UN Remains Impotent as Captive of US
UNITED NATIONS - As Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon begins his second year in office, he has refused to claim any tangible successes during 2007, nor has he laid out any clear-cut strategy to meet the political and economic challenges facing the United Nations in 2008.
“So far his performance and what appears to be his future approach do not reflect anything close to the independence, strength of character, willingness to stand up to powerful governments and commitment to equality of nations and peoples,” says Phyllis Bennis, director, New Internationalism Project at the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies.
These are qualities that would be required if the United Nations had any chance of rebuilding its tattered reputation and its potential capacity, said Bennis, author of several books on the world body, including “Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the U.N. Defy U.S. Power”.
She said Ban Ki-moon’s end-of-first-year speech provided an example. “While he spoke of protection of the ‘global commons’ and the ‘bottom billion’ as U.N. priorities, he failed to provide any real programmatic blueprints for how those crucial goals might be brought about,” Bennis told IPS.
Addressing his first press conference for 2008, Ban told reporters Monday: “You know that I am not one to speak easily of successes.”
“The past year was one of immense challenges,” he said, pointing out only two areas where he has made “certain progress”: “a new chapter on climate change” and “new and daunting challenges in peacekeeping, most specifically in Darfur.”
But still, the U.N. peacekeeping mission in Darfur is in trouble even before it could get off the ground, primarily due to a shortage of both troops and helicopters.
At the press briefing, Ban was constrained to admit he has only 9,000 out of the estimated 26,000 soldiers needed.
“That is why we are very much concerned about this ongoing deteriorating situation in Darfur,” he said, tempering his short-lived optimism on peacekeeping in Sudan.
Anwarul Karim Chowdhury, a former U.N. Under-Secretary-General and High Representative for Least Developed Countries (LDCs), says restoring the credibility and neutrality of the United Nations, as the most universal world body, is the organisation’s biggest challenge as the new secretary-general enters his second year.
“The United Nations has been losing the widespread respect and support it used to enjoy,” Chowdhury told IPS in an interview late December.
He cited several examples: there are demonstrations and protest marches against the U.N. A topmost official is prevented from visiting the U.N. office in the field. U.N. officials are being expelled by host governments. U.N. peacekeepers are being withdrawn on charges of sexual harassment. And it goes on and on, he said.
“Stigma of corrupt practices sticks on. U.N.’s esteem has never been that low worldwide. This should get top priority attention of the secretary-general and the senior management group,” said Chowdhury, a former permanent representative of Bangladesh to the United Nations and a diplomat who has been associated with the world body since the late 1960s.
Anuradha Mittal, founder and director of the San Francisco-based policy think tank Oakland Institute, said: “If allowed to be truly independent with necessary resources, an unbiased United Nations could have real impact and help affect real change when it comes to the most urgent issues of our times, including poverty, conflict resolution, HIV/AIDS and climate change.”
“Unfortunately, the United Nations and its agencies have become impotent as they have come to be controlled by western capitals such as Washington DC, who have held the United Nations hostage by withholding their contributions,” Mittal told IPS.
Therefore, the priority in 2008 would be for the United Nations and its agencies to live up to their original mandate, which was to bring all nations of the world together to work for peace and development, based on the principles of justice, human dignity and the well-being of all people, she declared.
Meanwhile, the United Nations is expected to face a rash of old and new political problems which it will try to resolve in 2008. These include the crisis in the Middle East, Darfur, Myanmar, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), amongst others.
At Monday’s press conference, the secretary-general pledged to galvanise world action on poverty alleviation — as he did on climate change at the General Assembly in September.
The demands on the United Nations grow ever greater, he said. “If anything, the coming year promises to be even tougher than the last.”
“Look how it has begun, with turmoil in Kenya and renewed violence in Sri Lanka. We must nurture a fragile peace process in the Middle East. We must do more to help the people of Iraq emerge from conflict and rebuild their shattered lives. We must stay the course in Afghanistan so that it does not again fall into lawless anarchy,” he said.
But can he really fulfill all — or most — of these pledges in 2008? Not a chance, says Bennis.
One of the most visible — and damaging — impacts of the foreign policy for the last seven years (of the administration of President George W. Bush) has been “a triumphalist assertion of unilateral militarism, ignoring or undermining or simply violating (largely without consequence) the United Nations Charter, U.N. resolutions and a host of other international laws”, she noted.
