would find it a tough call.

You don't have to be a genius to see that, since September 11th, we have entered a transitional phase in world affairs. But reasonable people are prone to reasonableness and, as I mentioned the other day, they're especially vulnerable to the seductive power of inertia in human affairs. The wish not to have to update one's Rolodex burns fiercely in the political breast. Brent Scowcroft, George Bush Sr.'s National Security Advisor, wanted to stick with the Soviet Union even after the Politburo had given up on it. The European Union was committed to the preservation of Yugoslavia even when there had ceased to be a Yugoslavia to preserve. In the Middle East, clinging to the status quo even as it's melting and dripping on to your shoes is one reason why the region is now a problem. You may recall G. W. Hunt's famous 19th-century London music-hall song, the one that introduced a new word for the kind of militant patriotism most distasteful to the enlightened soul:

"We don't want to fight, but, by jingo if we do,

We've got the ships, we've got the men,

we've got the money too ..."

What's often overlooked is what all this flag-waving was in aid of:

"We've fought the bear before

And while we're Britons true

The Russians shall not have Constantinople."

Why? Because the British coveted it? Not at all. Her Majesty's Government was interested in cherrypicking the odd isle and emirate -- Cyprus here, Oman there -- but, other than that, they were committed to maintaining the Ottoman Empire: all that jingoistic rabble-rousing not for British glory but just to keep some other fellows' simpleton sultan on his throne. The Middle East is in its present condition in part because the European powers kept propping up the Turkish Empire decades after it had ceased to be prop-up-able. It would have been much better for all concerned if Britain had got its hands on Syria, Mesopotamia and Arabia in the 1870s rather than four decades later. But, even in the later stages of the Great War, after the British had comprehensively sliced and diced Turkey from top to toe, London's official position was that somehow the Ottoman Empire should be glued back together and propped up till the next war.

Now another Middle Eastern war has come and gone, and the bien-pensants are anxious that once again an obsolescent institution be glued back together and propped in position. This time it's the UN. The editors of Britain's Spectator concede it has more than its share of "irritating do-gooders," but surely even that's a euphemism: The do-gooders are, in fact, do-badders. The "oil-for-palaces" program (as Tommy Franks calls it) is a grotesque boondoggle even by UN standards: It was good for bureaucrats, good for Saddam's European bankers, good for his British stooge George Galloway, but bad for the Iraqi people. A humanitarian operation meant to help a dictator's beleagured subjects has instead enriched the UN by over $1-billion (officially) in "administrative" costs. There's no oversight, no auditing, nothing most businesses would recognize as a legitimate invoice, and, although non-essential items can only be approved by the Secretary-General himself, Kofi Annan (Mister Legitimacy) has personally signed off on practically anything Saddam requested, including "boats," from France.

You don't have to agree (though I do) with George Jonas that the UN is a fully fledged member of the axis of evil to recognize that there's little point in going to war to install yet another branch office of UNSCAM. If the problem is America's image in the Arab world, in what way does it help to confine the Stars and Stripes brand to unpleasant things like bombs while insisting all the nice post-war reconstructive stuff be clearly labelled with the UN flag? If the answer is that that's the price you pay for healing the rift with Old Europe, that presupposes Old Europe is interested in healing it. Tony Blair may be keen, but the Continentals have different agendas. Will the Belgian government approve the complaint against Tommy Franks for "genocide"? The petition accuses the General of "inaction in the face of hospital pillaging," which apparently meets the Belgian definition of genocide. Unlike the deaths of over three million people, which is the lowball figure for those who've died in the current civil war in the Congo -- or, as I still like to think of it, the Belgian Congo.

The Congo's civil war is everything the NIONists (Not In Our Name) claimed Bush's war would be: There were more civilian deaths in a few hours in Ituri province last week than in the entire Iraq campaign; while the blowhards at Oxfam and co -- the Big Consciences lobby -- insist on pretending that Iraq is a humanitarian disaster, there's an actual humanitarian disaster going on in the Congo, complete with millions of children dead from disease and malnutrition. While the lefties warned that Ariel Sharon would use the cover of the Iraq war to slaughter the Palestinians, the Congolese are being slaughtered, and you don't need any cover. Because nobody cares. Because no arrogant Americans or sinister Zionists are involved.

