|
| Thread: The Future Of The United Nations | |
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
posted May 05, 2003 05:30 AM |
|
|
The Future Of The United Nations
In lieu of the recent events that have been taking place in the world, I was wondering what the future has in store for the United Nations. I am very curious to see how it will function and how much of an impact and how much weight its resolutions will have from this point forward. What do you all think?
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
posted May 05, 2003 05:51 AM |
|
|
I guess it will function as it always has. If the members have the guts to stand up for the resolutions they'll be enforced. If they don't they simply will be ignored. This happens all the time, not just in the case of Iraq (after all the list of resolutions not enforced against Israel is quite long for one). If nations wish to act without UN support then it really depends on how far other countries wish to go to stop them. From within the UN there is little countries can do to stop the likes of America or Russia, which leaves outside matters such as conflict or heavy sanctions.
So yeah, as it always has. It will be ignored by the powerful like Russia and America when it suits them, and smaller nations when they can get away with it. It will continue to be used when needed for justification of various conflicts and then dropped when justification isn't forthcoming. So like always it will be abused by those who can until someone can stand up to them. Unfortunately when the abuser is a major nation, pretty much no-one will stand up to them.........
Personally though I don't see quite how the recent events spell the doom of the UN. It's always been this way, with nations ignoring it or using it when they need it. It's happened before, I don't doubt it will happen again.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
|
posted May 05, 2003 04:55 PM |
|
|
Once again, I find myself having to agree with you, Hudson. What I need to do now is take a closer look into the structure of the U.N. and its inner workings. For example, when there is a vote, does each nation represented have to same voice (i.e. does their vote carry the same weight)? How is the presiding Secretary General (Khofi Annan) elected or appointed? The eternal optimist in me hopes that the United Nations will grow stronger and increase its influence and effectiveness across the globe, but it will take a lot of discipline from the more powerful countries to comply with its decisions and guidance, even if they are opposed to them. I must say that this may not be a great period in the history of the modern world, but it is, however, a very interesting time, as many changes are taking place that are reshaping and redefining our world as we know it. Not only that, but many people are waking up to issues outside of their day-to-day lives, which means that there is a lot of learning and thought provocation taking place as well, which IMHO, is almost always a very good thing.
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted May 05, 2003 06:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Once again, I find myself having to agree with you, Hudson
I know, it's such an infernal chore isn't it? 
Quote:
For example, when there is a vote, does each nation represented have to same voice (i.e. does their vote carry the same weight)? How is the presiding Secretary General (Khofi Annan) elected or appointed?
As far as I'm aware it roughly breaks down into the security council holding majority power over resolutions and major issues. The council basically consists of the permanent memebers: Britain, France, China, Russia and America and non-permanent members who are elected from the other countries for 2 year periods. Vetos are only available to the permanent members of the council and have been used on a fair few occaisions, America has done so over Israel on many occaisions. Unfortunately I don't know much more than that.
Quote:
The eternal optimist in me hopes that the United Nations will grow stronger and increase its influence and effectiveness across the globe, but it will take a lot of discipline from the more powerful countries to comply with its decisions and guidance, even if they are opposed to them
Ah ha, therein lies the issue. Countries like those on the security council will never accept such a situation until the political will changes to do so. A lot of objections is that the UN would defy democratic choices of the member states. It's quite similar to the EU/not EU argument European countries face. On the one hand you gain further ties in defence and economy, strengthening all members, on the other you loose some democratic rights of individual countries unless done properly.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
posted November 19, 2004 10:30 PM |
|
|
Perhaps a sign of things to come?
I just came across this article on the Breaking News section of FoxNews (Yes, I do view FoxNews.com, along witn CNN.com and BBC.CO.UK). Regardless of the source, I was wondering if this could be a sign of things to come for the United Nations, such as a shake-up in its senior leadership. Your thoughts?
U.N. Staff: 'No Confidence' in Top Leaders
Friday, November 19, 2004
Fox News
UNITED NATIONS — A union representing United Nations (search) staff has voted "no confidence" in senior management, including Secretary-General Kofi Annan (search).
The vote is largely symbolic and has no effect over Annan’s job or anyone else’s. But it isn’t a good sign for his and other top officials’ effectiveness as leaders of the world body.
It is the first time in the labor organization’s history that it has cast such a vote, which happened behind closed doors Friday afternoon at U.N. headquarters in New York.
The move was in response to a series of scandals plaguing the United Nations under Annan’s leadership.
Union members said the vote wasn’t directed at Annan but at the management of several top officials. However, the resolution, a copy of which has been obtained by FOX News, accuses Annan of several instances of mismanagement.
Union officials said the final straw was Annan’s decision this week to clear a senior U.N. official on charges of favoritism and sexual harassment.
Annan announced he was pardoning the official, Dileep Nair, even though employees accused Nair of harassing staff and practicing favoritism in his hiring and promotion methods.
It was the second time in two weeks that Annan has refused to take action against a senior official accused of harassment.
The vote was also in response to Annan's failure to accept the “honorable action” of the deputy secretary-general who tried to resign as a result of the bombing of the 2003 United Nations building in Baghdad that killed 22 staff members.
Additionally, U.N. workers are unhappy with leaders for failing to hold accountable the chef de cabinet, whose son was hired to work there in violation of staff rules.
Another concern is the ongoing internal investigation into the Oil-for-Food scandal. At issue is whether a senior U.N. official accepted bribes in exchange for diverting the Oil-for-Food program funds meant as aid for impoverished Iraqis directly to former Iraq dictator Saddam Hussein (search).
A U.N. spokesman said he hopes the body can work out its problems so it doesn't have to pass resolutions like this one.
"The idea is to keep dialogue going and see if we can’t sort out our differences so it isn't necessary to adopt resolutions saying we don’t have confidence in senior management,” said the spokesman, Fred Eckhart.
