UN heading for history's dustbin?

[budanski]

Heading for history's dustbin?
If the UN doesn't aid the U.S. in rebuilding Iraq, it risks total irrelevance on the world stage, says Washington correspondent

The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030930/COKORING30/TPComment/TopStories)
Kofi Annan's ringing denunciation of unilateralism, and his spirited defence of the United Nations as the cornerstone of "collective security" in the post-Second World War era were, no doubt, music to the ears of those who deplored U.S. President George W. Bush's attack on Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein's regime.

The UN Secretary-General may have been indulging in some wishful, or perhaps revisionist, thinking when he asserted that "however imperfectly, world peace and security have rested" on the UN's founding principles: collective security and the need for Security Council approval to make war.


Bluntly, the UN has been a miserable failure if measured by wars prevented, or its record of legitimizing military force to right egregious wrongs.


Since its founding in 1945, there have been scores of wars, mostly small, to be sure, but some monstrous in their death tolls. From Southeast Asia, where wars raged for decades, to the sporadic but ongoing wars in the Middle East, to genocidal civil wars in Africa and the Balkans, not to mention myriad more minor border wars and clashes, the Security Council has failed far more than it has succeeded.

Only twice, in Korea in 1950, and 40 years later in the first gulf war against Iraq, has the Security Council explicitly authorized the use of full-scale war to enforce its resolutions. The Korean War ended in a stalemate and the divided peninsula remains a conflicted, dangerous (and now possibly nuclear) flashpoint half a century later. The war to liberate Kuwait in 1991 was militarily successful — but it failed, at least to the extent that more than a decade later, the Security Council was again paralyzed by division over how to deal with Baghdad and its outlawed, but unaccounted-for weapons programs — nuclear, biological and chemical.


What really contained the wars in the last half of the 20th century was the Cold War reality: that two superpowers, each capable of obliterating mankind, maintained an uneasy peace, fighting mostly by proxies, and moving in concert to keep little wars from getting out of control. The fear of mutually assured destruction, not the Security Council, prevented and contained conflicts.


As for resorting to unilateralism, it loomed just as large in the past as the present. While many of the offenders were small- or medium-sized military powers, they were legion. Iraq and Iran fought an eight-year war, in which millions died. India and Pakistan fought three wars, Israel and its Arab neighbours four or five, depending on how you count. Argentina invaded the Malvinas, and Britain retook the Falklands. Even NATO allies Turkey and Greece managed a near-war over Cyprus.


On occasion, the superpowers resorted to unilateral war, the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 by the Soviet Union, or the 1983 U.S. seizure of Grenada being just two examples.


In almost all those instances, nations claimed self-defence, often on grounds no more, or less shaky than Mr. Bush's contention that pre-emptive war against international terrorism, and rogue states that support it, is legitimate self-defence.


There's nothing new about the Security Council's failure to avert conflict or curb unilateralism. What is new is whether superpower unilateralism is more dangerous in a unipolar world.


For the United Nations, the risk isn't more unilateral wars, it is irrelevance.

-snip-
excerpt (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030930/COKORING30/TPComment/TopStories)


The United Nations war policy is based on principals of Western Civilization: orderly, controlled and civilized warfare. Outside the West and Western oriented nations, the concept of a "non-combatant" is mere fantasy. Look at the manner in which Israel (a Western oriented nation) conducts operations against Arabs in the West Bank versus the manner in which those same Arabs operate against Israel. The UN is unable to deal effectively with these people because they refuse to play by the UN's rules. Thus the UN's very short success list.

Well the league of nations went down the toilet, but it took a world war. Unfortunately, it would take a world war to get us out of the UN.

[Schiller]

UN isn't dead yet. It's still helping out tons of famished and underpriviledged people and children internationally.

[Rantanplan]

Budanski, you are a basket case.

[wholagun]

Don't expect the UN to be capable in dealing with international security issues, especially when one of its hands is tied behind its back (Security Council). The security council needs big time reforming; good solution at the time (end of WW2), but now international politics have become less black and white. Security council is no longer able to deal with the issues at hand; what do you expect when 5 nations can veto any resolution ;) . Reform the S.C or else the UN is in serious trouble.