The Congo is a useful reminder of the laziness of the term "Western imperialism." There's Belgian imperialism, which, as the Congo continues to demonstrate, is a sewer. And then there's Anglo-Saxon nation-building, which, from India to Belize, works quite well, given the chance. St Lucia, Mauritius, Tuvalu and Papua New Guinea, to pluck four at random, have enjoyed the attributes of a free society a lot longer than, say, Greece, Portugal and Spain, which were dictatorships a quarter-century ago. The argument of my old friend Ghazi Algosaibi, the Saudi Minister of Water, that freedom is "European" is not borne out by the facts. If Latin Americans, Pacific islanders, and even the Muslims of south Asia can live in liberty, it's surely a little racist to suggest that Arabs are uniquely incapable of so doing. Had Britain begun administering Mesopotamia in 1877 instead of 1917, we wouldn't even be asking the question.

But if you want to turn a long-shot into a surefire failure, there's no better way than handing post-war Iraq from the Americans to the UN -- the successors to the Belgian school of nation-building. At best, you'll end up with Cambodia, where the UN has colluded in the nullification of democracy, or the Balkans, where once-functioning jurisdictions are reduced to the level of geopolitical tenements with the UN as slum landlord in perpetuity. At worst, you'll wind up with the West Bank "refugee" "camps,"the most extreme reminder of how the UN has little interest in solving problems, only in establishing bureaucracies to manage them. Washington should ignore the French, dare the Russians to veto, let the Iraqis turn on the spigots, and pay no attention to "do-gooders."


----------



## RCA (30 Apr 2003)

If not the UN, then who becomes the arbitrator. The US and their vested interests?


----------



## Pugil (30 Apr 2003)

Theres a saying that says; The US makes the supper and the UN washes the dishes. The UN has always been around for humatarian aids. Maybe it doesnt have the political and military power but it did a heck of a good job to support poor countries in their fight against poverty, injustice, illness and malnultrition. The UN has many organisation that help poor countries to develop and taking it out is cutting the lifeline for those countries.


----------



## Infanteer (30 Apr 2003)

I am sure anyone will tell you, that seeing UN aid in action first hand, they might not live up to your expectations.
Anyways here what your arbitrator has been up to keeping US interests in check....

 http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?id=924ABDCD-83DD-456F-BFFB-2F35557468BA 

Because dictators have human rights too

Steven Edwards  
National Post 


Wednesday, April 30, 2003
ADVERTISEMENT 


UNITED NATIONS - For human rights advocates, yesterday‘s session of a UN council on rights was like a nightmare come true.

Members elected or re-elected a slew of countries with appalling human rights records to the UN Human Rights Commission, the world body‘s foremost rights watchdog.

The election comes four days after the commission ended its annual six-week session, during which members formed blocs to prevent discussion of alleged rights violations in Zimbabwe.

They also ended scrutiny of Sudan and rejected a resolution condemning Russia‘s record in Chechnya.

Presented with a resolution on Cuba, they failed to approve an amendment criticizing the country‘s crackdown on the opposition, and only narrowly approved a call for Havana to receive a human rights investigator.

The final day of the session saw Muslim countries band together to block the commission‘s first-ever consideration of rights for homosexuals similar to those already won in Canada and other Western countries.

Among those retaining their seats in yesterday‘s election were Russia and Cuba, which have a habit of ignoring the commission‘s rulings against them. New members with equally questionable backgrounds include Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Egypt.

The United States walked out in protest at the re-election of Cuba, suggesting it was "like putting Al Capone in charge of bank security."

"It was an outrage for us because we view Cuba as the worst violator of human rights in this hemisphere," said Sichan Siv, U.S. ambassador to the the UN Economic and Social Council, which conducted yesterday‘s election.

As the Human Rights Commission met in Geneva a few weeks ago, he noted, Cuban authorities "rounded up 78 opposition leaders, independent journalists, librarians, and put them in jail and sentenced them to up to 20 years in prison."

