|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-04 15:11:59
This whole Iraq conflagration in the Security Council brings up some basic questions of it:
When does the UN review the make-up of the security council?
Are the 5 veto-wielding permanent members going to the same 5 forever? Until an asteroid takes the planet out?
If India continues to grow in size and stature - won't it be legitimate for it to question why it isn't a permanent member and France is? The same applies to Brazil, maybe even Nigeria one day, etc...
Does anyone happen to the answer to these questions? Or, was this never thought of?
I suggest Canada work to reforming the UN in this capacity.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-04 16:42:45
The UN security council is fixed as it is, and it cannot change since the UN charter was drawn up like that. I read somewhere that initially during the initial crafting of the UN in San Francisco, France had to fight its way to have veto power btw.
From some point of view it may be good and bad at the same time (that the security council is the way it is now)... Its bad because its undemocratic, its good because if it was truly democratic, we could have, like the UN Human Rights Commission (where Lybia is now at the presidency of the Commission) states which do not respect democratic principles gang up against the others ... and the security council would become completely futile! :(
I think in the long run that it would be interesting reform the Security Council, but i personally think the world is not ready for that yet...
Of course, all this is my personal opinion.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: edmassey9
Date: 2003-03-10 11:35:10
If the United States and Great Britain invade Iraq in violation of international law (ie. without a new UN resolution specifically madating war) as they say they will regardless of the upcoming vote on the proposed resolution, then they will have put the final nail in the current UN's coffin.
This will be the opportunity for
Canada to initiate a call for the rebirth of the UN.
A UN where no one has a veto.
A UN where representatives are elected from the people of their country.
A UN that would be funded by individual contributions.
A UN that would have an international police force and central judicial system that charged, arrested, tried, convicted or aquited and as necessary sentenced leaders for their crimes against the international community (or their own community).
In cases where the convicted individuals were in control of military capabilities the member nations would position their combined military capabilities to enforce the sentence.
Case in point: Saddam Hussein and his Regime would be facing extinction
As would Ariel Sharon and his extremists
As would the perpetrators of the current genocide in the Congo
As would Tony Blair and George Bush if they follow through on their invasion threat (of course Bush would already be on the list for the civillians he manslaughtered in Afghanistan)
It's not inconceivable that every leader in the world (elected or otherwise) would be facing some action from this Canadain based new world order concept.
At the lower end of the scale our own Jean Chretien would be facing charges for his part in the pepper spraying of the anti-globalization demonstrators.
Any way you get my picture.
It would take a lot of money and a lot of effort on the part of a lot of people.
Of course the "security council clone" of this very UN replacement I'm proposing would no doubt be forced to act in a way that would lead to the deaths of the innocent and possibly a nuclear war and therefor have to put themselves on trial.
It's a sick and complex world full of wicked people that we live in.
But there's always Plan B:
With the demise of the current UN we could sit by and watch as anarchy, civil war and revolution break out around the globe and eventually culminates with the last human being drawing their last breath and inaudibly uttering . . . catch twenty t . .
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-11 00:20:26
Our best hope is the American people will realized that THEY need a regime change and elect a more rational leader.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-11 16:06:48
They probably will as they did with Bush Senior.
They will replace Bush Jr. with a president much more to the "peace-nicks" liking.
One who only orders attacks on other countries when his barely legal girlfriends/interns are revealing the torrid bits of their passionate affairs.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-03-11 20:19:49
"One who only orders attacks on other countries when his barely legal girlfriends/interns are revealing the torrid bits of their passionate affairs." Now I know who you are! You're Rush Limbaugh aren't you?
Really that's beneath you.
They're more likely to replace GWB with someone who articulates a vision for rebuilding their economy. Have you looked at their budget defecit projections lately? They might even pick someone with a proven ability at nuanced thought, who has skill at diplomacy and can begin rebuilding their damaged international alliances, who might keep her/his word about promised reforms, who might actually be a free-trader not a protectionist available to any lobby that walks in the door and they might even find themselves, like New Zealand did, electing someone who straight out says "We have to raise taxes." Gopod knows the fiscal hole this administration is digging is getting deeper by the second.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: critictrue1
Date: 2003-03-12 09:24:50
Perhaps Liebermann will become the next president and Ari will remain as spokesman. Rothchilds don't mind lending the US more money. It is so simple. Simly enter the amount electronically and collect 5% interest.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-12 11:03:35
Banquo,
Yes, its true, I am Rush Limbaugh.
