UN Reform called for

[pritchke]

It is time to reform the UN.

OUAGADOUGOU, Burkina Faso (CP) -- Prime Minister Paul Martin has invited the 51 Francophonie member-states to a summit in Canada on reforming the United Nations to better protect suffering peoples.

In an address to the group Friday, he spoke of his visit to Sudan this week and used that country as proof the UN needs an expanded mandate to intervene when nations fail to halt internal violence.

Such a move would be a revolutionary change for a worldwide institution created in the wake of the Second World War, with its traditional mandate always being the iron-clad protection of national sovereignty.

But Martin said the UN needs an updated mandate.

Source


The biggest hurdle is because some countries are wary of Martin's plan because they feel it would give more powerful states an excuse to invade weaker countries whenever violence breaks out. But while the UN argues over if something is considered genocide or not the people are being butchered and by the time the UN acts the people have already been killed. This would speed that process up 10 fold and guys like Saddahm, and Milsovich would have been taken out long before they become an established power, and the massacre in Rwanda would never have happened. I didn't agree with the current Iraq war but there were times when a justified war could have removed the dictator but everybody sat on there fat derrières. Time to change the mandate.

[ 11-26-2004, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[pritchke]

Also related to the above.

KHARTOUM, Sudan (CP) - Prime Minister Paul Martin ended a brief visit to war-torn Sudan on Thursday with a diplomatic slap at the national government, saying the world isn't buying its excuses anymore. Source

Basically this is a country under Martin's proposed reform of the UN were the UN would have interfered long ago weather the government wanted it or not. I actually like our new leader he has done more in a few months with a slight minority government than the previous one did in over 10 years.

[ 11-26-2004, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Cerek]

Sounds like he has some good ideas. I agree that the U.N. needs to be reformed and needs to change their focus and how they do business.

Saddam Hussein should have been removed during Gulf War I, but the U.N. wouldn't allow the troops to advance into Iraq once the troops were pushed back across the border.

The U.N. also needs to put some "teeth" into thier sanctions and actions. While I'm sure the Inspectors did everything the could to find the WMD Saddam had (or allegedly had), the fact remains that Hussein was blantantly "jerking them around". He would often refuse to let them search a particular site for several days (long enough to remove anything incriminating that might be found there) and the Inspectors were basically powerless to do anything about it but complain.

Saddam knew that if he delayed them long enough, that the world would soon shift it's attention elsewhere and basically forget about him...which is what happened. Finally, in 1998, he gave up all pretense of compliance and simply ordered the U.N. Inspectors to leave - which they did gladly because of the frustration level they were experiencing.

It is a refreshing change to see the U.N. telling Sudan "We aren't buying your excuses anymore." They should have done THAT to Saddam several years ago.

This actually gives me hope that the U.N. can become the international force for peace that it was meant to be.

[Davros]

I agree with the notion of reforming the UN and letting it work as it should. One thing though Cerek, in the wake of the US invasion forces being unable to find anything in Iraq I think we can cast the so called inabilities of the UN weapons inspection teams in a somewhat different light. Many cries went out that the UN inspections were useless, that Saddam monkeyed them around and the whole process was toothless and the real truths were being hidden away.

History on those points needs a little recasting methinks. It looks like the UN inspections and embargoes were reasonably effective in containing Saddam's access and abilities to acquire WOMD. It's just that the world (and that includes war proponents and opponents) did not believe that was possible.

[Azred]

I have had a great dislike for the UN for more than a decade, because it is a useless organization as it currently exists and it gives our detractors too much ability to oppose us simply because they don't like us; that attitude is really immature at the international level.
I cannot think of any configuration of a restructured UN that would make any difference. No matter which nation is under focus at a particular time, nations opposed to that nation would try to find a way to undermine their enemy. Too many personal feelings would block any real progress at the international level. Better to simply dissolve it altogether.

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Azred: I cannot think of any configuration of a restructured UN that would make any difference. No matter which nation is under focus at a particular time, nations opposed to that nation would try to find a way to undermine their enemy. Too many personal feelings would block any real progress at the international level. Better to simply dissolve it altogether.

And ideologically/economically opposed nations would not try to oppose each other on principle anyway?
This may be a straw-man fallacy, but your words here seem akin to saying that the US should do away with the democratic process because the personal feelings of opposing parties would lead them to oppose each other simply because of emotional animosity.

Promoting the dissolution of the UN is just plain lazy thinking, and diplomatically cowardly too: Picking up your toys and going home because you don't like the game that is being played. [img]graemlins/idontagreeatall.gif[/img]

[Aerich]

Better to retain it than to break it. Just because it needs more teeth to be truly effective isn't a reason to shoot the dog.

It's too bad that political considerations overwhelmingly decide humanitarian issues on the world level. That is the major reason why the UN has not been able to put together a quick-reaction team that could step into places like East Timor, Sudan, etc.

[Timber Loftis]

Can't reform the UN until you get the scoundrels out. Can't get the scoundrels out until you open up the oil-for-food-for-bribes-for-Kofi's-son investigation and make it transparent. Once we see what happened with oil-for-bribes, then we can see how to reform the UN. Until then, I guess we just ignore it as an international body of eunuchs.

[Azred]

Originally posted by The Hierophant: Promoting the dissolution of the UN is just plain lazy thinking, and diplomatically cowardly too: Picking up your toys and going home because you don't like the game that is being played. [img]graemlins/idontagreeatall.gif[/img]

That is one way to see the situation. On the other hand, do you enjoy playing games with those who are either immature and/or whine when they don't get their way?

There is a size limit to a democratic body; any organization the size of the UN is doomed to languish in a quagmire of discussion over topics even as trivial as seating arrangements.

[Timber Loftis]

There is a size limit to a democratic body

Truly. In fact, some would say that size limit is a few hundred or -- at most -- thousand people. When we're talking large scales, what distinguishes the USA, with its 350 million, from the UN? What makes one behemoth a more viable democratic entity than another behemoth?