At the same time, Cuba arrested three alleged hijackers seeking to escape to Florida and put them before a firing squad within a week. "No trial, no justice, no nothing," Mr. Siv said.

Even before the latest elections, Human Rights Watch, the New York-based monitoring group, described the UN Human Rights Commission as a "who‘s who" of rights abusers.

Canada, the United States and several European countries are among the commission‘s 53 members, but are frequently outvoted.

"Cuba and Russia each have very serious human rights problems and have failed to co-operate with the commission despite many resolutions against them," said Joanna Weschler, UN representative for Human Rights Watch. "It‘s outrageous that they should be rewarded for this performance with another term on the commission."

Yesterday‘s election was conducted by the UN‘s 54-member Economic and Social Council, which is responsible for improving the quality of people‘s lives.

The commission has urged Cuba to admit a UN rights investigator for years, to no avail. Cuba responded to the latest request by again refusing, then claiming a "moral victory" for having avoided a stronger condemnation.

Russia‘s avoidance of criticism this year is an indication of how a strategy of winning a seat on the commission along with other abusers can render it ineffective.

The commission is meant to identify human rights abuses, then pressure governments into changing their behaviour.

Canada, which will seek re-election in 2004, had backed a Brazilian initiative to have the commission express "deep concern at the occurrence of violations of human rights in the world against persons on the grounds of their sexual orientation."

While Western countries have ended laws criminalizing private consensual gay sex, most Muslim states and some non-Muslim developing countries have not followed suit. Penalties range from imprisonment to death.

The Brazilian proposal was too much for Libya, Pakistan, Malaysia, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

With Libya chairing the session, the group engineered a filibuster that resulted in the debate being postponed until next year.

"We will not allow this commission to impose that value system," said Shaukat Umer, the Pakistani ambassador. "You can defeat our amendments. We have a hundred others."

Muslim countries frequently use their seats on the commission to push through rulings against Israel, but rejected Canada‘s proposal to have the session resume in a few weeks to debate homosexual rights.

"At least it will be on the agenda for next year," said a Canadian official optimistically.

Observers said the Muslim states came up with any excuse to play for time.

"It was a circus," said Andrew Srulevitch, executive director of Geneva-based UN Watch, another monitoring group.

"The Libyan chair accepted no end of questions about procedure. What does this rule mean? What does that rule mean? When someone suggested shortening the lunch break from two hours to one hour to give more time to debate, the Malaysians said that the Muslim delegates had to go and pray, because it was a Friday."


----------



## RCA (30 Apr 2003)

So th4 question if the UN is dismatled, would that create a vacuum, and if it did who woyuld fill it, out would the UN go out like a wimper and nobody would notice.

The UN is far from perfect, but I don‘t hear any alternatives.


----------



## Pikache (30 Apr 2003)

I do think UN is going down the same road as the League of Nations.

It seems that when US withdraws support for a global institution, it goes down the hill...

UN has its problems, but UN has also done a lot of good, and I think it‘s still worth having around, just needs to be fixed.

And it seems that NATO is falling apart too...


----------



## devil39 (26 Sep 2004)

Victor Davis Hanson comments on the UN penchant for inefficiency, corruption and dictator coddling, concluding that the UN is on its way out, and will end not with a bang but with a whimper (in the words of TS Eliot).

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005658


A similar article from David Brooks today comments on the futility of the UN multilateral approach, as demonstrated with the handling of the current Sudan crisis.   Brooks argues this is yet another in a long line of UN failures to act in defense of humanity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/25/opinion/25brooks.html


This reminds of the Ralph Peters argument from a couple of years ago.   In essence Peters said a UN that has Libya chairing the Human Rights commission (as one of many examples) is a spent and useless organization.   He advocated a league of responsible and/or democratic nations to replace the ineffective and inefficient UN.   A league that would have the courage and the moral authority to make the hard decisions wrt interventions in the world.


