.
The_Ranting_Man @ Sun Nov 28, 2004 11:57 am
edit
xerxes @ Mon Nov 29, 2004 6:08 pm
A different view of the UN for a change:
$1:
The Iraq war wounded the UN, but it won't be fatal
The UN and the security council can survive the US campaign of vilification
Hans Blix
Monday November 29, 2004
The Guardian
The results of a review of the functioning of the UN, conducted by a panel appointed by the secretary general Kofi Annan, will soon be on the table. That there is a need to discuss an array of questions is not in doubt - but the fact that the most powerful member of the organisation shows disdain for it is not exactly conducive to a positive intergovernmental debate.
We learned before the invasion of Iraq that in the view of the US administration, the security council had the choice of voting with the US for armed action - or being irrelevant. A majority on the council did not allow itself to be pushed into supporting the action, and the invasion took place. Many saw this as a loss of prestige for the council and as a crisis for the UN. In one way it was, and is. Institutions such as the security council are like instruments to be played. If members choose not to play or are completely out of tune, no marching music results. It is only when the construction of the instruments is found deficient or outmoded that repair is meaningful.
The refusal last year of a majority of the security council to follow the tune that the US wished the council to play can also be seen as the saving of the council's authority and respectability. How would the world look at the council today if it had endorsed an armed action to eradicate weapons of mass destruction - that did not exist and whose evidence was often concocted, even forged?
Today most countries and most people consider the action launched in Iraq a grave error or worse, and much of American public opinion - perhaps even a majority - shares this view. Yet the new US administration seems to take victory in the presidential election not only as support for strong positions and actions against terrorist threats (probably a justified interpretation), but also as support for its decision to launch the war on Iraq and for its disdainful attitude to the UN.
It is as if the UN had insulted the US. The Republican convention that renominated George Bush erupted in applause when the vice-president said that Mr Bush would "never seek a permission slip to defend the American people". Fine, except that Iraq was not a threat, not a growing threat, and probably not even a distant threat.
We also see an intense and large-scale campaign of vilification, depicting the UN as "corrupt" because the oil-for-food programme - instituted and supervised by the security council and its most powerful members, including the US - enabled Iraq, the buyers of Iraqi oil and the sellers of products to Iraq, to siphon off money fraudulently and pass it on illegally to Saddam Hussein's regime.
The fraud, although widely suspected and estimated at about a billion dollars a year in the media, was not easy for the programme administration to track down and prove. The council and its members saw it with open eyes just as they saw the billions that flowed to Saddam from oil exports to neighbouring states. The programme functioned as a reasonably effective break against the import of weapons and dual-use items, which was its major objective. Today it serves as a campaign platform against the UN. So long as the current climate remains, it is doubtful if any meaningful discussion about UN reform can be pursued.
There is something paradoxical about the crisis at the UN and the criticism of the security council as a talking shop. We did not hear this during the long years of the cold war, when the council was habitually prevented from action by the threat or use of Soviet vetoes. There are no automatic Russian or Chinese obstacles to council action today. Large numbers of peacekeeping operations were started in the first period of detente and, to be fair, not so few decisions are still taken by consensus in the council. Yet the atmosphere remains poisoned.
It has been suggested that in the review of the functioning of the UN, an effort should be made to examine the circumstances in which the use of force can and should be authorised. Some would wish to see a greater use of the council's power to hold members to their duties to protect their own citizens: to intervene by force, if necessary, in situations of genocide, as in Rwanda or Darfur. Others want to search for a reformulation of article 51 of the charter, in order to give some room for pre-emptive action. I am not optimistic about charter amendments in either case, nor am I sure that they really are needed.
Many members will remain sceptical about any international armed interventions. They are suspicious of any outside interference - even by the UN for the purpose of upholding human rights. Other members may not be persuaded to spend resources or risk the lives of their soldiers - unless significant national interests are at stake, as they were at the Gulf war in 1991 and were perceived to be in the Iraq war in 2003. Where intervention will be both justified as the only way to prevent grave violations of human rights and acceptable to a broad membership, I do not think that article 2:7 of the charter [about not interfering in essentially domestic matters] will stand in the way.
