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

[Bert]

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]

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]

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

 

[Kirkhill]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

... 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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  

The UN should be reformed to make intervention in failing states easier, a commission is set to recommend.
The panel, which has examined how the UN could respond better to global threats, also calls for the Security Council to be enlarged, the BBC has learned.

The report has been called the "biggest make-over" of the UN since 1945.

It is thought that if the UN shows greater readiness to act, unilateralism by member states would be less likely.

A year ago, in the wake of the international divisions over Iraq, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan warned the UN was at a "fork in the road".

He said the organisation had to review its fundamental policies in order to address the increasing threats of global terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and nuclear proliferation.

He asked a panel of 16 veteran diplomats and politicians, chaired by former Thai Prime Minister Anand Panyarachun, to examine ways the UN should be reformed.

The route the panel is set to advocate is much more interventionist, moving away from the UN's traditional emphasis that it cannot meddle in the internal affairs of a member state.

Pre-emptive

The BBC has been told that among the panel's main findings are calls for a peace-building commission to be established to monitor potential trouble spots, offer help and advice, give warnings and prepare the way for armed intervention as a last resort.

The panel wants member states to accept a new obligation - a "responsibility to protect" their own citizens.

If they failed to do so, then intervention by the Security Council would be much more likely than under current UN procedures.

At the moment, the Council can order intervention, and a member state can act in self-defence, if there is an imminent threat. The Council can declare a threat to international security but the definition is vague and the procedure unwieldy.

This report recommends that the Council should be more willing to act pre-emptively, though according to five strict criteria:

• the threat should be defined
• the purpose of intervention should be clear
• it should be a last resort,
• the means should be proportionate
• the consequences should be examined

Whether the Council would in fact take action would depend on what the crisis was and how it voted. The UN would not have its own peace-keeping force, although several members of the panel wanted this.

Broad definition

Among the other main findings, the panel suggests threats to international security should be defined widely and should include poverty, pandemics like Aids and environmental disasters, not just threats from weapons of mass destruction, wars and failed states.

The Security Council should be enlarged from 15 members to 24 - the five permanent members, the US, Russia, China, the UK and France, should keep their seats and their vetoes (any changes to that would simply not be agreed, it was felt).

The panel does not, however, recommend how this should be achieved and simply offers two models. In the first, there would be more permanent members without a veto. In the second there would be some semi-permanent members who must be voted onto the Council every four years.

Terrorism would be defined for the first time and should be made part of an international convention. Terrorism would mean any action targeted against non-combatants and civilians.

To help stop the spread of nuclear weapons, countries wanting fuel for their nuclear power should have automatic rights to get supplies under the International Atomic Energy Agency so long as they complied with inspection regimes.

These inspections should themselves be drastically tightened up. The system would work rather as the International Monetary Fund does where members have drawing rights on currencies.

Regional organisation like the African Union should be strengthened. Any peacekeeping operation should be funded by the UN itself and member states should pay automatically.

The G8 group of countries should be expanded and changed. One idea put forward is that membership of the G8, which is made up only of the rich, should be widened to 20 bringing in developing countries.

The UN Human Rights Commission should be re-invigorated with more human rights activists and fewer diplomats on members' delegations.

The report will now be considered by the Secretary General and then by the member states.

Any institutional changes are likely to come only slowly but the thrust is clear - the UN must reform or lose its role.

 

[ghazise]

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]

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

 

[ghazise]

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]

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