The UN, Human Rights Groups, Aid Agencies, and Canada

[Reverend Blair]

Since we managed to drag the other thread on the UN way off topic, I thought I'd start a new one.

I'm not sure exactly where we were when we got lost but I thought I'd expand the title a bit.

In my view, Canada should be working through the UN a lot more; giving at least 0.7% (I'd prefer to see 1%) of GNP to foreign aid and development programs that do not include the IMF or World Bank; forming a non-military group to facilitate aid programs in foreign countries; and just generally working our collective ass off to increase our influence around the globe by doing good works.

Other than some photo ops with Bono, our present leader doesn't seem that interested in good works or the expression of soft power. The official opposition wants to squander all of our goodwill and assets trying to impress George Bush.

I think it's time that we stood up and moved to reform the UN because Kofi Annan asked us too.

So anyway, new thread to discuss some wider ideas. I'd really prefer that religiousity and the mess in the Middle East not completely sidetrack this one. I'm not pointing any fingers here...I did at least as much to sidetrack the last one as anybody else.

 

[Haggis McBagpipe]

The world, more than ever before, needs a strong, unified, peacefully powerful UN. What are the steps you would take, Rev, to make it better?

 

[Reverend Blair]

I think the first step is to get rid of vetos in the Security Council. After that I'd like to see more temporary members sitting on it at any given time and a couple more permanent members (Germany and Japan should really be there.

The UN should have its own standing military force. That would allow them to respond to emergencies and also to go after those who break international law.

We need to set out some very clear rules that leave nobody above or outside of the law. Israel doesn't wan't to follow the laws? Charge the leaders. Same with Palestine and the US and France and China and everybody else.

We need clear rules that make it possible for the UN's standing army to intervene without the okay of the Security Council. If people are being murdered in Sudan it should not take fifteen meetings and fourteen votes to decide to do something. Send in UN troops and stop the killing first, then work towards long-term solutions.

The NGOs, aid and rights organisations, should have more of a voice. These are, in a very real way, the people who are on the front lines. A mechanism needs to be developed so that when they point out a problem it cannot be ignored for several years. We should consider creating one seat on the Security Council (non-voting) for them.

As for Canada's part...the first thing we can do is meet our pledges. We have said that we'll 0.7% of GNP, but we never actually do it. We should raise that to 1% and then meet the targets.

The next thing we need to do is work within the UN membership to build consensus for change. Everybody knows the current system isn't working very well. The big powers are reluctant to allow change because one of the first things that would go would be their vetos. The second thing that consistently comes up is how they and their client states ignore international law at will.

I'm going to toss in a kind of wacky idea I've heard a couple of time now too. The UN needs its own media outlets...kind of a world-wide CBC or BBC that concentrates on issues pertinent to the UN. Not just news; but culture, political discussion, interviews, sports...the whole gamut of the human experience.

It sounds like a logistical nightmare to me, but it shouldn't be discounted out of hand either...getting people talking ends and/or avoids more problems than all the guns on the planet every single time.

So those are just a few ideas. I'd be really interested in hearing the ideas of others along the same lines.

 

[American Voice]

As one of my professors pointed out, the United Nations is a misnomer: it is not an association of nations, but of states. However, to call it the United States would be too obvious. The UN is an instrument of US foreign policy, as it has been from its inception. To suppose anything else is naive, at least, and gullible, at best. Cheers.

 

[moghrabi]

As one of my professors pointed out, the United Nations is a misnomer: it is not an association of nations, but of states. However, to call it the United States would be too obvious. The UN is an instrument of US foreign policy, as it has been from its inception. To suppose anything else is naive, at least, and gullible, at best. Cheers.

I have been saying this for the uptheenth time that the UN only serves the purpose of the US. I get attacked like I killed someone. The UN must change and change immediately so these so called veto countries should not have the say all the time. Anyone that does not obey the UN law should be punished. But the question is what kind of punishment can you put on the US if it disobeyed the UN law. Any comments?

 

[Reverend Blair]

I think after Iraq it's pretty clear what happens when the UN refuses to be tool of US foreign policy. The mess that caused almost sunk the UN.

I think that's a good thing though. It got Kofi Annan, who was more or less groomed by the US for his present position, talking about serious reforms. The Bush administration also had to go back to the UN, hat in hand, when it needed help.

The UN has been nothing but a willing puppet of the US all too often. At other times it has acted as a puppet of other major powers or allowed itself to sidelined to avoid political problems. That's started to change recently though. Other countries are demanding a say and the UN itself is starting to look around and talk back.

There is hope here, real hope. The thing is that somebody has to push for the changes that the hope represents. I see Canada as the nation most likely to be able to make inroads there.

 

[American Voice]

Rev. Blair, you are missing the point. The United Nations is and will forever remain a mirage. It is an anachronism of the Cold War era. It remains in operation because it provides for tourism in Manhattan, and the snack bar revenues. The useless children of diplomatic-connected drones get time in the USA, to practice their English as potential Wendy's managers back home in wherever. Do you think Al Qaida would ever waste their time and resources ever crashing airliners into the UN HQ? They'd appear as wallies!