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2004 08:26 PM |
|
|
Well Khayman.
Its on FoxNews agenda to discredit the UN. So untill there is confirmation from at least a zillion other sources I wouldnt put much stock on that article.
If you are in doubt look at the republican voting record on budget allocation to paying US membership of UN. Its abysmal.
Btw it might look like the UN is in for a rough ride the next couple of years, since it cant function without the backing of the major countries. Especially the US. And after the failure (In US eyes) of the UN to back the war in Iraq. And again taking into consideration the notorious republican antipathy for UN, it will be interesting to see if itll become even more toothless than it is now.
PS: Hudson, its not a democratic problem to transfer power to EU, as long as you transfer the power to elected representation such as the European parliament. Its just a problem for the sovereignity of the individual nation-state. Unfortunately opponents of EU often have great succes with calling EU anti-democratic and at the same time try to curb the Parliaments power.
Regards
Defreni
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted November 21, 2004 05:04 AM |
|
|
The main problem with the UN is that they have almost no enforcement power. Right now, the entire system boils down to a body which passes resolutions (the General Assembly), which are not obligatory for anyone, writing reports (the various agencies) and humanitarian work. The Court of Justice also has barely an advisory role. The only body that has enforcement power in maintaining world peace is the Security Council, but its effectiveness is undermined by the veto power of permanent SC members.
In fact, the entire organization is most effective at corrupting money and making sure that UN beaurocrats are fiancially secure.
Quote:
Countries like those on the security council will never accept such a situation until the political will changes to do so. A lot of objections is that the UN would defy democratic choices of the member states.
Removing the veto power of permanent SC members can only make things worse. It will discredit the UN even more, if that’s possible, because smaller countries would be in the position to decide for the more powerful ones, which we know will never be the case.
On the other hand, the UN cant be blamed for not acting upon their resolutions, since there’s a big difference between a verbal warning and millitary intervention. Naturally, if a powerful country has interests in an issue, the world should not go against her will. But a more intriguing aspect, is when a powerful country acts against UN resolution or without UN consent, (tsk, tsk, USA) thus destroying any tiny piece of credibility the UN may have left.
However you turn it, democratic councils cant successfully solve world problems, even theoretically. Only universal justice can, at least theoretically. 
I think we cant have an effective international system, without international laws which are enforced. Problem is there are loads of international conventions and agreements which are not signed by few powerful countries, or if they are, they are not implemented in their national legislature, which is their theoretical obligation.
If the General Assembly had the power to make laws (with limited veto powers), the Court of Justice to take care of their implementation, and there was a willingness in powerful countries to automatically enforce those laws (through sanctions, fines, even interventions) and submit themselves to them, then we’d have the perfect international system.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 21, 2004 05:12 AM |
|
|
Quote:
But a more intriguing aspect, is when a powerful country acts against UN resolution or without UN consent, (tsk, tsk, USA)...
Funny you should say that, the USA was one of the only countries that stood up for the UN resolutions. The rest just sat back and twidled their thumbs. The UN didn't give us consent for enforcing their own resolutions...doesn't really make sense to me. 
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted November 21, 2004 05:26 AM |
|
|
The resolutions didnt give authority to US to invade Iraq, if thats what u're talking about. In doing so, it acted without UN consent, and against UN resoltions which called for extending the work of the inspectors.
as i said, there's an important difference between verbal reccomendations and millitary actions.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 21, 2004 06:01 AM |
|
|
I'm refering to the 12 years worth of resolutions against Iraq that the UN decided to ignore. 1441, "serious consequences was a joke?
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted November 21, 2004 06:25 AM |
|
|
Complete sanctions also arent a joke
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 21, 2004 07:32 AM |
|
|
I guess I just fail to see the logic of issuing empty threats, that's all.
Having a larger country go about without UN approval is not what makes them look weak. Empty threats are what make the UN look weak.
____________
|
|
Asmodean
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
|
|
posted November 21, 2004 03:44 PM |
|
|
Well then in that case maybe the USA should step up and tell Israel to abide by the UN sanctions instead of ignoring the problems and worrying about their bank accounts.
____________
To err is human, to arr is pirate.
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted November 21, 2004 08:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Having a larger country go about without UN approval is not what makes them look weak. Empty threats are what make the UN look weak.
In all dealings of international politics, there is a balance between forcing an "disobedient" state into doing what the majority wants it to, and to respect the sovereignty of that country; soveregnty being one of the most important principles of modern international law.
Also, it is the small issue that the "UN" isn't one singleminded body plus the large countries; the UN is a conglomerate of smaller states, whose agendas are rarely the same. These small countries are more inclined to use their limited power to further their own agendas than to bother about a small scale Mid-Eastern despot, who most of these countries didn't see as a threat after Gulf War II (the first one being the Iran vs. Iraq war in the '80s).
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted November 22, 2004 01:58 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Having a larger country go about without UN approval is not what makes them look weak. Empty threats are what make the UN look weak.
Fact is, the UN did not agree to authorize any use of force against Iraq, because they thought it would bring more evil than good. It doesnt mean they supported Saddam, as was demonstrated by the resolutions they brought. I dont see a contradiction here.
Sometimes identifying a problem is possible, without immediately solving it, because doing that can create even bigger problems.
Its as simple as that.
For instance, we can agree that there's a problem with drug trafficing, but we dont have to agree that we should kill all drug users to solve that problem. It's better to maintain a status quo, than make matters worse. Which was the case in UN; the community thought any millitary action would've been counterproductive.
Do you still think the US did the right thing ignoring and disrespecting the international community by going in Iraq, because they werent true to their words; and in doing so raised their credibility?
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
| |
|
|