----------



## Bert (26 Sep 2004)

From my point of view, its hard for us to know what happens in the UN and behind closed
doors.  We understand loosely the mandate of the UN, its charters, and various positions
held by countires and regions.  We see proceedings and opinions in the news and events 
around the world and wonder what the heck is going wrong.

From another point of view, it is an understatement to say it is a challenge to get a consensus
from 200 individuals let alone sovereign countries.  If a consensus is reached, then to acquisition
of the resources to carry out the actions or recommendations.  

Is it possible the general perception that the UN must always come to an consensus or solution
given varied opinions, agendas, and motives is naive?  To me, the UN succeeds not because of its
results, but it provides an forum and a method to solving problems. If blame should be cast, it should
be on members of the UN for their own selfishness (warranted or not) and not the UN itself.


----------



## pbi (26 Sep 2004)

Stop that,  > 39--stop that right now. Leave poor little Khofi alone and behave yourself!!




> This reminds of the Ralph Peters argument from a couple of years ago.  In essence Peters said a UN that has Libya chairing the Human Rights commission (as one of many examples) is a spent and useless organization.  He advocated a league of responsible and/or democratic nations to replace the ineffective and inefficient UN.  A league that would have the courage and the moral authority to make the hard decisions wrt interventions in the world.



Ok. Ummmm-and just what countries would those be. Wait....let me guess. OK. Did I get it? Did I get it?


Not a very PC thought,  > 39. Go back in your pogue corner. ( I can say that because I am a warrior pogue)  :rage: ;D

Cheers.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Sep 2004)

2 people at a table can come to a decision

3 people at a table might be able to come to an unhappy decision

200 people at a table - barroom brawl breaks out over who's going to pick up the tab.

UN and EU, no hopers.

Cheers.


----------



## devil39 (26 Sep 2004)

Bert said:
			
		

> From my point of view, its hard for us to know what happens in the UN and behind closed
> doors.   We understand loosely the mandate of the UN, its charters, and various positions
> held by countires and regions.   We see proceedings and opinions in the news and events
> around the world and wonder what the heck is going wrong.



But it's not too hard too know what isn't happening at the UN.   The track record in the last 15 years is not stellar.



			
				Bert said:
			
		

> From another point of view, it is an understatement to say it is a challenge to get a consensus
> from 200 individuals let alone sovereign countries.   If a consensus is reached, then to acquisition
> of the resources to carry out the actions or recommendations.
> 
> ...



I guess I would ask if the UN is actually succeeding at anything?   What problems is it solving?   I think it may have served a purpose in the Cold War as a means of keeping two opposing superpowers at a table talking.   Today?


----------



## pbi (26 Sep 2004)

Having been on a few UN Ops (as many on this board have been), I can only echo  > 39's comments. If the UN can not prove itself relevant in a geopolitical, crisis-action sense, it is probably irrelevant except to deal with social welfare issues. To be fair, the US has probably dealt it a body blow over Iraq. Maybe we just expect too much from it: after all, it isn't really a government. Cheers.


----------



## Bartok5 (26 Sep 2004)

PBI,

Ah, but therein lies the rub.   The UN as currently configured cannot even prove iteself worthy in a global "crisis action sense".   Heck - the UN can't even cobble together a timely and meaningful disaster-assistance package for it's latest "flavour of the day" in Haiti.

The UN is a "has been", right up there in terms of relevance with the League of Nations.   To hang our natiional hat upon such a manifestly dysfunctional institution is to invite irrelevance followed promptly by defeat.   The UN has become an increasing joke - it is nothing more than a trivial mouth-piece forum for nations which lack the wherewithal to actually DO something about their own plights or those of their neighbors.   

Even Paul Martin had the "liberal 'nads" to tear a hypocritical strip off the UN over the Sudan situation last week.   And look where that is headed.   The answer would be.....nowhere.   If we as Canadians were serious about our national/humanitarian hand-wringing over the ongoing genocide in Darufar, then we would be deploying military forces.   But of course (rather conveniently), there is nothing left in the shop window.   We've been exhausted by the very people who have the utter gall to chastise the world community for their lack of action.   Oh, the irony.....