 

[Reverend Blair]

I don't agree with that at all, American Voice. Certain parts of the UN, especially the Security Council and vetoes, are in serious need of modernisation, but as long as they are generating some sort of discussion they are still useful, even valuable.

Given the changing nature of this planet right now, we need an international agency with teeth more than ever. The UN can be that agency. More than that, given the current political climate, it is doubtful that if we were to dispose of the UN we could form another body as inclusive and effective as the UN is.

It is also important to remember that the UN is about far more than dealing with conflict. They promote education, health, equality and even democracy around the planet.

 

[American Voice]

The UN is a useful tool for whipping up a xenophobic frenzy among the nationalist right-wing in this country. These are the same people who fail to recognize that the great bulk of foreign aid is an indirect subsidy of foreign lending by US-based multi-national banks.

UNICEF has done some laudable things, as has UNESCO, but these are philanthropies, not diplomacy.

The Law of the Sea Treaty is impotent because the US objects to it.

In 1995, India and China signed a non-aggression pact that included a map delineating their common border. There is nothing on the map indicating the existence of the state of Tibet. Tibet was simply deleted. Is Tibet still recognized by the UN?

 

[Reverend Blair]

There about a million UN programs that are useful...they are intrinsic from verything from Kyoto to the landmine treaty.

The right wing in the US, and here in Canada too, does not need the UN to whip themselves into a xenophobic frenzy. They do that all by themselves. Once their xenophobic frenzies start to bite them in the ass they go crawling back to the UN pretty damned quick though.

Hopefully they will eventually catch on to the error of their ways.

 

[Numure]

Rev. Blair, you are missing the point. The United Nations is and will forever remain a mirage. It is an anachronism of the Cold War era. It remains in operation because it provides for tourism in Manhattan, and the snack bar revenues. The useless children of diplomatic-connected drones get time in the USA, to practice their English as potential Wendy's managers back home in wherever. Do you think Al Qaida would ever waste their time and resources ever crashing airliners into the UN HQ? They'd appear as wallies!

I'm quite positive many children and parents in africa, actually millions if not billions world wide, would be quite sad to see the UN dissapear. The UN isnt only "appeasing Nations". It's humanitarian functions are quite remarquable, compared to other world organisation. Actually, it's the best one. I don't want the UN gone. I want it to change.

As Rev said, it's changing. Expect huge reforms within the next 10-20 years. If not, it shall dissapear.

 

[Numure]

There about a million UN programs that are useful...they are intrinsic from verything from Kyoto to the landmine treaty.

The right wing in the US, and here in Canada too, does not need the UN to whip themselves into a xenophobic frenzy. They do that all by themselves. Once their xenophobic frenzies start to bite them in the ass they go crawling back to the UN pretty damned quick though.

Hopefully they will eventually catch on to the error of their ways.

hahah Well said!!! They come crawling back! Reminds me of the US, in Iraq . But hey, I'm proud of Kofi! He said no! Not until it's more "secure". That means; "Fix the problem you caused before we help".

 

[American Voice]

I'm actually supportive of the UN. The work they've done in refugee relief is good. Likewise, the IRC, OxFam, and Doctors Without Borders. There are a lot of good INGOs active in the world. My reservation about the UN is the need to avoid any romanticism about it. In my mind, philanthropy and diplomacy need to be kept clearly distinguished.

As for the US coming crawling back to the UN over Iraq, it's coming crawling back for a couple of yards of window-dressing. That's the thing.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Not letting romanticism get in the way is the first step in fixing the problems with the UN. Too many have this romantic notion that all the UN is about is stopping conflict though. Some feel the UN can do no wrong, others feel it can no good.

Most of its good works are philanthropic, but it is not there for the same reasons NGOs are. It is principly an agency of diplomacy. That gives it a lot of power around the world and is also its greatest weakness.

 

[American Voice]

Wasn't there just some kind of vote and world court decision ordering Israel to dismantle the barrier approximating the green line with the West Bank? That's a foray into diplomacy. I did catch a snatch of information from the television in the other room last night, something about Israel, the US and a small number of other states opposing the decision. Well, as they say, round up the usual suspects. It surely encourages the oppressed to know that someone is talking about it, and it must give them courage to know that the public eye might inhibit the worst excesses, but finally, alas, UN diplomacy may be little more than dramatic misdirection. To borrow one of the catch-phrases of the Kerry campaign: a weapon of mass distraction.

 

[Reverend Blair]

That, unfortunately, is a non-binding decision. The US, and likely Britain, will veto anything, likely even an official condemnation, that the rest of the Security Council puts forth.

It is a perfect example of why we really need the rule of international law to take precedence over the Security Council...to take the politics out of things like this.

Israel has been found to be breaking the law, but nothing will be done. What are the chances that Palestine is going to even consider worrying about international law under those circumstances.

If Israel was made to obey the law, the UN could then require (by force if necessary) Palestine to do the same. There would be a few years when the world court was backlogged but eventually people would get the message that breaking the law would not be tolerated.