[budanski]

Budanski, you are a basket case.

No this is.

http://www.thebasketcasepa.com/images/products/prod_circle-of-friends.jpg

This model is called the "circle of friends"

[California Joe]

Longaberger? You're so gay. ;)

[usa320]

I support the UN's human rights and welfare activities, but i think they need to step out of the security and world political field, as all they do is make a great mess than direct nation-nation discussions would.

[Mortimer]

Don't expect the UN to be capable in dealing with international security issues, especially when one of its hands is tied behind its back (Security Council). The security council needs big time reforming; good solution at the time (end of WW2), but now international politics have become less black and white. Security council is no longer able to deal with the issues at hand; what do you expect when 5 nations can veto any resolution ;) . Reform the S.C or else the UN is in serious trouble.

Remove veto power and give the SC more power such as being able to do some stuff with state sovereignty, the problem with the UN is they can make laws, but states don't have to comply < that's the problem.

[jdbjdb]

UN Security council member: Syria, a nation that Sponsors terrorism, maybe Koffi Annan is trying to get a job with Hezbollah.

[martinexsquaddie]

I know lets replace the UN with the US the rest of the world can just agree
to whatever the shaved chimp wants woot

[walford]

I got a million of 'em...


http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article2257.html

What Do We Do About the UN?
4 April 2003

In word and deed, the Left continues to demonstrate a sincere conviction that George W. Bush represents a substantially greater threat to their interests than does Saddam Hussein. Prior to the current conflict, the Iraqi dictator had merely caused the death of thousands in two regional wars, killed thousands more of his own people by means of torture, summary executions and poison gas, torched over 600 oil wells and the like. Apparently, such atrocities have been far more acceptable than the President of the United States having the temerity of subjecting his foreign policy to Congressional approval rather than that of the UN.

Those who oppose Saddam’s forcible ouster/disarmament do not really object because of the possibility of heavy casualties and collateral damage. Many more people have died under Saddam’s manipulation of the UN sanctions regime than are likely to perish in the now-ongoing war. The recent Security Council’s vacillation over providing aid to innocent Iraqis further indicates that there are several other priorities that trump any humanitarian concerns.

The existence of independent and sovereign nation-states in a Hobbesian ‘state of nature’ is widely believed by UN supporters to be the principal cause of war. Additionally, a small overlapping cadre also holds that the optimal means to implement a Master Plan for society is via a singular global regime. Competition simply cannot be tolerated. The pervasive control and economic degradation that typifies Utopian government is far more difficult for the lumpenproletariat to accept if others are enjoying freedom and prosperity elsewhere.

This partially explains why any assertion of national policy that is not subordinate to the UN is greeted with such hysteria. Additionally, while the UN has on occasion been able to grudgingly acquiesce to defending against aggression, removing the offending dictatorship has always been beyond consideration. Having a government held into place by force replaced with one subject to popular mandate would set a frightening precedent for most member states, especially those in the Middle East.

The 1971 ejection of democratic Taiwan in favor of Mao’s China serves as a good benchmark illustrating the UN’s long-standing irrelevance. An international body comprised of illegitimate regimes cannot credibly claim legitimate authority. Moreover, such an organization can never serve the cause of peace, because it is dictatorship, not nationhood that makes war inevitable. History has repeatedly shown that tyranny cannot be peacefully appeased or ‘contained’ for long.

For several generations, much of humanity has been locked in a deadly conflict between the world’s various despotic regimes (and their appeasers) and those that demonstrably support the cause of freedom. It is a zero-sum game; the dictators have always known that. It’s time we in the Free World understand this also and act accordingly. Passivity has never brought security. We must have at least as much resolve to defend liberty as do those who are determined to destroy it.

An international organization that is dedicated to peace must of necessity be committed to strengthening and proliferating freedom. In such a body, member nations would be encouraged to develop their own versions of limited representative government. A collective umbrella of advice, financial aid and military protection would accordingly serve to shield emerging democracies as they develop.