The United Nations was and remains one of the fundamental victims of the Iraq war — indeed, of the so-called “global war on terror”.
“A question for the uncertain future is whether the U.S. will lift its heavy-handed domination of the global body, and allow the U.N. at least the modicum of a chance to play the role mandated by its Charter: to end the scourge of war, to protect human rights for all people and peoples, and to work to eliminate global poverty and inequality,” Bennis told IPS.
So far the likelihood does not seem high — not least because U.S. domination of the U.N. has been for many years a bipartisan affair in Washington, she argued.
After all, it was Madeleine Albright, a former secretary of state in the ostensibly “multilateralist” administration of President Bill Clinton, who said in 1995 “the U.N. is a tool of American foreign policy.”
Certainly other countries — France and China among them — have played damaging roles in crucial U.N. developments in recent years, including reform efforts, Iran sanctions and more, Bennis said.
“But U.S. domination remains the single greatest obstacle to the U.N.’s realisation of its potential as part of an internationalist coalition, which would also include global social movements and a rotating cast of at least a few governments, standing against war, for human rights and protection of the planet, and providing the scaffolding for a world governed by laws instead of power,” she declared.
© 2008 Inter Press Service
As a filmmaker who has done a documentary in Angola about Poverty and the work of DW a Canadian NGO, I know something about the workings of the UN. I have worked with the political organization of UNESCO in Paris and I presently work with a twenty six year old NGO in New York who has been trying to raise awareness of the problems of Climate Change, one of the foremost of the policies that must be dealt with by all nations. The NGO, the CCC/UN is attempting to raise awareness of all the NGOs in the world about a new mission based on the times.
I am working on a documentary that deals with the interface between climate change andglobal poverty as one of the primary methods necessary to raise world awareness. We can wibeat these joint problems unless we unite the world, only the UN can do this. Regardless of the efforts of the developed world to deal with climate change, without the developing world joining, the balance needed will be lost and consequently the world will lose. we are all in this together, like it or not. The recognition of China, India, Indonesia, Brazil and Africa can not be overlooked.
The United Nations, despite its flaws, is the only world organization that can deal with this problem and it needs to be strengthened. It is the goal of my work to help the USA once again be involved with this effort. If we allow the United Nations to founder we will defeat our ability to save the globe for continued life of every kind.
We are on the precipice of disaster, George Bush has done more than any single individual in this world, not only to sink the USA but the United Nations as well. His policies of power, ignorance, failed global involvement by not reaching out to the world as part of the brotherhood of nations, and recognizing that we are all in this together and it will require all of us to save us. It is not only the actions of the developed world who are largely responsible for the problems we face on all fronts but the USA bears a larger proportion of the responsibility.
My film is an attempt to do discuss the interace between Poverty, Global Warming and Climate Change; to join with people who can help get the world moving. Yes, there are problems with the United Nations, there are problems that we must help fix for the organization to be a great positive force in the world and they are not too great that they cannot be fixed.
It is for this reason that I support and will work for Barak Obama, an African American who holds out the greatest possibility of helping the United Nations regain its force ofr change and peace. If we must have a military and pay for such a large military force out of the GNP than it should go to support the operations of the United Nations, rather than the wars of empire.
This letter is to Barak Obama, the US political system and Ban Ki-Moon. It is an idea whose time has come just as the election of an African American would boost American recognition in the world that a new change not only for America but for the world is possible for global survival. We must take this opportunity to survive.
I also heard Albright (Hillary supporter) say just the other day that the purpose of U.S. Foreign policy was to get other governments to do what we want.
“You use a few carrots.. like aid and sticks like embargoes and sanctions and as a last resort military force”…
So there you have it folks… I looks like the Clintons will be the same as Bush when it comes to the Racket of War.
I wonder if any reporters will ask the candidates if as President they will release to the public all of the remaining million hidden Documents on JFK?
That is my simple test.
The UN is, unfortunately, going the way of the League of Nations. The League was supposed to be the forum where international disputes could be solved at the conference table, with agreements to abide by these decisions. The US did not ratify or support the League, so it became a debating society and the powerful nations at the time laughed at it. Mussolini moved into Ethiopia and laughed at the censure from the League as it meant nothing.
