The UN

[ericsp23]

This poll is in response to this story:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...sudan_darfur_2

I feel that the UN was a noble idea, but that it is out of date and needs to be reformed, or even abolished and recreated in a new form. I think the current administration is corrupt and needs to be purged, but I also feel that the UN in its current form is out of date. It was created in a world that was completely different than today's world and it needs to be updated to reflect this.

I am interested in hearing what others think of this.

[tinybear]

OK, well maybe there wasn't any genocide. There was anarchy, looting, murder, rape, slaughter...etc., but no genocide. I guess that makes it alright then.

[G. Adams]

I believe sanctions should be more easy to bring to bear against those who break international law, equally heavy sanctions to be placed on anyone found 'sanctions busting', veto's removed, ALL conventions should be applicable to signatories and can only be dissolved by 2/3's majority or in times of invasion (being the invaded, not the invader) and in such cases only to those laws given special clauses.

[ericsp23]

Interesting. So basically you think the UN needs more teeth. Do you think that the permanent security council members would ever agree to any of these things?
I tend to agree with you. If we aren't going to give the UN the authority to actually do anything, why are we wasting everyone's time and money?

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: tinybear OK, well maybe there wasn't any genocide. There was anarchy, looting, murder, rape, slaughter...etc., but no genocide. I guess that makes it alright then.

None of those things are "all right", but if you want to nail someone for unacceptable behavior you don't toss out all those things and hope one of them sticks. If they are cleared of genocide but are guilty of something else, accuse them of THAT!
All I see is they cleared the Sudan of ONE type of crime. If that is accurate then live with it.

BTW, I think "slaughter" falls under the genocide category.

[Milton Bradley]

I could not voote because there was no option for bringing them all up on criminal charges.


The reason I would vote that way.


The United Nations whole intent is reduce nations sovereignty across the globe, helping to form the New World Order. One only has to visit the website to come to this obvious conclusion. They provide report after report of their own meddling into situations where they are not wanted, and have no right being.


Sovereign nations are coerced into cooperation by being denied the opportunity to further disenfranchize themselves by recieving loans from the World Bank, and kept out of the International Monetary Fund, and other NGO's that work solely with the U.N..


U.N. mandates almost singlehandedly gave birth to Isreal, a perpetual, festering sore on international relations between East, and West.

[rmnunez]

The UN is not out-of-date, the way it was run for 50 Cold War years is (not exclusively gringo wrongdoing). The UN, as originally envisioned was to moderate interaction in a non-bipolar setting. There was a military committee instead of begging for third world peacekeepers and now subordinate WTO and ILO agencies were much more important. The non-alligned movement, regional factionalism and hasty decolonization screwed things up a bit too. The institution moved away from lofty ideals and into power-block politicking as well as third world corruption and byzantine bureaucracy.

It can be fixed and there is an extensive international effort at this underway. Most members want reform in the Security Council, institutions with weighted voting have proven much more effective and likely will be emulated, but adjustments in financing are needed to reflect more contemporary relationships.

Sanctions are brought to bear by the economically powerful and if they aren't on board there just aren't any. Besides, a substantial body of learned literature suggests these are ineffective when most likely applied (upon radicalized or irrational actors).

The most radical inovation suggested for the UN I've found was the call for member expulsion capacity, but this would undermine its authority too, particularly if its more than a couple or three.

The Council will not agree to curtail the power of its permanents, they enjoy advantages they will seek to retain.

The UN provides an irreplaceable advantage; poor governments can send a single ambassador to NY and thereby have a diplomatic link to every country on earth.

The UN is explicitly not a supranational entity, it has no sovereignty, no armed forces, no territorial dimension, fields no ambassadors, it is merely a forum where governments interact diplomatically. It has become a whole lot of hot air on ocassion, I'd disband the General Assembly and work on decentralizing, moving specialized agencies closer to the locales where they are most needed. Put UNICEF in Nairobi, UNESCO in New Delhi, the IAEA in Pyongyang, move the FAO to Santiago or Buenos Aires and make the Council ride circuit of the permants' capitals. Keep the HQ in New York for the diplomatic nexus.

[MerlinsByte]

My Vote Was "The UN was a bad idea and should be disbanded."

Merlinsbyte's response The weak beaten nations of the late 40s needed the UN excluding the USA. The UN of today could be a clone, or a frame work for a one world government. Just add a collection of armed forces say 500,000,000 (this figure was chosen for a reason) and ta da!..we have a instant world dictatorship.