----------



## Bert (26 Sep 2004)

Perhaps, but who do you think represents issues in the UN?  The UN has its own staff and agencies, yet
the members of the UN are representatives of the each country's government.  Of course each
government/country has its own agenda, interests, and biases.  Its not so different getting 200 people together
to form a consensus.  The UN is the forum and the method, but not the central entity that creates solutions.
Solutions come from the joint actions and consensus of the members.

Each country by being a member of the UN agrees to the UN Charter and certain obligations.  Good luck enforcing
that.  It doesn't force a country to act, agree, or decide on global issues or crisis.

Its not alot different from Canadian Parliament.  I have no idea whether my Federal MP votes in the Legislature
using the consensus of the Riding or his/her own judgement.  They argue out issues in the House of Commons
and come to a mostly partisan conclusion by a vote of ayes or nays.  

Anyways, the UN matters.  I speculate alot of potential world problems have been addressed either formally or
informally in the theatres or back rooms of the UN.  The responsibility lies with the collective nature of the
member countries and the best self-centered consensus they can achieve.  Resolutions of this nature I believe 
cannot be taken for granted.


----------



## CDNsig (26 Sep 2004)

The UN, by its very definition, will always be irrelevant... The posters who stated you will never achieve a consensus with 200 delegates working at cross purposes are absolutely correct. In fact, most of the member states hold values that are completely at odds with Western democracy; why else would we see such obstruction, wilful blindness, and lack of action on such issues as human rights abuses committed by member states? (unless the accused is a Western democratic nation; then the UN can't pump out resolutions fast enough...) Hence, we have had total inaction on issues such as Rwanda, Yugo, Sudan, etc. Meanwhile, this organisation busies itself with sending monitors to the U.S. to ensure the elections are "fair", condemns Israel for defending itself against organisations that want to annihlate it, and complains nations such as Canada practice systematic "racism" against their native peoples... What a farce! :
   No wonder there is a growing lobby in the USA to pull out of the UN. They and few other democratic   countries pay most of the bills, and yet are constantly reviled by nations whose sorry track records give them absolutely no right to critisise others... My feeling is that the quickest way to reform the UN, short of abolishing it, would be for Western nations to simply stop picking up the tab...


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Sep 2004)

Everyone keeps writing as if the peons in the General Assembly held sway.  The real decisions at the UN are made in the Security Council.  Reforming that modest body to minimize obstructionism would do a great deal to reform the UN.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Sep 2004)

The Question there Brad, is who is going to lead the charge to give up the veto?  Even for the two countries most inclined to give up the veto, the UK and France, even if their politicians decided to give it up it would be political death at home.  The Russians and the Chinese aren't lining up to hand over their power, nor is the US likely to even if, as I do, you consider it a benign power.  The Russians and the Chinese perceive the veto as an opportunity to protect themselves against the US and control the actions of the US.  The US sees the veto as its opportunity to prevent the rest of the international community ganging up on the world's number one target (or sole super-power if you like).

Sometimes, the only way to affect change is to admit that what is, is not working.  Everybody needs to stand up, close down the existing forum, walk away and then have a reorg.   In the interim some very hard lessons will be visited on many parties.  People will be reminded of lessons forgotten and others will learn new lessons.


----------



## Genetk44 (26 Sep 2004)

I've always thought that the concept behind the UN was a good idea, and that it was at least trying to do a good job...ok,ok, we all know of its' many faults,shortcomeings,the corruption,incompetence and so forth......but at least it was worth a try. But if putting Libya in the head seat of the Human Rights Commision  wasn't bad enough then the straw that broke the camels' back for me was the huge amount of applause that Robert(Gangsta)Mugabe got the other day for his speech. To me it just showed the moral corruption and political partisanship of the members. Might be time to lose the UN....or severly re-organize it, in my humble opinion.
Gene


----------



## Bert (26 Sep 2004)

On the other hand, putting Libya in a humanitarian position is interesting.  Not only are
they put in a position of public and moral scrutiny, but they are also pressured to do 
something perhaps beyond their experience.   Given Libya's position, anyone know how 
they're doing?

