|
Participant: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-04 16:53:51
Canada's proposal is a good one and I am proud of the government for presenting a pragmatic solution to the current deadlock.
If this proposal is what Canada wants as a template for future foreign policy initiatives, then good! But what kind of template is it?
As I understand it, Canada is working hard to salvage the UN as a legitimate body with real principles, prepared to enforce its resolutions.
I would suggest that Canada should pursue structural reforms to the UN in the aftermath of this current crisis. The UN, even if we love it and want to preserve it, has been revealed to be not quite as effective or fair as we have presumed it to be.
For example, it does strike people as odd to see Lybia heading up the human rights commission. (Canada objected to this, as did the US. Canada should be proud of its stance.)
But what of the security council? The make-up of the council seems totally undemocratic. What mechanisms are in place to review who is a permanent member and who isn't?
Does anyone worry about the day when a non-permanent member of considerable military capability becomes annoyed with submitting to the "authority" of less significant, but permanent members of the security council?
Not very democratic.
Répondre à ce message
|