When the UN was formed, it was designed to eliminate the problems of the League. The UN was to have Peace keepers, drawn from levys of all the nations. It worked for a while. I still remember the UN Peace keepers putting themselves between belligerents and enforcing a cease fire while the dispute was settled in the UN.
Two problems faced the UN. When it was established, the “victorious” “Big Five” were not going to let the less powerful tell them what to do, so they insisted on the Security Council, which had veto power over any decision of the General Assembly. That ensured that world opinion would have no effect upon the actions of the Big Five.
As the cold war built up, the US and the CCCP were at odds. Therefore almost anything that the US backed was vetoed by the CCCP and vice versa. Also, the UN depended on financing from its members, of which the Big Five were the wealthiest and the US was the richest of the lot. Since they controlled the purse strings, as it were, they had proportionately greater influence, and by withholding funds could cripple the UN’s peacekeeping forces, or bend them to their own interest.
We are now in the same situation we were in the thirties, where the powerful treat the UN with contempt and go on doing whatever they wish. It makes no difference to the US if they are stricken from the list of civilized nations. They will bomb and war at will and laugh at the attempts of their less wealthy and well armed neighbors.
As it stands, since the US will not clean house on its own, the world will have to wait, as it did with the original “Axis” until they have so outraged humanity that the world will rise up and smite us, at the cost of hundreds of millions of lives and untold misery.
Then, I suppose the process will start all over again. As Santayana said, “Those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I see the US as wanting to undermine and even replace The U.N.
I doubt any real change in foreign policy whilst terror and security are the buzzwords of a Corporate sponsored U.S. administration.
The U.N. needs to be disbanded in its present form. Nothing else can fix this co-opted organization that suposedly represents the global community. Its a tool the U.S. uses to further its Imperialist agenda and nothing more. While a lot of U.N. organizations do stellar work they can be siphoned off independantly and still continue working. However, the U.N. as a political body must be decapitated and the so called Security Council (’elite 5′ that rule the world using the U.N. as a pretext) should be dissolved.
Whoever cooked up the idea of the veto for all permanent members of the Security Council made sure at that very moment that the UN would be useless.
The only hope for the UN is for all such members to renounce the veto.
In other words, when a single snowball makes it all the way through every inch of every layer of Dante’s Hell, the fat lady sings, cows fly over the moon, Israel gives up its nukes, and Osama shaves his beard — then, the UN might have the chance to gain the collective power to be effective as intended.
On July 17th 2007 meeting with Bush in the White House, Ban Ki-Moon has enthusiastically promised Bush ASSISTANCE from the UN in the effort to improve THE POLITICAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS OF IRAQ. This support of Ban came at the time when Bush’s policy on US war in Iraq is widely criticised both in the US and abroad. A day before his meeting with Bush, Ban had adviced against an “abrupt withdrawal” of the US forces from Iraq, by arguing that the global neighborhood should not discard the Iraqi people. This has astonished some UN officials for supporting openly Bush’s Iraq policy.
Let me bring in the situation in Somalia and Ban Ki-Moon’s response to it:
Ban Ki-Moon, prodded by the US and the EU, has focussed most of his attention on the crisis in the Sudanese province of Darfur. But after the United States-sponsored invasion of Somalia in December 2006, the hapless nation has plunged into greater turmoil. United Nations officials now consider the situation in Somalia to be the worst humanitarian crisis in the African continent, surpassing by far the crisis in Darfur.
The U.N. has confirmed that the mortality rate in Somalia is now higher than that in Darfur. The number of those displaced from their homes has increased dramatically in the past couple of months after fighting between the occupation forces and the resistance escalated.
According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, there are more than a million displaced people in the country. The capital Mogadishu is the worst affected place. Sixty per cent of its population have fled after Ethiopian troops seized the capital. The head of the U.N. operations in Somalia, Eric Laroche, told the media that if such things happened in Darfur, “there would be a big fuss”. Somalia, he said, had been a “forgotten emergency for years”. According to U.N. estimates, the rate of malnutrition in Somalia is 19 per cent compared with 13 per cent in Darfur. To add to the woes of the Somalis, their country in the past one year has been afflicted by drought, floods and a locust infestation. The Shabelle region, Somalia’s breadbasket, had its worst harvest of the past 13 years. According to U.N. officials, this has put more than a million Somalis on the edge of starvation. As much as 71 per cent of the country’s population is classified as undernourished. The U.N. officials have said that Somalia “is into its worst humanitarian crisis in nearly 15 or 16 years”.