I also think it unlikely that any agreed language could be found that explicitly allows members to use force pre-emptively or preventively without authorisation of the security council. It is more likely that an answer to the problem will slowly emerge through precedents. It is also important, as Kofi Annan has noted, that the security council actively considers and monitors threats posed by possible weapons of mass destruction, giving all members the feeling that the issue is taken seriously and that there is a readiness to take joint action, where there is convincing evidence of a threat that is significant and near in time.
The security council remains potentially a vital institution. The Iraq war has demonstrated the handicap that followed from not acting with its authorisation.
The council would have even greater authority if its composition were modified. In 1945, power was the military capacity of the victor states. When economic sanctions and pressures are to be applied, which are preferable to the application of military power, there is an advantage in the presence of states with much economic power.
For greater legitimacy, the security council needs to represent a large part of the world's population, hence a need for the presence in the council of the most populous countries in all continents. One argument, not infrequently advanced, I find totally objectionable: that those states that pay the greatest contributions to the UN budget should merit a seat. The seats should not be for sale.
The UN and the security council can survive the US campaign of vilification
Hans Blix
Monday November 29, 2004
The Guardian
The results of a review of the functioning of the UN, conducted by a panel appointed by the secretary general Kofi Annan, will soon be on the table. That there is a need to discuss an array of questions is not in doubt - but the fact that the most powerful member of the organisation shows disdain for it is not exactly conducive to a positive intergovernmental debate.
We learned before the invasion of Iraq that in the view of the US administration, the security council had the choice of voting with the US for armed action - or being irrelevant. A majority on the council did not allow itself to be pushed into supporting the action, and the invasion took place. Many saw this as a loss of prestige for the council and as a crisis for the UN. In one way it was, and is. Institutions such as the security council are like instruments to be played. If members choose not to play or are completely out of tune, no marching music results. It is only when the construction of the instruments is found deficient or outmoded that repair is meaningful.
The refusal last year of a majority of the security council to follow the tune that the US wished the council to play can also be seen as the saving of the council's authority and respectability. How would the world look at the council today if it had endorsed an armed action to eradicate weapons of mass destruction - that did not exist and whose evidence was often concocted, even forged?
Today most countries and most people consider the action launched in Iraq a grave error or worse, and much of American public opinion - perhaps even a majority - shares this view. Yet the new US administration seems to take victory in the presidential election not only as support for strong positions and actions against terrorist threats (probably a justified interpretation), but also as support for its decision to launch the war on Iraq and for its disdainful attitude to the UN.
It is as if the UN had insulted the US. The Republican convention that renominated George Bush erupted in applause when the vice-president said that Mr Bush would "never seek a permission slip to defend the American people". Fine, except that Iraq was not a threat, not a growing threat, and probably not even a distant threat.
We also see an intense and large-scale campaign of vilification, depicting the UN as "corrupt" because the oil-for-food programme - instituted and supervised by the security council and its most powerful members, including the US - enabled Iraq, the buyers of Iraqi oil and the sellers of products to Iraq, to siphon off money fraudulently and pass it on illegally to Saddam Hussein's regime.
The fraud, although widely suspected and estimated at about a billion dollars a year in the media, was not easy for the programme administration to track down and prove. The council and its members saw it with open eyes just as they saw the billions that flowed to Saddam from oil exports to neighbouring states. The programme functioned as a reasonably effective break against the import of weapons and dual-use items, which was its major objective. Today it serves as a campaign platform against the UN. So long as the current climate remains, it is doubtful if any meaningful discussion about UN reform can be pursued.
There is something paradoxical about the crisis at the UN and the criticism of the security council as a talking shop. We did not hear this during the long years of the cold war, when the council was habitually prevented from action by the threat or use of Soviet vetoes. There are no automatic Russian or Chinese obstacles to council action today. Large numbers of peacekeeping operations were started in the first period of detente and, to be fair, not so few decisions are still taken by consensus in the council. Yet the atmosphere remains poisoned.
It has been suggested that in the review of the functioning of the UN, an effort should be made to examine the circumstances in which the use of force can and should be authorised. Some would wish to see a greater use of the council's power to hold members to their duties to protect their own citizens: to intervene by force, if necessary, in situations of genocide, as in Rwanda or Darfur. Others want to search for a reformulation of article 51 of the charter, in order to give some room for pre-emptive action. I am not optimistic about charter amendments in either case, nor am I sure that they really are needed.