Furthermore, I agree somewhat with Kirkhill's comments but I don't see how disbanding
the UN and starting up another organization solves the deadpasses of the current
system.  Still the exercise of gathering 200 people for a consensus and having
them come to common resolution is difficult at best.  If the Security Council is
disbanded, you'll still have regions and like-minded states gathering together forming
cliques.  The deadpasses may very well remain.  In my opinion, the problem relates
directly to the selfishness of the human condition and attitudes for global problem
solving would have to change.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Sep 2004)

> In my opinion, the problem relates
> directly to the selfishness of the human condition and attitudes for global problem
> solving would have to change.



In that case you have a choice between the philosophies of Hobbes/Locke/Adam Smith and Edmond Burke or you can wait for the Second Coming, because after almost 200 years of trying and in the face of more than 5000 years of historical evidence to the contrary, they Christian Socialists from Manchester have yet to create a New Jerusalem here on earth.


----------



## Bert (26 Sep 2004)

Exactly, and there in lies the problem.  Taken from another perspective, what would 
or could make it less impotent in a practical sense?


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Sep 2004)

I don't think you can make it work practically.

Parliament and parliamentary democracy works because each of us gives up a degree of personal sovereignty in exchange for an opportunity to influence events and live a peaceful life. Mechanisms are entrenched that allow disputes to be resolved without violence and consequences are seldom so dire as to threaten our existence.

In the UN few if any nations are willing to give up sovereignty, a majority refuse to accept the validity of other nations voices in their affairs.  Consequences are considered so dire and the non-violent mechanisms considered so untrustworthy (who gets to decide if human rights are infringed - Libya? and if so is Libya prepared to accept an armed intervention on its own soil? The US? France? Canada?)- that violent recourse is often construed as a necessary lesser evil.

Even in Canada we have to struggle to balance the needs and aspirations of Maritimers and Natives, Quebecers and Albertans, Ontarians and Inuit.... Each one of those fault lines has the potential to become a fracture.  The country stays together because more people want it to stay together than are apathetic or desperate to leave.  It takes energy and so far enough people are willing to expend the energy necessary to make compromises.

In the UN there is no such will.  And with the consequences dire I doubt there ever will be enough to overcome the mutual lack of trust.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Sep 2004)

> The commanding officer in Amarah now talks to his opposite number in Sadr's Mahdi army. When a patrol is attacked, or a bomb goes off, he rings him up and asks why.


http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1123362004

Thinking more about the UN....

The quote above describes the role that I think the UN can most usefully play.  It should remain primarily as a telephone line.  An uninterested capability facilitating dialog.  Taking as much of a position on events as  a telephone exchange.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Sep 2004)

Someone needs to be there after 15:00 daily, on Fridays and on weekends to answer the phone, then be able to contact someone coherent, and technically savvy to pass it to before that can be considered.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Sep 2004)

The UN was formed to fight the last war - to prevent a European tyrant from rising to power.  Everything else has been tacked on.  It is simply the case that if you pick any one nation "A" at random today, you are likely to come up with a list of other nations that have an interest in maintaining the status quo in nation "A".  That makes it difficult to achieve agreement in a formal institution with voting processes and vetoes.  The only timely and effective solution we have to mass human rights abuses is "coalitions of the willing" - political task groupings.  We may not be able to impose good government, but we can bring whatever is going on to a halt by force of arms while we figure out what to do in the long term.

I think the doctrine for the 21st century should be that tyrants and governments which abuse their citizens may be subject to removal by coalitions of the willing.  I do not require that the coalitions of the willing be morally perfect, and I don't care whether it legitimizes the same action if the "axes of evil" ever gain dominance.  If the "axes of evil" ever gain that sort of power they're going to use it regardless of how we've behaved.


----------



## The_Solecist (1 Oct 2004)

Security Council permanent membership was decided based on who had Nuclear weapons at the time.

The veto on said council is of course a polite way of saying, "we'll nuke your ass if you go through with this!"

Any permanent member state (those with Veto) can lose it's power of veto in votes which directly impact the nation in question.