The primary reason for this dramatic spread of hunger and anarchy is the occupation of the country by Ethiopian troops at the U.S.’ behest. Ethiopian troops entered Mogadishu on December 25, 2006. U.S. forces helped the Ethiopian army with satellite pictures of the locations of the Islamic Courts’ fighters. The U.S. also used its air force and navy to target areas under the control of the Islamists. Without an international mandate, the Ethiopian forces entered Mogadishu and installed a puppet Transitional Federal Government.
The sitaution is similar in Congo, where more than six million innocent people have been killed due to the US sponsored massacre. Ban Ki-Moon has never condemned these terrorist activities of the US and the EU in these countries and also in Palestine and Lebanon.
By being one of the members of the quartet for the Middle East Peace (along with the US, EU and Russia), the UN has expressed itself to be not an organisation representing ALL THE COUNTRIES. But the irony is, the same countries (US, EU, and Russia) hold veto power, and make up of the UN Security Council. They hold more power because these countries INVEST more money in the UN. In a way the very existence of the UN is dependent on the CAPITAL of these countries. The same dynamics that is underlying the world order (that is, the economically and militarily powerful counrties holding in bondage those countries that are economically and militarily weak) can be seen in the functioning of the UN. In the history of the UN, it has always been the US which has hand-picked the Secretary General of the UN. Ban Ki-Moon is one of them.
I don’t forsee anything “good” coming out of the UN for the economically and militarily weak countries, as long as the UN is under the BONDAGE of the economically and militarily powerful US and the EU.
The above comment is correct! However we can understnd that it is the political climate controls the UN and the money that the big thrtee give. . . .this will change when climate change finishes the job the big three and NATO continued. if the UN is not rebuilt we are all done. based on a few tears Am erica is now back on the road to Clinton finishing the Bush Job. No too much difference big budiness will continue in cotrol humanity does not have a chance but the the realith will be upon us soon. Another wated four years u til everyone finds the truth.
Jim Glover January 11th, 2008 2:10 pm
“I also heard Albright (Hillary supporter) say just the other day that the purpose of U.S. Foreign policy was to get other governments to do what we want.”
But you already new that, Jim! Madeline Albright isn’t telling us something we didn’t already know.
“If we must have a military and pay for such a large military force out of the GNP than it should go to support the operations of the United Nations…”
You mean like the wonderful humanitarian interventionism in Cite’ Soleil, Haiti, or the humanitarian bombing of Serbian trains and TV stations?
Most Americans support UN control over international crises. A slim majority of Americans polled support eliminating the veto power of the US and the other four original nuclear powers on the UNSC. Sixty-five percent of Americans favor the elimination of all nuclear weapons. So the issue of UN reform is a US political issue for progressives. The established US government is at odds with the people. This is an opportunity for progressives, should we unite and choose to seize it. Progressive Democrats, progressive independents, Green Party members (who are by definition progressive), and progressive leaders all support a radical reform of the UN. It is not impossible. It would require political unity and acting in concert on the political stage.
Ben Ferencz, former Nuremberg prosecutor, made a comprehensive set of proposals for reforming the UN through UNSC resolutions, one of which was the now-existing International Criminal Court. See his website at www.benferencz.org
The on-going global & cosmic drama that is growing each day is leading to several watershed conclusions, one of which is the soon-to-occur legal overthrow (legal coup) of the current US regime & many others. This will start a cascade of falling dominoes, one of which will be the recharter of the UN.
http://paoweb.com/updates.htm
Earthian January 11th, 2008 8:55 pm
www.benferencz.org
Earthian,
Thanks for the link to LAW. NOT WAR. I’ve heard Ben Ferencz speak a couple of times on C-Span and was deeply inspired and impressed with this man.
The U.N. will continue to be impotent as far as the U.S. is concerned as long as their headquarters are in New York.
Move the U.N. OUT of the U.S. Somewhere, Brussels,Oslo,Helsinki,South Africa,Ho Chi Ming City,etc.
The UN can boot the US out. Japan, Germany and South Korea can boot the US out too.