Look, people who disagree with Bush have pasted all sorts of ugly motives to his actions. They have also painted anyone who thinks Bush might have a point as being equally vicious and stupid.
So, its a bit of quid pro quo.
On your comments regarding the economy, I agree entirely that the US government is being rather reckless with their spending.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-12 23:26:52
Even if we did not suspect his motives; his words are not to be trusted.
The attack on Afghanistan was supposed to only to target terrorists. There was too much collateral damage and innocent civillians killed ; some only targeted because they were tall and could be Osama.
What has happened to "rebuilding Afghanistan" Iran is spending more money rebuilding Afghanistan than any other country.
Many of G W Bush'd proofs of Iraq"s WMD have been found to be fraudulent or irrelovant. The Drone planes that were to drop bomblets and that he claimed the weapon inspectors didn't reveal were made of balsam wood???? very scary
I do not like Saddam; I believe he deliberately provoked the Americans.
He was looking for a confrontation.
But while iraq is disarming under the weapons inspector of the UN. It is not a rational time to attack. America's insistence on attacking at this time is making them look as bad as the terrorists. America's insistence that its military not be tried for war crimes and it's refusal to join the War Crimes Tribunal makes its actions very suspect to me
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-13 15:56:14
I think you have a legitimate cause to suspect their motives, given that over their history, like so many other countries, they have failed to live up to the high standards they set for themseleves.
Whether or not Iraq is disarming is probably unknowable. Yes, there are gestures that it has made, always at the last minute. But these gestures, in my mind, reveal Saddam's motives more than anything.
I think America's objections to the war crimes tribunal are legitimate ones. I'm not saying that these concerns cannot be overcome. But the US is the land of frivolous lawsuits, so that they would be paranoid that frivolous accusations be levelled in the ICC or WCT is understandable!:>
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-03-13 20:34:11
Ha! Good point.
The real reason the US is against the World Court is that several prominent American citizens would be among the first called to defend their actions. Congress and The White House know this perfectly well. The US's resistance to airing their dirty linen for the judgement of other's is not unjustified *but* when considered in concert with many other US non-multilateral decisions over the last few years the conclusion that they simply have no interest in true global community is almost inescapable.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-14 14:35:27
But they never really did have any interest in the global community. It wasn't until 1942 that they become seriously active in world affairs. In fact, people still criticise them for that isolationist position.
What's so great about the global community?
Most countries on the planet are despotic, corrupt regimes and their citizens are deprived of their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Why do we want to align ourselves with those regimes and form a community with them when we have no idea what their citizens think of this alliance?
Will you really take the World Court seriously when its Lybia's turn to appoint the chief justice? Do you think Lybians will have any say in that appointment - even indirectly?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-14 23:31:24
Is not Phillipe Kirsch of Canada the newly ELECTED chief justice of the International Criminal Court May 11, 2003. Not appointed by one country
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-14 04:28:25
I also have doubts about the ICC, on the other hand creation of the ICC is morally justified.
There are problems though, the ICC is not even setup yet (the statute took effect in june 2002), and there are already 200 complaints!! The statute indicates that it only takes care of cases between june 2002 and later - have there been 200 genocides / war crimes between june 2002 and now??? We will see how the judges rules - i currently have good faith in the ICC, but this good faith is thin. Only time will tell.
Also, even though WWII was a long time ago and our standards have evolved since that time, today the Allies could be put under trial under the ICC, because they did bomb cities to demoralize the civilian population of Germany. I have no real opinion on this, I'm just saying the facts... and I'm just wondering... Is this good, is this bad? Probably today we have other ways of demoralizing the population without resorting to massive civilian bombing...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-14 13:08:33
Small 'errata' to my message, it seems the start date of the statute was july 2002 and not june 2002....
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-14 16:04:51
Banquo, I would be more comfortable with the so-called "peace" activists who declare this war immoral and Bush/Blair potential war criminals if those activists were making the same comments during the bombing of Serbia.
But we didn't hear anything like that, and certainly not in the same number. Why? I have no clue.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-15 02:03:21
I believe Mr Bush would be considered a war criminal already. The prisoners of war from Afghanistan or whatever he calls them are being held with no contact to lawyers or family.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: ninja
Date: 2003-03-16 20:05:03
The security council represents an idea where great powers are mandated to preserve world security and peace. However, as more and more people become dissatisfied with their leaders - and not just in so called rogue state, a reform of the council is greatly needed.