Cultural relativists would have us believe that tyranny is endemic to some societies. We must therefore leave the oppressed people of the world to languish under the heels of their dictators - they are not ready to be free. In his Jan. 28 State of the Union address, the President offered a differing view: “Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America’s gift to the world, it is God’s gift to humanity.”

A libertarian ‘hands-off’ approach may be feasible at some point, but for now the combined weight of freedom’s enemies is too great to go it alone. Therefore, the consolidated strength of all free people – diplomatic, economic and/or military – must be applied judiciously but relentlessly until the grip of tyranny is broken in every corner of the globe. Then and only then can there be a prospect of lasting peace and prosperity for all mankind.



Think before you :bash:

[martinexsquaddie]

The un is a bloated bureacracy and certainly has some unsavoury members.
But considering it was used as a punch bag by the Soviet Union/ US for nearly 50 years it amazing its been as effective as it has been.
The number of members of the UN who are either thugs in nice suits or repersentatives of thugs in Suits is bad.
Root and branch reform of the UN is needed But not to make it more Friendly to America as 2% of the worlds population is american SO that sort of means most of the world may have diffrent prioritys.
The American People may be freedom loving But the American goverment has'nt always supported democracy in other countrys.
The short lived coup in Venezuela shows the bad old ideas are still alive although this time it failed and the other local countries would'nt back the idea. There may be Bad goverments out there BUT IF THEY GOT VOTED IN IN A FAIR ELECTION THE USA HAS NO RIGHT TO DEPOSE THEM. if it does its just a thug

[GazB]

The problem with the UN is that it is a democracy and the US can't control it.

"UN Security council member: Syria, a nation that Sponsors terrorism, maybe Koffi Annan is trying to get a job with Hezbollah."

Apart from the five permanant members the other members are rotated on a regular basis. Syria has as much right to get on as anyone.

Just looking at the five permanant members: Britain, France, America, Russia, China... there is no representation from South America, Africa, the Middle East. Three out of five are western countries. Despite there being over a billion Indians and a fairly significant number in Asia there is one Asian representative (China) yet two from the EU.

"Apparently, such atrocities have been far more acceptable than the President of the United States having the temerity of subjecting his foreign policy to Congressional approval rather than that of the UN. "

Yes, but it is the UN that is told to come in and spend money to clean up the mess created by his foreign policy.

"The existence of independent and sovereign nation-states in a Hobbesian ‘state of nature’ is widely believed by UN supporters to be the principal cause of war. Additionally, a small overlapping cadre also holds that the optimal means to implement a Master Plan for society is via a singular global regime. Competition simply cannot be tolerated. The pervasive control and economic degradation that typifies Utopian government is far more difficult for the lumpenproletariat to accept if others are enjoying freedom and prosperity elsewhere. "

What is this BS?

Since when has the UN helped a dictator keep a fracturing country together in the hopes that one day we could all live in one country?

"The recent Security Council’s vacillation over providing aid to innocent Iraqis further indicates that there are several other priorities that trump any humanitarian concerns. "

Just like the priority of oil trumped the US's concerns over humanitarian issues.

"This partially explains why any assertion of national policy that is not subordinate to the UN is greeted with such hysteria."

Again Bull****. Since when has the UN been an instrument of one countries national policy? The UN didn't join Bush's war because it was in Bush's interests to fight it but not necesarily in the worlds interests to fight it.

"“Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation."

I am sure those caged without charge, without any rights at guantanimo loved that part of his speach...

"wholagun wrote:
Don't expect the UN to be capable in dealing with international security issues, especially when one of its hands is tied behind its back (Security Council). "

Even without its hands tied you don't actually think the worlds problems are that easy to solve do you? Do you really think that the next leader of Iraq will treat all of his citizens well... how about in 15 years time? Saddam wasn't beamed down from another planet you know. He was created in Iraq... how many others are there waiting for a chance... he is gone now the chance has arrived. Saudi Arabia proves that as long as the government does as it is told, when it is told you can pretty much do what you like. You don't think Saudi secret police are any nicer than the Iraqi secret police were. The Current Saudi policy is that for some crimes only foreigners are capable of committing. The local police chief can't go against that policy. If that crime is committed then he has to find a foreigner to put in jail for it. Interesting justice system?