Someone above has mentioned about Benjamin Ferencz’s proposal for UN reforms. I googled to know about this American prosecutor, and to find out whether he is in anyway different from the US government and majority of Americans. I have found an interesting debate on “Should the Former Iraqi Dictator Be Tried Before An Iraqi or an International Court?” arranged by Democracynow on the 15th December 2003, in which among the participants were Benjamin Ferencz, and Michael Ratner of Ceter for Constitutional Rights. Atleast from the debate it is evident that Ferencz is like any other arrogant and suppremacist American and European who think that their leaders and governments should be given immunity from criminal trials (even if they are involved, directly or indirectly, in genocidal activities), and criminal trials/courts are meant for only “others”. It is on this bias of Ferencz that Michael Ratner opposed the former’s argument. For Ferencz whatever the US does is ok and it can not be tried in any international court. SAME ARROGANT, SUPPREMACIST AND COLONIAL MIND!!!!!!!!!
Read this interesting debate on www.democracynow.org, 15th December 2003.
The real problem is the US funds most of the UN. That is why it cannot really let go of the US. It would have to start taxing all its member countries instead of letting it be voluntary or just make up its own currency based on nothing? For the UN to have the power it needs it would have to be the world law like the ECC and the Hague and hold every leader accountable and also be the welfare organization for weak leaders who need help.
This isn’t a NEWS article. It was known going in that Moon would be ineffectual, a straw dummy the Security Council propped up.
Moon does the bidding of the Council. And I might add that the reference to “the West” as solely impeding reform is only partially correct, since Beijing is also a powerful bully, too, and doesn’t want the UN meddling in its backyard.
Don’t forget that Moon illegally refused Taiwan’s formal bid to be considered a UN member under the name, “Taiwan.” In fact, it is the Taiwan issue that shows the UN is no longer fulfilling its stated mission.
Why aren’t you progressives looking at what’s happening to Taiwan?
If the people on this planet are going to survive, it is necessary that a organization should exist that can mediate between nations. I wish the U.S. would let that happen, but it is far from the only nation who has stood in its way.
The US is always talking of ‘bringing democracy’ to others. How about to the UN? Abolish the Security Council and let the entire General Assembly work; eliminate veto power; countries that owe dues do not vote; and…return the UN where it belongs: in Switzerland. No blackmailing.
ike kay January 11th, 2008 1:58 pm
“…. It is for this reason that I support and will work for Barak Obama, an African American who holds out the greatest possibility of helping the United Nations regain its force ofr change and peace….”
========================
Obviously you have given much thought into this, but more importantly, are actively involved in putting into practice what you believe in. However I was a bit surprised at reading the above quoted passage. Have you considered the fact that Obama would support a preventive war in a sovereign country if evidence gathered by intelligence sources is merely “actionable? How does that show support for UN or international law? Read here http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/06/6205/
Also the fact that Obama is an African American should make no difference in making a judgment on a person’s policy intentions. What difference does it make if Condi or Powell are African American, or for that matter that Gonzales is a Hispanic American? To me ZERO. To me it does not matter which race you belong to , which party you belong to, even to an extreme, which person you are … to me it all boils down to what do you support and what do you do.
I go the opposite direction from other posters here. UN votes should be apportioned according to a combination of population and GDP, two key factors of military power. It’s ridiculously unrealistic AND undemocratic that Bhutan and India or the US and Bermuda have equal votes. Weighting votes to favor the more powerful countries would make General Assembly votes more meaningful as indicators of world opinion. Rather than having permanent memberships plus other rotating memberships the Security Council should consist solely of the five biggest voters, with a two-power rather than one-power veto. Such a system would let membership change with ebbs and flows of population and economy. Under present circumstances it would likely knock out Britain and France in favor of India and Japan. Maybe Brazil would replace Russia. However, groups of nations that formed effective supernational governments with standing armed forces (I’m thinking of the EU with an army) could replace individual seats with a combined seat.
There are also big problems in Haiti were UN troops engage in sexual assault with impunity. I would like to see more news on CD about Haiti.
If we take the course suggested by militantliberal, then we will still have the US standing as one of the most powerful nations, once again able to use a “wrecking ball” approach to voting and sanctions. It is a well known fact that the current administration does not believe in the UN, and will do anything to spoil the party by using power of veto. The choice of John Bolton as a UN representative was a show of contempt for the organisation.