We (the entire western hemisphere) should stand alone, isolate ourselves, remain free, and abide by the desires of the framers of the constitution, and the bill of rights, unlike the morass we find ourselves in today.

mb

[G. Adams]

Quote by: MerlinsByte My Vote Was "The UN was a bad idea and should be disbanded." Merlinsbyte's response The weak beaten nations of the late 40s needed the UN excluding the USA. The UN of today could be a clone, or a frame work for a one world government. Just add a collection of armed forces say 500,000,000 (this figure was chosen for a reason) and ta da!..we have a instant world dictatorship. We (the entire western hemisphere) should stand alone, isolate ourselves, remain free, and abide by the desires of the framers of the constitution, and the bill of rights, unlike the morass we find ourselves in today. mb

Personally, one world government sounds sweet. Then western governments could deal with real problems, like poverty and hunger, rather than squabbly over scandals and bullshit. Additionally, if it was dictatorial, it would be easier to bring down as it would be the dictator of everyone, so we wouldn't have people sitting on the sidelines saying it's not my problem.

As thats not gonna happen, I'll be working on a single European government, and bringing more into the union.

You say "We (the entire Western hemisphere)...and abide by the desires of the framers of the constitution..." So you believe the entire western hemisphere should be ruled under the US constitution? Gimme a NWO anyday. (you listening illuminati? I want a membership card!)

As for the current security council members agreeing to my proposed changes, they don't mean shit if everyone else wants this doing. Just have everyone else withdraw from the UN and re-establish itself, and nobody trades with those outside the UN. Tada, onto the bandwagon they come. The western states wouldn't dare stay out, they would lose all their cheap labour in the developing world.

[MerlinsByte]

Adams writesersonally, one world government sounds sweet. Then western governments could deal with real problems, like poverty and hunger, rather than squabbly over scandals and bullshit. Additionally, if it was dictatorial, it would be easier to bring down as it would be the dictator of everyone, so we wouldn't have people sitting on the sidelines saying it's not my problem.

As thats not gonna happen, I'll be working on a single European government, and bringing more into the union.

MerlinsByte writes; Yes I agree with you Adams. And you will get your wish I beleive possibially in the next 10 years or so. Of a one world goverment.

The one world government should not be western as in the United states or Israel, it will be from Rome or the middle east. However If the USA could unite the Western hemisphere in a democracy (not the Republic as it is) we could take care of our poor and hungry instead of baby sitting the world. So we agree on at least some points...




Adams writes: You say "We (the entire Western hemisphere)...and abide by the desires of the framers of the constitution..." So you believe the entire western hemisphere should be ruled under the US constitution? Gimme a NWO anyday. (you listening illuminati? I want a membership car

Merlin responds ; No, I didn't say that I believe the entire western hemisphere should be ruled under the US constitution? What I did say was "(the new west should) abide by the desires of the framers of the constitution, and the bill of rights, unlike the morass of amendments and interpretations we have today (of the two documents)

"ABIDE BY THE DESIRES" is the key phrase here. Our constitution bill of rights is not the same document as it was when written. By that I mean that most of the intent of the original authors is lost. That includes both documents are nearly toothless and moot today. A new western united states would ideally be a true democracy, but this will never happen.


Adams writes;
As for the current security council members agreeing to my proposed changes, they don't mean shit if everyone else wants this doing. Just have everyone else withdraw from the UN and re-establish itself, and nobody trades with those outside the UN. Tada, onto the bandwagon they come. The western states wouldn't dare stay out, they would lose all their cheap labour in the developing world.

Merlin writes; I agree that the western governments (not all of their citizens) are greedy and money oriented above all else, including human rights.

mb

[tusaki]

Rmnunez: bravo for your voice of reason, I was about to type that (*cough* *cough*), but you did it for me

Let me add this quote, although about the UN's predecessor, the League of Nations, which in my opinion captures the essence of the reason for the UN in which I fervently believe.

Quote by: A History of the Modern World, 'a new era' (page 688) On the whole, Wilson stood for the fruition of the democratic, liberal, progressive, and nationalistic movements of the century past, for the ideals of the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, and the revolutions of 1848. As Wilson saw it, and as many believed, the World War should end in a new type of treaty. There was thought to be something sinister about peace conferences of the past, for example, the Congress of Vienna of 1815. The old diplomacy was blamed for leading to war. Lenin in his own way and for his own purposes was saying this in Russia too. It was felt that treaties had too long been wrongly based on a politics of power or on unprincipled deals and bargains made without regard to the people concerned. Democracy having defeated the Central Powers, people hoped that a new settlement, made in a democratic age, might be reached by general agreement in an atmosphere of mutual confidence. ... a permanent international body in which all nations, without sacrificing their sovereignty, should meet together to discuss and settle disputes, each promising not to resort to war... The new organization was designed to maintain international peace and security and to encourage cooperative solutions to international social, economic, and cultural problems. Although it was widely acknowledged that peace would depend primarily on the Great Powers, all states, regardless of size, would be represented...