[Saranof]

UN Security council member: Syria, a nation that Sponsors terrorism, maybe Koffi Annan is trying to get a job with Hezbollah.

And heres another...

The US sponsors these states. All use torture i different ways.

Angola
Burundi
Central African Republic
Chad
Cote D'ivoire
Democratic Republic Of Congo
Equatorial Guinea
Ethiopia
Gambia
Guinea
Kenya
Lesotho
Malawi
Mauritius
Mozambique
Namibia
Nigeria
Rwanda
Senegal
Sierra LeoneSouth Africa
Argentina
Belize
Bolivia
Brazil
Colombia
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Guyana
JamaicaFiji
India
Indonesia
Malaysia

Mexico
Paraguay
Peru
Trinidad & Tobago
Nepal
Pakistan
Philippines
Sri Lanka
Thailand
Albania
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Georgia
Italy
Kazakstan
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Moldova
Romania
Russian Federation
Slovak Republic
Tajikistan
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Ukraine
Uzbekistan
Algeria
Egypt
Israel And The Occupied Territories
Jordan
Lebanon
Morocco
Saudi Arabia
Tunisia
Yemen


Venezuela
Afghanistan
Bangladesh

[Trigger]

The US sponsors these states. All use torture i different ways.
How exactly do we 'sponsor' those countries in the same context that Syria sponsors terrorism?
hmmm Usama?

[ibstolidude]

I support the UN's human rights and welfare activities, but i think they need to step out of the security and world political field, as all they do is make a great mess than direct nation-nation discussions would.
The majority of "third world qualified" people will attest that the main thing the UN does in those counties is pay for the UN...

That does not apply to ALL NGO's many do excellant things the UN as a whole does very little.

[walford]

The problem with the UN is that it is a democracy and the US can't control it... [How can the UN be a 'democracy' when the majority of the member regimes are not subject to a popular mandate? We Americans who consider the UN (as it is currently constituted) to be irrelevant do not want to 'control' the UN. We want out. Until and unless the dictatorships are kicked out, the UN cannot possibly be effective. It would be easier to form a new international body composed of nations that are already free and those that are demonstrably committed to attain freedom. I'm fully aware that this is unlikely to happen; there's too much invested in maintaining the status quo, no matter how ineffective and/or harmful.]

"UN Security council member: Syria, a nation that Sponsors terrorism, maybe Koffi Annan is trying to get a job with Hezbollah."

Apart from the five permanant members the other members are rotated on a regular basis. Syria has as much right to get on as anyone.

[Any international body that would give a vote to a country like Syria, which is a family/tribe/religious sect-dominated one-party terrorist state is absolutely worthless in serving the cause of peace. The only country on the security council that can be essentially compared to Syria is China.]

Just looking at the five permanant members: Britain, France, America, Russia, China... there is no representation from South America, Africa, the Middle East. Three out of five are western countries. Despite there being over a billion Indians and a fairly significant number in Asia there is one Asian representative (China) yet two from the EU.

[I agree with you there. It is a travesty that the only Asian country represented is a totalitarian dictatorship that has killed tens of millions of its own people. Of course, the reason is not only because it has the greatest population. Its permanent seat is due to its military (especially nuclear) capability. That is what incentivizes North Korea and other violent tyrannies to nuke up.]

"Apparently, such atrocities have been far more acceptable than the President of the United States having the temerity of subjecting his foreign policy to Congressional approval rather than that of the UN. "

Yes, but it is the UN that is told to come in and spend money to clean up the mess created by his foreign policy. [Oh yes, it was so wonderful in Iraq while Saddam was there. Children in concentration camps, mass-graves still being found. The sanctions were far more cruel and far less effective than the war to remove that Stalin idolizer. Furthermore, the US is paying the vast majority of the bill.

You have missed the point that Saddam was considered less of a threat than Bush, because he will not subordinate US policy to UN approval. You can bet Saddam would have 'gone unilateral' also if he had sufficient military strength.]