The only fair system would involve one vote per nation, irrespective of population, GDP, military strength etc. The very reason some countries have been able to defy resolutions constantly, has been because of the lack of resolve from countries like the US and UK, who will misuse the power of veto, and lobby (threaten, cajole, invade) countries who stand against them.
Hey militantliberal I can see what you are talking about but I don’t quite agree. I think it should come down to economy yes, but in a different approach. For one example, I think every indigenous group should have a seat to reflect their differences as to not end up a stepping stone and all armies should be there to protect people first not just to fight. We have the technology to be the life saving force in the world (as humans that is), we should not have a reason to go to war when diplomatic measures can do so much, if we can foster that sort of communication between parties, being key. If the UN had more seats available and its holders were not looking to be so selfish we all could have a wonderful time with our lives as we SHARE our world together. Taiwan is a prime example of selfishness. We want it for manufacturing cheap goods, China has it and won’t let it go, they just want to be left alone to regrow their own culture. What is wrong with that? If the world wants to play genocidal games, they can vote to have a group eradicated to their face and suffer threw that while looking instead of just making it so on paper and looking away like with modern warfare. Our leaders could look each other in the eye amid the rest of the leaders and show off their selfishnesses. With transparencies like that who would need soap operas! Our tribal war-faring nations would be in deep shit for years to come working things out! I know, I dream too!
The UN has become an extension of the US Government that is used to whip countries that refuse to sing to the US tune. The US does not respect the UN charter just as it tramples on its own Constitution.
Mr Moon is weak. The UN needs someone with the fire of the Sun to stand up to the only rogue nation with the delusion that it owns the world.
The UN headquarters must be moved elsewhere to be out of the US sphere of influence and its selective visa regulations. Such a move would also deprive the US of arranging demonstrations to embarrass the arriving foreign dignitaries it does not like.
The power to veto is extremely undemocratic and should also be abolished in favor of the General Assembly vote.
The US believes in the UN, the same way our Founding Fathers believed in the Declaration and Consitition - as a permanent means of securing their position as slave Masters, and as a “Legal” method to transfer wealth to themselves from the hands of the vassals (or in this case vassal states). The rest was just bullshit words to tickle the vassals and get them to sign on, like the Bill of Rights (Ha-Ha). When the UN, like dissidents in the US, try to make the Institution live up to the committments in the Charter or the Constitution, you get fire hoses, secret police, assassinations, false imprisonments, torture, and secret prisons.
Conquest, Booty, & Slaves - 1492, 1609, 2008. The UN can either get out of the way or play a more active role in our Conquest of the Planet. Besides, as is plain, without US funding, there is no UN. You paya the bills, you maka the rules.
Fortunately, our time for honoring ourselves will soon be at an end.
To survive we must make a place for everyne at the table and reject war and conquest as a way of Life. To accomplish this we must destroy our richfilth elites. America refused in ‘64. America refuses to this day. Conquest. Booty. Slaves.
It is the ruin of men that they forget.
Peace.
The UN is not dependent on the US for “funding”. “Funding” is a racket.
wikipedia->racket: the business is making money by selling a solution to a problem that it created (or that it intentionally allows to continue to exist), specifically so that continuous purchases of the solution are always needed
In the case of “funding” it is the belief that “funding” is needed that is being sold. “Funding” is only an alternative, one with incredibly damaging consequences (subjugation, enslavement, oppression)
Gail,
You wrote: “Thanks for the link to LAW. NOT WAR.”
You are welcome.
Ben Ferencz’s website and books are a storehouse of knowledge of international law and the UN. www.benferenz.org
He wrote a book called Global Survival: Survival Through the Security Council.
Here is review from Ben’s website. I’ve excepted below the 12 proposals that Ben advocates to fix the UN immediately through the Security Council. (He acknowledges it is not enough, but would be a great beginning. The one about the ICC has been implemented.)
http://www.benferencz.org/gsreview.htm
“The first five resolutions, designed to strengthen the laws of world peace, call for (1) settling all disputes by peaceful means, (2) clearly defining aggression, (3) prohibiting crimes against humanity, (4) ending the arms race, and (5) enhancing social justice. The next three resolutions, aims at strengthening courts for peace, would (1) enhance the International Court of Justice, (2) create an International Criminal Court, and (3) create a World Tribunal for Social Justice to address human rights and environmental problems. The final four resolutions, to strengthen peace enforcement, would (1) create a UN Disarmament Enforcement Agency, (2) create a UN Sanctions Agency, (3) create a UN Police Agency, and (4) create a UN Social Justice Agency.