For example should France be the target of a security council resolution (and thereby known to veto any resolution because it will impact France directly) they would not be allowed to vote (or veto) in that decision making process.  Conflict of interest being too high.

So if any permanent member were to be the target of a resolution to send military force into a nation to fix the regime in power.  They would not get to vote themselves, as obviously they'd just veto it, and say "Uh... no, we thiunk we'll stay in power thanks."

The UN isn't a political machine in and of itself.  It has become that, but it was never intended to be a political tool.  The purpose of the UN was to have a forum for all the nations of the world to come together and agree on what is and isn't acceptable by concensus.  Genocide for example is considered unacceptable, and has been declared such through the UN.  Conducting medical experiments on prisoners of war is considered unacceptable, and has been declared such through the UN.  Making children as younger than 15 work, or enage in sex has been declared unacceptable via the UN.

The method of enforcing these declarations has been censure, and embargo of international trade.  Essentially playground politics.  "We'll all point and laugh at you, and no one will let you play until you fix what we (the majority) all agree is wrong."  So countries are straved (essentially) until they have a government who'll enact the necessary changes to come online with the UN view of how to treat people, and how to play well with others.

For an interesting read find out what countries have signed (and or ratified) what conventions and declarations of the UN.  Because a country only has to do something it said in writing, and ratified through it's own government.  For example The US stance on torture.


----------



## McG (1 Oct 2004)

The_Solecist said:
			
		

> Security Council permanent membership was decided based on who had Nuclear weapons at the time.
> 
> The veto on said council is of course a polite way of saying, "we'll nuke your ass if you go through with this!"


No.  Only the US had nuclear weapons when the UN was formed at the end of the Second World War.


----------



## McG (1 Oct 2004)

The_Solecist said:
			
		

> ... a country only has to do something it said in writing, and ratified through it's own government. For example The US stance on torture.


Also not true.  With ratification by enough countries, conventions can reach the status of customary law.  This would mean that every country is bound by that convention.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (1 Oct 2004)

The_Solecist said:
			
		

> Security Council permanent membership was decided based on who had Nuclear weapons at the time.



From the UN website at http://www.un.org/aboutun/history.htm



> In 1945, representatives of 50 countries met in San Francisco at the United Nations Conference on International Organization to draw up the United Nations Charter. Those delegates deliberated on the basis of proposals worked out by the representatives of China, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States at Dumbarton Oaks, United States in August-October 1944. The Charter was signed on 26 June 1945 by the representatives of the 50 countries. Poland, which was not represented at the Conference, signed it later and became one of the original 51 Member States.
> 
> The United Nations officially came into existence on 24 October 1945, when the Charter had been ratified by *China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, the United States * and by a majority of other signatories. United Nations Day is celebrated on 24 October each year.



Article 23 of the charter states that 



> The Security Council shall consist of fifteen Members of the United Nations. The Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America shall be permanent members of the Security Council. The General Assembly shall elect ten other Members of the United Nations to be non-permanent members of the Security Council, due regard being specially paid, in the first instance to the contribution of Members of the United Nations to the maintenance of international peace and security and to the other purposes of the Organization, and also to equitable geographical distribution.



This was as a result of an amendment to the Charter as follows:



> Amendments to Articles 23, 27 and 61 of the Charter were adopted by the General Assembly on 17 December 1963 and came into force on 31 August 1965. A further amendment to Article 61 was adopted by the General Assembly on 20 December 1971, and came into force on 24 September 1973. An amendment to Article 109, adopted by the General Assembly on 20 December 1965, came into force on 12 June 1968.
> 
> The amendment to Article 23 enlarges the membership of the Security Council from eleven to fifteen. The amended Article 27 provides that decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members (formerly seven) and on all other matters by an affirmative vote of nine members (formerly seven), including the concurring votes of the five permanent members of the Security Council.



Does anyone know if the veto was enshrined in the original charter, or in the amendment?   I believe it was the latter, in which case it could be argued that the veto was assigned based on the possesion of nuclear weapons.   Otherwise, it is a case of_ post hoc ergo propter hoc_...