However crippled the current United Nations might be today, it is, by its very nature, immeasurably better than the world was without it. The problem with the UN are the very members which embody it, since self-interest and bias of those members prevents the current UN to reach its full potential. As rmnunez stated, the UN is not forever set in stone, it is changing, adapting. Reforms are on the way to make it more efficient, effective and representative.

The UN, for me, represents hope and peace. It is the embodiment of the current global trend of integrating markets, cultures and societies. In my eyes, this is inevitable and good. The sooner the better and I will work to that end. Nation states are the cause, not the solution, of the current problems facing the world.

[MerlinsByte]

tuski writes

"The UN, for me, represents hope and peace. It is the embodiment of the current global trend of integrating markets, cultures and societies. In my eyes, this is inevitable and good. The sooner the better and I will work to that end. Nation states are the cause, not the solution, of the current problems facing the world."

Merlin replies That is a Nobel and beautiful dream. I am a pessimist when it comes to trusting any governing body, and would think a one world system to be the end of what little compassion there is in the world today and the beginning of a hell on earth.

"total power corrupts totally"

mb

[G. Adams]

Merlin, I'm sure your same worries were shared by the framers of the US Constitution, but they dealt with it. We could simply re-apply, with a few changes I'm sure, the US constitution to the entire world.

One rule I would like to have applied, those who run for office have all capital property stripped from them, and are hense unable to possess capital property. They will be supported sufficiantly by the state. This way, those who run for government can have no interest in using their office for personal money making schemes.

[Milton Bradley]

: A History of the Modern World, 'a new era' (page 688)
On the whole, Wilson stood for the fruition of the democratic, liberal, progressive, and nationalistic movements of the century past, for the ideals of the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, and the revolutions of 1848. As Wilson saw it, and as many believed, the World War should end in a new type of treaty. There was thought to be something sinister about peace conferences of the past, for example, the Congress of Vienna of 1815. The old diplomacy was blamed for leading to war. Lenin in his own way and for his own purposes was saying this in Russia too. It was felt that treaties had too long been wrongly based on a politics of power or on unprincipled deals and bargains made without regard to the people concerned. Democracy having defeated the Central Powers, people hoped that a new settlement, made in a democratic age, might be reached by general agreement in an atmosphere of mutual confidence.
... a permanent international body in which all nations, without sacrificing their sovereignty, should meet together to discuss and settle disputes, each promising not to resort to war."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we stop the quote there, it sounds a lot like what really did happen after WW II, it was M.A.D.., or Mutually Assured Destruction, and the absence of another great war has done little to sway reduce the suffering, or solve the problems of mankind. Its all just a socialist utopian dream.


I detest the whole concept of World Government on a simple premise. Government requires the consent of the governed. There is absolutely no way the entire population of the Earth will consent to this at the same time, therefore it will be forced on many with no room for dissent.


That should clearly spell war to anybody able to recognize the concept of America, yet it is our very own elected officials taking us down this path.


I know this may come as a shock to some of you, but guess what, you can't control everybody, at least not while I'm still alive.

[PatrickHenry]

The best government is closest to home. Unfortunately, local governments have not won the battle to control tax revenues. Nations have. How much citizen input will there be in Global Government? You won't be able to phone city hall and talk with the mayor. Interactive government is MY goal. I don't hate all government. Just those who take money from citizens and then spend it on stuff they don't agree with. And the bigger and richer a Gov gets, the better it controls whistle blowing for fraud and scrutiny by the public. And the more adept at propaganda it gets.

I don't want to be ruled by the UN anymore than I want to be ruled by DC. But it has its uses. The US shoulda listened to the SC before invading Iraq. It woulda saved a lotta money and blood.

[rmnunez]

There are some good things in the US constitution, the EU is moving towards unfied government but distancing itself from its constituency, they will be plenty occupied for another decade bringing the new members online and Turkey is on the agenda now.

One world government inspires fear in many, I prefer closer government, relate better to my city councilman than some federal legislator. Governments, with the exception of those in the EU, generally are very sensitive to the mere perception of an erosion in their sovereignty, I'd anticipate none would willingly yield anything unless they were certain all would relinquish as much simultaneously. Scandinavian countries have yielded ultimate juridic authority to the ICJ to the extent of allowing that Court to even interpret their consitutuions application at home. The EUers have surrendered some treasury and even military authority to a supranational entity. Matters of national executive authority are now more circumscribed to EU regulation, but the last redoubt is foreign policy and diplomacy -once this gets surrendered the EU will become some sort of federal state. But the Scandinavians and EUers generally share a whole lot more with each other than the rest of the world does. Shared history, religion, cultural, social and economic outlooks all help people agree on the basics, if one were trying to merge all governments it would be much more difficult to find common ground.