Finally, Ferencz presents concrete proposals to generate the necessary political will for achieving the goal he has defined. Specifically, he calls for changing existing perceptions and mobilizing public opinion for peace through peace education and vigorous participation in the process by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).”
Ben is a modern day Klaatu (From The Day the Earth Stood Still, a movie about UN reform, according to its producer and writer.).
In addition, in Kofi Annan’s last speech, which was in Kansas City, he describes his recommendations for improving the UN. He clearly criticizes the US for violating international law.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6169669.stm
These sources are good, well-informed arguments for fixing the UN to become more democratic and more effective.
AndyUK wrote: “If we take the course suggested by militantliberal, then we will still have the US standing as one of the most powerful nations, once again able to use a “wrecking ball” approach to voting and sanctions.”
The US will stand tall as the world’s most powerful nation for some time, whatever the UN’s structure, so the UN might as well reflect that honestly. All those posters who think the UN will benefit from excluding the US are dead wrong. The point is to get the US to channel its power legally through the UN rather than around it. In fact, it’s in America’s interest as a status quo power to uphold the Charter and other treaties and encourage other states to do the same, although Bush and the neocons have been too idiotic and infected with gangster machismo to see that.
“The only fair system would involve one vote per nation, irrespective of population, GDP, military strength etc.”
Why is it fair for tiny Bermuda to have a vote equal to that of the US or China? That’s like the rotten boroughs of the old British Parliament, or the stupid U.S. Senate, which makes Rhode Island equal to California and ensures some empty farm states a stranglehold on the U.S. government.
It’s nice to dream of a system run by the powerless and downtrodden, but if it doesn’t have the support of the great powers it won’t mean anything. Until there’s a one-world government with a monopoly on armed force, the great powers are all we have to work with.
ike kay January 11th, 2008 1:58 pm
“…. It is for this reason that I support and will work for Barak Obama, an African American who holds out the greatest possibility of helping the United Nations regain its force ofr change and peace….”
citizen1 January 12th, 2008 10:21 am
Also the fact that Obama is an African American should make no difference in making a judgment on a person’s policy intentions.
Nailed it!
If being black could miraculously make a difference why then was Kofi Annan not able to stop the illegal invasion of Iraq by the US even though the UN weapons inspecting didn’t find any WMD?
Saila January 12th, 2008 1:59 pm
The UN has become an extension of the US Government that is used to whip countries that refuse to sing to the US tune. The US does not respect the UN charter just as it tramples on its own Constitution.
Nailed!~
It’s the BURGERS:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261
Testing 1,2,3
terr-o-rize works but some derivatives of like words don’t.
To be considered an active and voting member of any organization dues need to be kept up-to-date. If dues are not paid the rights to full participation and to vote are lost. Our government owes many, many, dollars to the U.N. Ted Turner paid millions a few years ago but we still owe much more money. Therefore until such time as dues are paid up this government has no vote. How heartbreaking that the government of the United States is such a poor example to the world.
Ban Ki-Moon treads on eggshells when leading any potentially anti-US policy.
South Korea has long been in hock to the US for aid in counterbalancing North Korea along the 38th Parallel and for preferential economic treatment. (As is Japan where Okinawa hosts a vast US military base)
I doubt BKM could forget the huge influence, even in humanity’s name.
For those who wish to nail it!
The purpose of this editorial is to stengthen the UN! Sure there is a lot wrong but it takes people with good faith to join the world instead of nailing it! But tfor those who think that US policy replaces the UN, your ignorance shows well. It’s the only agency in the world like it or not that can get the world talking when the right political changes are made. Koffi Anan? He is not an American lending US cocern and power to global issues or the working of the UN bad as some of it is. Help change, and fund the UN, don’t put it down. Obama like no one else could do that and there are not many options left. Moon is not the Koffi Anan, however bad he may have been he could never be a George Bush! None of the other candidates could give a statement supporting the UN that an African American or person of color could.
I hope those who are nailing it should go to Home Depot instead of this blog and stay away from intellectual thinking!