Many members will remain sceptical about any international armed interventions. They are suspicious of any outside interference - even by the UN for the purpose of upholding human rights. Other members may not be persuaded to spend resources or risk the lives of their soldiers - unless significant national interests are at stake, as they were at the Gulf war in 1991 and were perceived to be in the Iraq war in 2003. Where intervention will be both justified as the only way to prevent grave violations of human rights and acceptable to a broad membership, I do not think that article 2:7 of the charter [about not interfering in essentially domestic matters] will stand in the way.
I also think it unlikely that any agreed language could be found that explicitly allows members to use force pre-emptively or preventively without authorisation of the security council. It is more likely that an answer to the problem will slowly emerge through precedents. It is also important, as Kofi Annan has noted, that the security council actively considers and monitors threats posed by possible weapons of mass destruction, giving all members the feeling that the issue is taken seriously and that there is a readiness to take joint action, where there is convincing evidence of a threat that is significant and near in time.
The security council remains potentially a vital institution. The Iraq war has demonstrated the handicap that followed from not acting with its authorisation.
The council would have even greater authority if its composition were modified. In 1945, power was the military capacity of the victor states. When economic sanctions and pressures are to be applied, which are preferable to the application of military power, there is an advantage in the presence of states with much economic power.
For greater legitimacy, the security council needs to represent a large part of the world's population, hence a need for the presence in the council of the most populous countries in all continents. One argument, not infrequently advanced, I find totally objectionable: that those states that pay the greatest contributions to the UN budget should merit a seat. The seats should not be for sale.
Vanni_Fucci @ Mon Nov 29, 2004 8:36 pm
I don't quite understand the whole purpose behind allowing any country to have veto powers in the Security Council. This just promotes disparity among a body that is supposed to be championing peace and human rights among all nations of this Earth whether they have a seat on the Security Council or not. And having some countries with veto powers and others without...no wonder the UN is so ineffectual...
What should have happened in March of 2003 is that the UN should have revoked the United States' and the other countries in the coalition's memberships to the UN and imposed economic sanctions, for acting in absence of a UN Security Council Resolution to legitimize the use of force, and having invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq, which according to Kofi Annan, was illegal by the conventions of international law.
It would have been interesting to see if they would have been able wage their war for oil with economic sanctions imposed on them by the 185 or so member nations.
That is the teeth that the UN should have had...perhaps UN reform will give them the much needed bite to properly oppose the US-led coalition when they make a bid for Iran...
Vanni_Fucci @ Mon Nov 29, 2004 10:15 pm
Although I should point out that if the UN were able to effectively enforce their mandate, Hussein would have been ousted long before the Americans took matters into their own hands anyway.
Rather, the US and others should have proposed UN reform when it became known of the attrocities commited by Hussein's regime during their war with Iran...or when Iraq used WMD against their own citizens. There were many opportunities in dealing with Iraq to bolster the UN position.
The UN should have realized that the corruption of their Oil for Food programme accomplished nothing but to make Saddam and his cronies wealthy, thus defeating the purpose of imposing economic sanctions against that country. When the Iraqis defied the weapons inspectors by not granting them access to facilities, the UN should have mobilized a security force to enforce the Security Council Resolutions.
This would have prevented the illegitimate war that the US-led coalition has waged, and the need to reform the long-defunct UN after the fact...
...of course many other Human Rights offences would have been dealt with proplerly as well if the UN had had the teeth it needed...
Vanni_Fucci @ Tue Nov 30, 2004 2:07 am
Godz46 Godz46:
The UN will be a big nothing (not to mention there would be a big gap in its budget as the US supplies well over 12 per cent of its budget according to wikipedia).
...and I read somewhere that it was 22%...but you're probably right...
Godz46 Godz46:
Thanks I needed that. The US is economicaly connected with almost every country in the world. No way would countries (especialy developing nations like India, Brazil and China) risk economic collapse by shutting off the US to its markets.
...I think you put too much faith in the survivability of the US economy...the US does not trade with countries unless they stand to gain something, obviously...and they are no longer set up to provide those goods and services that they import, domestically...they haven't been for decades now...their economy, already doomed due to the cost of the war, would soon fall...I think the less than stellar value of their dollar is a good indicator of this...the US national debt is over 7.5 Trillion!!! dollars, and is rising on average, at the rate of 1.75 billion per day...22% of that debt is owned by banks and firms outside of the US...what would happen if some of the US creditors called in those notes? Do you think they'd go to war over it...I do...I see many parallels between what's happening to the US economy and what happened to Germany before the Nazis came to power...but that's a post for another thread...
