OK, in an attempt to get this thread
BACK ON TRACK, I'll respond to irate's comments.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by irateplatypus
it seems you're trying to ride both sides of the fence... on one hand you attempt to refute any criticisms of the UN, yet also maintain that it is much in need of reforming. in what ways would you reform it?
|
I'm not refuting "any criticisms" of the UN at all. In fact, I've repeatedly said otherwise.
How would I reform it?
Well, I would either abolish or reform the concept of "Permanent" members of the Security Council. It may have reflected Real Politik in the post-WWII era, but I'm not so sure it's appropriate today. Of course, it's a difficult subject and I don't claim to have all the answers.
Quote:
if those reforms you propose are much needed and fundamental... i'm not sure we disagree at all except that you seem married to the idea that the UN is the institution of choice for international coordination while i'm not convinced their record merits that confidence.
|
With what would you replace it? Call "it" whatever you like, but the concept is the same. I'm arguing against those who seem to resist the whole concept of an inter-national body, that there is "no need" for the UN etc.
Quote:
things i would do to reform the UN:
1) establish criteria where the united nations MUST act in a humanitarian situation. if there is blatant genocide (rwanda) or an extreme humanitarian crisis (somalia) then the UN must intervene. i make no judgement as to how stringent those guidelines should be but, as it stands, the UN demagogues humanitarian issues while avoiding the circumstances that are not politically expedient.
|
Well this statement is in glaring inconsistency with the majority of anti-UN arguments heard heretofore. On one hand we have anti-UN posters stating that the US should never cede an iota of sovereignty to the UN, yet on another we have you saying that the the United Nations
"MUST act" in particular circumstances. Since the UN has no assets (military or economic) other than that provided by its members, you are suggesting that the United States
"MUST act" when and if the United Nations so commands.
I'm hope you see the hypocracy here.
The UN should never be forced to act at all. By its very nature it is a democratic body. If the General Assembly or the Security Council vote against something, then that's a fact of life. It's called politics. And it happens everyday in the US and Britian and Sweden and.... in every democratic nation on Earth. The UN only acts when its constituent bodies/members so decide.
If you have a problem with the lack of UN action in a particular circumstance, you should take it up with the coutnries that veto'd it or blocked the passage of the proposal.
Quote:
|
2) abolish all notion of international courts.
|
I couldn't disagree more. On one hand you're saying that the UN "
MUST act" but on another you're removing any body with which it can prosecute those who have committed crimes. If the US deigns itself to be above International Law then there is very little the UN and the rest of the world can do about it. But the US should not be able to dictate to the rest of the world community, who
support the concept of an International Court, what they should be allowed to do.
Again, I hope you see the glaring inconsistency here too.
Quote:
|
3) provide complete fiscal and bookkeeping transparency in ALL matters. the United Nations operates under pledged money and kept afloat by taxpayers around the world. it needs to be completely accountable for every dime it spends. we should know how much the secretary general takes home in pay, we should know their budget for pencil lead.
|
Well, I agree there should be fiscal transparency. I'm not sure if the salary of the Secretary General is confidential or not. I doubt it.
http://www.un.org/Depts/OHRM/salarie...ces/salary.htm
Proposed Programme Budget for the Biennium 2004-2005 -
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups...npan015528.pdf
Background to the Budget for Financial year 2004/05 -
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups...NPAN017032.pdf
Quote:
|
4) recognize that if the United States is going to be the one to front the money and military backing to UN actions... the US should be given special consideration in diplomatic negotiations. if they want the US to come to the table on equal footing (and i think that it should) then be prepared to pony up the funds and manpower. you will not use our troops who swore an oath to the Constitution of the United States to bear an unequal burden in peacekeeping or military action.
|
First and foremost, the United States actually provides considerably
less than many countries. The contribution to the UN is based upon a percentage of GDP and the US is far behind in paying its dues. In other words, the countries that
do pay their dues are experiencing a greater economic burden than the US which is
not paying its dues.
Secondly, contributing troops to UN actions is entirely voluntary. There is not "quid pro quo" in this aspect. You can't say "Well, we will give troops but we want to have more influence". It may transpire that way in essence (as the US does indeed have far more influence than, say, Ireland) but you can't enshrine that in the charter.
Thirdly, and almost paradoxically, the US does in fact have more actual real influence and control over the United Nations than 98% of other countries with its permanent seat on the Security Council. In effect, the US can block, and regularly does, any action the UN SC undertakes or recommends.
So your argument is not only invalid in theory, but also baseless in fact.
Mr Mephisto