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Oct 2004)

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/comment/story.html?id=f78cd087-0ab9-456f-82f5-b7997e5f4554

This doesn't answer whose ego should be properly hoisted on a post PPCLI Guy but in looking for support I will take it where I find it...

Tony Clements on "The United Nations is Beyond Redemption".

By the way, if I only cogito poorly am I or am I not?

Cheers.


----------



## McG (2 Oct 2004)

In _A Short History of World War II_, JL Stokesbury describes the meeting of   Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin in Tehran during the Second world War.   During that meeting they began to look at the post war world:

â Å“It was agreed there should be some form of supra-national organization, but its outline was still dim.   Roosevelt proposed that it should contain a subgroup of â Å“four Policemenâ ?: Britain, the United States, Russia, and China.â ? 

By the end of the war, France had managed to fight its way into that political circle of power.

In _Deadlock in Korea_, Ted Barris talks of the UN Security Council vote on providing a military force to South Korea where â Å“Notably absent to exercise a veto was Soviet ambassador Jacob Malik.â ?

So, the veto powers were conceived in the Second World War and were in existence in June of 1950.   Draw your conclusions.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (2 Oct 2004)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> By the way, if I only cogito poorly am I or am I not?



In that case, I think only "sum" of you are.


----------



## Chewy (12 Oct 2004)

In truth during the cold war and after it the UN did serve its purpose but now it really has just become a place for Governments to expand their trade and power. 
Think of it this way there are countries like The U.S. , Britain, France and yes even Canada that see all those little Mini,micro and destitute nations as possible places for expansion. Topple a government here, Put in a ruler there, offer lucrative buisness oppourtunities and all of a sudden Your country now has 51 states, or provices.


----------



## McG (30 Nov 2004)

> UN plan demands more intervention
> By Paul Reynolds
> World affairs correspondent, BBC News website
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4052385.stm
> ...


----------



## ghazise (7 Dec 2004)

Growing up watching CBC, seeing the commercials about Canadians Peacekeeping around world and about how Lester B. Pearson was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his idea of Peacekeeping. It was from these commercials that I had this idea that the United Nations was primarily Peacekeeping or a sense of a International Policing Force.  As I read more about the UN I also learned about the everything else that the UN does, but I still primarily saw the UN as a Internation Peacekeeping Force.

Recently Angelina Jolie was on MSNBC talking about the UN, she saw the UN as primarily a humatarian body not a police/military force and that the UN should go in after a Military Organisation (ie NATO, Aftrican Union) had secured the AO, 

It was her thoughts, which changed my view on judging the success of the UN on a humanitarian basis rather than a Military/Peacekeeping.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Dec 2004)

I'm usually not big on celebrities as spokespeople but Angelina Jolie just gave me another reason to continue seeing her movies.


----------



## ghazise (7 Dec 2004)

I think many celebrities should keep their mouth shut, but she has actually worked on humantarian projects not just as spokeswoman,  as for her looks, I don't think she is anything special


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Dec 2004)

Chacun a son gout.  Thankfully, otherwise there wouldn't be enough to go around.  ;D


----------



## Infanteer (7 Dec 2004)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I'm usually not big on celebrities as spokespeople but Angelina Jolie just gave me another reason to continue seeing her movies.



Yum, sign me up....


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Dec 2004)

Infanteer you naughty lad.   Distracting me that way.


----------



## McG (28 Mar 2005)

> *Annan calls for sweeping reform of United Nations*
> Secretary general's 62-page blueprint hailed by Ottawa as echo of its own proposals
> Steven Edwards
> CanWest News Services
> ...


Wouldn't including the principle of collective defence move the UN into the spectrum of the previous League of Nations?


----------



## Infanteer (28 Mar 2005)

I glossed over it but seen no mention of Angelina Jolee.... ???


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (6 Apr 2005)

Harsh criticism from the Left (how's that for a welcome change!): alas, no Angelina ...



> *How many more must die before Kofi quits?*
> 
> _Former UN human rights lawyer Kenneth Cain says the secretary-general could finally redeem himself by saving lives - after years of lethal passivity_
> 
> ...


http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1451116,00.html


----------