"The existence of independent and sovereign nation-states in a Hobbesian ‘state of nature’ is widely believed by UN supporters to be the principal cause of war. Additionally, a small overlapping cadre also holds that the optimal means to implement a Master Plan for society is via a singular global regime. Competition simply cannot be tolerated. The pervasive control and economic degradation that typifies Utopian government is far more difficult for the lumpenproletariat to accept if others are enjoying freedom and prosperity elsewhere. "

What is this BS? [name-call rather than reason]

Since when has the UN helped a dictator keep a fracturing country together in the hopes that one day we could all live in one country? [You miss the point again. Those who advocate One World Government do not advocate proping up collapsing dictatorships. They advocate free prosperous nations giving up their sovereignty. As Utopians, socialists are not against poverty. Poverty is good for socialism. What is threatening is wealth. That is why they are so fervent to destroy prosperity. The quicker and more consistently their policies are implemented, the quicker the descent into economic ruin. They know full well that the people would revolt if they saw others free and more prosperous. That is why Khruschev had said that there could be no peace unless the entire world was communist.]

"The recent Security Council’s vacillation over providing aid to innocent Iraqis further indicates that there are several other priorities that trump any humanitarian concerns. "

Just like the priority of oil trumped the US's concerns over humanitarian issues. [The burden is on you to substantiate this shopworn gratuitous assertion.]

"This partially explains why any assertion of national policy that is not subordinate to the UN is greeted with such hysteria."

Again Bull****. [Why don't you offer a reasoned analysis and let the rest of us decide if it is as you characterize? If your argument is so strong it shouldn't be necessary to resort to common vulgarisms.] Since when has the UN been an instrument of one countries national policy? The UN didn't join Bush's war because it was in Bush's interests to fight it but not necesarily in the worlds interests to fight it. [The UN didn't agree to forcibly remove Saddam because: "Having a government held into place by force replaced with one subject to popular mandate would set a frightening precedent for most member states, especially those in the Middle East. " The 'world's interest' is to keep things as they are. You have not addressed the issue of whether it is tyranny or national sovereignty that is a threat to peace.]

"“Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation."

I am sure those caged without charge, without any rights at guantanimo loved that part of his speach... [I'm crying my eyes out over those people in Guantanimo. They are not US citizens, they are not soldiers. They are terrorists. As such, choosing to pursue actions outside of international law, they cannot go crying for international law to protect them from the consequences of their choices. Terrorists groups and countries routinely seize foreign nationals simply because of their country of origin or for money. No one is crying 'international law' then.]

"wholagun wrote:
Don't expect the UN to be capable in dealing with international security issues, especially when one of its hands is tied behind its back (Security Council). "

Even without its hands tied you don't actually think the worlds problems are that easy to solve do you? Do you really think that the next leader of Iraq will treat all of his citizens well... how about in 15 years time? Saddam wasn't beamed down from another planet you know. He was created in Iraq... how many others are there waiting for a chance... he is gone now the chance has arrived. Saudi Arabia proves that as long as the government does as it is told, when it is told you can pretty much do what you like. You don't think Saudi secret police are any nicer than the Iraqi secret police were. The Current Saudi policy is that for some crimes only foreigners are capable of committing. The local police chief can't go against that policy. If that crime is committed then he has to find a foreigner to put in jail for it. Interesting justice system?[You make an excellent point; it is obscenely hypocritical of the US to protect the birthplace of Al-Quaeda, Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are benefiting from making noises about cooperating with the war on terrorism while the most vicious of Wahabi terrorists are bred and sheltered.] p-)

[martinexsquaddie]

are the guys in camp delta terrorists?
so they shot at americans in afganistan well you did invade afganistan
what did you expect. Or were they the slow and unlucky or handed over for a reward?
It strikes me the one yank caught with them got a fair trial in public but George wants the rest tried in private.
Strikes me if there guilty of something you can prove it in open court if not let them go its not like afganistan is going to be damaged by gun toting mad muslim.
I'm guessing but some one really did not think this one through