[rmnunez]

Benon Sevan to be disciplined:

Secretary-General Kofi Annan ordered disciplinary action against the head of the UN oil-for-food program in Iraq on Thursday, after a report sharply criticized Benon Sevan for "undermining the integrity" of the UN through a "grave conflict of interest." The investigation report said Sevan solicited oil allocations from Saddam Hussein's regime on behalf of a trading company between 1998 and 2001, and it raised concerns he may have received kickbacks for the help. Based on the report, Annan has decided to discipline Sevan and another UN official, Joseph Stephanides, who was chief of the UN Sanctions Branch, said Mark Malloch Brown, Annan's new chief of staff. Malloch Brown said the type of disciplinary action would be announced early next week but gave no details. "I am reluctant to conclude that the UN is damaged beyond repair, but these revelations certainly point in this direction," said Illinois Republican Henry Hyde after Thursday's report. His House International Relations Committee is one of several US investigations. Sen. Norm Coleman, who called for Annan's resignation over the scandal, said he was pleased with the report and urged Annan to lift Sevan's diplomatic immunity so US prosecutors can review the case. "There is more than enough probable cause to believe Benon Sevan's actions constitute criminal activity," said Coleman, R-Minn. Despite Sevan's claims that he never recommended any oil companies, Volcker's Independent Inquiry Committee said it had evidence that Sevan asked Iraq to give a small Swiss-based oil company, African Middle East Petroleum Co. Ltd. Inc., known as AMEP, the opportunity to buy oil. The company received the allocations and earned $1.5 million from them. http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=470131

I wonder what form Mr. Sevan's disciplining will take. I also wonder whether those heard decrying the US failure to turn in Kissinger to the ICC might see the analogy with the UN immunizing Sevan as a diplomat.

[rmnunez]

No smoking gun on Annan yet:

Investigators probing alleged corruption at the United Nations' Iraq oil-for-food program are scrutinizing thousands of pages of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's documents, including e-mail and phone records, to determine whether he exerted influence in securing a contract for a Swiss company that employed his son. Paul Volcker, the head of the independent investigation, confirmed the document search and told The Associated Press that new information had led investigators to delay publishing their findings about Annan's son Kojo, whose activities have embroiled the U.N. chief in the growing scandal. "There were things that came along that threw us back," Volcker said in an AP interview.

Unfortunately, its just a "developing" story and only from "Drudge" so far. Things that "throw one back" to retake investigations that involve scrutinizing Annan's e-mail make me think there could be something they are sniffing and it isn't integrity.

[rmnunez]

The UN said it believed the charges raised against Benon Sevan, the UN official under investigation over his running of the oil-for-food programme in Iraq. But it expects Secretary General Kofi Annan to be cleared of wrongdoing in a new report due on Tuesday despite new revelations about his son Kojo, Annan's chief of staff Mark Malloch Brown told reporters. The Volcker panel last month found that Sevan had steered oil allocations from Saddam Hussein's regime to an acquaintance, behaviour it called "ethically improper" and a "grave" conflict of interest. "We believe that the Volcker panel has shifted the burden of proof to Mr Sevan. It makes very serious allegations which we at this point believe," Malloch Brown said. He said the offer to pay the legal fees of Sevan, a Cypriot national who ran the now defunct 64-billion dollar programme, was made after Sevan threatened not to cooperate -and before the initial Volcker report was released. "Mr Sevan made it clear that if he could not avail himself of legal counsel, he was going home to Cyprus," Malloch Brown said. But he added that Sevan's claims for reimbursement were under review, and that no money would be paid for any expenses after February 3, when Volcker issued his first findings. The announcement that Annan offered to pay his costs with money from an escrow account used to manage Saddam's oil sales infuriated Iraq, which has already demanded the return of all remaining money. "This misappropriation of Iraqi money is scandalous and disservices the UN at a time when it urgently needs to show that it can be trusted with the management of funds," said Iraq's UN ambassador, Samir Sumaidaie. Malloch Brown said he expected Volcker's next report on Tuesday to clear Annan, even though he acknowledged details in the Financial Times about Annan's son, who worked for Swiss firm Cotecna, which had an oil-for-food contract. "We believe on Tuesday the secretary general will be exonerated," Malloch Brown said. The paper said Kojo Annan received around 300,000 dollars from Cotecna after he stopped working for the firm -more than twice the amount previously thought. "The fact is that Kojo has confirmed himself that he misled his father," Malloch Brown said. But he confirmed the Financial Times report that the secretary general met with Cotecna officials before the contract was awarded. http://sg.news.yahoo.com/050324/1/3rgn8.html

Elsewhere I read Annan is depressed about this, considering resigning.

[caspian88]

I don't vote for the UN leadership. I have no say in the UN at all. That's just the first problem I have with it. Adding a violation of national sovereignity (I'm an extreme sectionalist), too much power into too few hands, no accountability, etc, and it's an organization that serves no rightful purpose and should be abolished by any means neccesary.