US trade partners would suffer in the short term, certainly, and after finding different and better trade partners (Canada for instance), their economy would be able to recover and develop at an unprecedented rate, without the US stifling their economic growth, as they often tend to do...
...so yes, the US is economically connected to many developing countries...but not necessarily to their advantage...if 185 or so countries decided to trade with countries other than the US...who do you think would be hurt worse?
Countries need to stop thinking short term...and try to focus on the big picture...how are things going to be in 5 to 20 years...if the alliances and supports are put in place now, I believe that if we're smart. then this mighty giant can be beaten by exploiting their greatest weakness...a marked dependence on foreign trade...
With their economy shattered and their military stretched to the limit they would be at the mercy of the international community...
Scape @ Tue Nov 30, 2004 2:29 am
Things are beginning to happen now. The dollar is falling.
What is amazing is not that the dollar is falling - everyone knew it would - but that everyone is so calm about it. It is as if a man had just jumped off the 23rd floor; a crowd has gathered to watch...but no one bothers to bring over a net!
For the moment, the dollar has barely passed the 17th floor. Everything is okay so far.
Of course, if it keeps falling like this the world's financial system will be wrecked...the stock and bond markets will collapse...there will be a crash in China...and millions of American families will go bankrupt. Already, today's paper - the Sydney Morning Herald - tells us that central banks are becoming reluctant to take dollars.
But in America, no one worries. The holiday shopping season got off with a bang, according to Bloomberg, with 133 million shoppers who bought an average of $265 worth of merchandise. Their incomes had not risen. They had no savings. But that didn't stop them. According to Visa and MasterCard, credit card sales are running more than 9% ahead of last year's sales. This year's 4-day spree totaled more than $22 billion in sales.
Mr. Greenspan's great feat has been to make Americans think they have more money to spend than they really have. Consumers' great achievement was to spend the money they didn't have on things they didn't need and without which they probably would have been better off anyway. This year's hot item, say the papers, is the DVD player. As near as we can tell, this device enables teenagers to learn bad words and pick up bad attitudes and bad manners without ever leaving their bedrooms.
At least, when the dollar finally hits the pavement, people will have less money to spend, which will probably be a blessing.
Rev_Blair @ Tue Nov 30, 2004 7:38 am
Watching the US right now is kind of watching a guy who has been diagnosed with cancer but is refusing treatment because he believes in a faith healer.
Vanni_Fucci @ Tue Nov 30, 2004 7:31 pm
Very nice Pathos...
...but how does this extremely long, and allegedly plagiarized article on global warming relate to the topic of UN reform 
xerxes @ Tue Nov 30, 2004 8:48 pm
Yeah he sounds like a classic obsessive-compulsive case.
What a kook. He accuses you of plagarism and doesn't even provide proof of the plagarism. Apparently, it's plagarism because Pathos said so. Since that's the burden of proof we're using, I accuse you of plagarism Pathos. I have no proof but that's okay. Evidence is overrated.
RoyalHighlander @ Wed Dec 01, 2004 5:37 am
xerxes xerxes:
Yeah he sounds like a classic obsessive-compulsive case.
What a kook. He accuses you of plagarism and doesn't even provide proof of the plagarism. Apparently, it's plagarism because Pathos said so. Since that's the burden of proof we're using, I accuse you of plagarism Pathos. I have no proof but that's okay. Evidence is overrated.
What a kook. He accuses you of plagarism and doesn't even provide proof of the plagarism. Apparently, it's plagarism because Pathos said so. Since that's the burden of proof we're using, I accuse you of plagarism Pathos. I have no proof but that's okay. Evidence is overrated.
If thats how its done, then I have a humoungous penis and can satisfy 10 women a night,, Honest its true cause I said so.. I dont need any proof.. LMAO
Some folks here should go oput side once in a while.. Theres a whole big world out there besides this freaking internet dudes. LMFAO
mike2277 @ Thu Dec 02, 2004 6:05 am
A question for those of you who want the U.N. disbanded, rather than reformed. What do you propose in it's place?