One way of given the council more legitimacy is to let civil society organizes a people assembly that has deliberations at the UN level. Proposals would be then debated among elected leaders and elected representatives from the civil society, accountable to the rule of international law and community involvement.
Canada should propose such reform by showing the benefit of civil society and NGOs involvement, like in the Landmines treaty. Such new body will enventualy enhances the legitimacy and credibility of the council, desesperatly needed in the war against terrorism.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-19 07:31:23
I prefer the current state of affairs with the UN, maybe the general Assembly of nations should have more power, and less for the security council, but in my opinion, the General Assembly should be appointed by the national governments and not be elected, otherwise it could cause a greate mess if an elected member of a nation has a different opinion than the actual national government!
Most NGOs have hidden political agendas, I would not like it if they could directly participate in the decision making, maybe they could submit resolutions, if they are accredited, directly to the Security Council? That would be a good idea... And is a good middle ground solution...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cell
Date: 2003-03-19 14:14:15
The security council's fixed membership is not the issue in this current
slaughter. The issue as stands is that the voting Western African
nations who are current areas of exploration, and civil unrest are simply
pawns of the northern European nations that have been integral to their current
civil unrest. This unfortunate situation has arisen because of the
American reluctance to pay their U.N. dues. It is a complex situation
in so much as America being the #1 global protector does in fact have
said right; it unfortunatly does not do much for their international
image. It's kind of like the Police chief refusing to buy tickets to the
policemen's ball.
Does India have a shot at security council status? The fundamental
impediment to that occuring is their national standard of living. It is
puerile to assume that military strength is the fundamental logistic in
the selection of the security council. Its formation is the result of
political allegiances based on trade necessities. If India can become
a big market player, with a substantial army, and rise to the occasion
in a local conflict: e.g. exploit Parkistani labour under the guise of being
Sri Lankan, and then diffuse an ensuing conflict, establishing their own
political representatives in positions of power, whilst maintaining local
media supremacy, thereby convincing both Sri Lankan and Pakistani
populations that they are in fact being represented by their democratically
elected leader of choice then they have a shot.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-21 10:15:48
It is the issue. In diplomacy, both sides must demonstrate to the other that they understand the opposing position and the perspective from which it is generated.
While much has been made of the fact that the US ignores the other side, so too has the other side.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-22 08:22:19
An excerpt from Mr. Igor Ivanov:
"...rappelant que Moscou propose d'y faire entrer cinq nouveaux membres permanents: l'Allemagne, le Japon, un Etat d'Asie (la Russie suggère l'Inde) un d'Afrique et un d'Amérique Latine. "
Even though i agree with him, 10 permanent members which all have a veto would put the Security council in a complete state of paralysis... Maybe they could be 5 permanent members without veto power, that would be better...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-22 18:02:26
I don't think the number of permanent members is as important as addressing the issue of permanent members. I don't believe any country should be a permanent member, There should be more flexibility to adjust to how many and which countries are on this list. The world changes and some countries grow in influence and participation in world affairs; while others fade or disintegrate. I think the UN will need to work on a solution to building and enforcing its power and decisions. I still believe its foundations are strong and it can grow and succeed. To bring this about with so many countries involved will require continuous and long term work but I hope it can be done. I do believe it to be the best solution possible to build towards acceptable world peace
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-24 14:57:25
I agree with you, but we also to have watch out that countries which have dictators as heads fo states (which i think are in the majority in Africa), don't get more voices than democratic countries... Because that would be a great defeat for humanity...
You are right, the UN has a strong base, the mechanisms are wrong, but they will be modified one day i guess..
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: 1173
Date: 2003-04-02 10:12:17
It is not just the Security Council that requires revision it is the UN mandate that must be amended.
That any member should have a veto denies the practice of democracy as any veto carrying nation could always frustrate the will of the international community.
Suggestions for reforming the UN are too complex to be expresed in this forum. If you are interested, you could read some of my comments on this subject at the liberalslant.com site in an article, "The UN is compromised--its future effectiveness is now in doubt" of 12/19/03 in the Archives and an article titled, "What if World Leaders and the UN had acted?" of 10/07/02.
Calvin
Reply to this message
|
|
