|
The U.N. Thread
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Renegade |
As some of the more perceptive of you out there may have noticed, there has been, of late, some mild-mannered criticism directed towards the UN by certain members of this forum. Now rather than allowing debates about "who failed to intervene in what" or "who lost billions of dollars in misappropriated funds to who" to fester in the murky depths of unrelated threads, I thought we could bring all our misgivings out into the open and debate the pros and cons of this great organisation (this bastion of everything that is good and decent!) right here.
Now I understand that there are a diverse range of opinions on the UN out there, but whether you really hate the UN or just kinda hate it, I think it might be productive to discuss a few of these issues with a bit more focus than we have before. Here are some questions to get us started:
1) What are your opinions of the UN in its current guise? Is it relevent, important or necessary at all?
2) What do you believe the UN's role is, and what do you believe it should ideally be? How far does its authority extend?
3) What are its major flaws? Do its most major problems stem from the behaviour of member states or do they stem from the UN administration itself?
4) How could these flaws be rectified? What form would you ideally like the UN to take?
5) Given the disparate opinions held by the governments of the nations of the world, is any attempt at international negotiation, co-operation or compromise doomed to failure? Can the UN ever function efficiently in such a context? Is there any other solution to the problem of creating and maintaining international law and treaties?
You don't have to answer all these questions, but some constructive discussion about the shortcomings (and positive aspects?) of the UN might be good. First person to implicate the UN in an act of genocide wins a shiny, red balloon. ;) |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
I believe the UN can have a very important function in world affairs. The role I believe they should take, and the only role they should take is in humanitarian efforts. I believe that the UN has a fairly good track record when it comes to the collection, distribution and monitoring of humanitarian relief and aid.
When it comes to using the UN as an international governing body,
to me it has failed time and time again. It is in my opinion the epitome of politics in action, as it has become a platform for the nations of the world to bitch and complain about each other with no concrete means of bringing change. Not only does the UN falter in its inability to enforce its resolutions, the enforcement it does allow is usually insufficient or not appropriate for the situation. I also believe that many of the compromises the UN reaches in its multitude of resolutions are based more in idealist political philosophy than the reality of the situation. My examples for this would be Bosnia, the estalishment of Israel, Somalia and Iraq following the first Gulf War.
I believe the UN was established with good and noble intentions. However, as time has played its course, the effectiveness and ability of the UN to act as an international moderator has been questioned again and again. I say, keep the UN around as an international means of aid distribution and for international dialogue. But to continue using the UN as a means of world moderation and policy enforcement is as pointless now as it has been throughout its existance. |
|
|
| igottaknow |
It took two world wars to convince us for the need of an International organization such as the UN to mediate conflicts and to defend the human rights of all people. Idiots of this forum are quick to denounce the UN, but they provide no other viable alternatives to deal with world peace.
One of the problems with the UN is, it doesn't fairly represent all countries. The major powers that sit on the Security Council, control what the UN is able to do. This means they don't support any action that isn't in their nation interest. This leaves the majority of the worlds nations, i.e. the 3rd world countries, without a voice.
The other weakness is its ability to enforce its rules and resolutions. This problem is related to the first issue that is Security Council,members will never support any action against themselves or their allies. The problem is compounded because all nations regardless of size don't support internal interference of the UN because they refuse to relinquish their sovereignty. This makes enforcement nearly impossible. The UN could be so much better if nations would trade some of their sovereignty for the good of the world. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | | But to continue using the UN as a means of world moderation and policy enforcement is as pointless now as it has been throughout its existance. |
But you offer no alternative...
Do you think it is a good idea to have some kind of institution that, for example, has brought countries to an agreement over the proliferation of nuclear weapons? Without that, every state would have the right (and would) produce nukes. Altho many states strive for that anyway, at least this is something that holds them back a little, and it gives legitimacy to other states to intervene to prevent this from happening.
Personally, altho I agree the UN can be ineffective when it comes to military operations and peacekeeping, it is not fair to lay the blame solely on the UN. In Rwanda, for example, everyone blames the UN for its failure to act...but where was any other country or institution to act? Where was America or the UK there? If we just let the UN deal with humanitarian issues, it would be us that have to become involved in these situations (and we are the UN anyway). If we refuse to act, how can anyone possibly blame the UN?!
I see the UN more as a guide for countries to follow. An institution, but not supranational (like the EU is). The UN should be a law, not an actor. We are the actors who make up the UN. If we had this guide, then we would have a right to intervene where we believed states were acting out of line, however, what I do not want, and what I believe a lot on here do want, is simply to give America a free hand to do what it pleases in the world as if the US could never be in the wrong...well history teaches us very different!
The UN should not just legitimise the actions of the US in the world, it must also protect the world from the actions of the US... |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
I see the UN more as a guide for countries to follow. An institution, but not supranational (like the EU is). The UN should be a law, not an actor. We are the actors who make up the UN. If we had this guide, then we would have a right to intervene where we believed states were acting out of line, however, what I do not want, and what I believe a lot on here do want, is simply to give America a free hand to do what it pleases in the world as if the US could never be in the wrong...well history teaches us very different!
The UN should not just legitimise the actions of the US in the world, it must also protect the world from the actions of the US... |
I don't wholly agree with the "UN should be law" but for s and grins, let's say the UN is responsible for being "the law".
"The law" is currently unable to enforce its law or resolutions or articles whatever you want to call it. Therefor it's ineffectiveness was recognized by the U.S. and several other major countries (including yours).
It's common knowledge, the UN voted unanimously for the coalition to take it upon themselves without their help. After my president pleaded for their help at the UN in person, twice if I recall.
What kind of s**t is that!
Screw you guy's we're go'in to Iraq
One year later it's becoming apparent to us why they didn't want Saddam gone.
I didnt realize the sand was deep enough in England for your head to be so far buried. :conf: |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| Why didn't the UN want Saddam gone? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
The U.N. Oil-for-Food Scam: Time for Hearings
by Nile Gardiner, Ph.D., and James Phillips
WebMemo #438
March 1, 2004 | printer-friendly format |
In the ten months since the downfall of the Iraqi dictatorship, a clear picture has emerged of how Saddam Hussein abused the United Nation’s oil-for-food program. The Iraqi Governing Council has begun to release critical information detailing how, in the words of The New York Times, “Saddam Hussein’s government systematically extracted billions of dollars in kickbacks from companies doing business with Iraq, funneling most of the illicit funds through a network of foreign bank accounts in violation of United Nations sanctions.” In effect the program was little more than “an open bazaar of payoffs, favoritism and kickbacks.”[1] The seriousness of these charges warrants investigation by the U.S. Congress and an independent, Security Council-appointed commission.
Serious Allegations
The evidence emerging from Baghdad confirms the suspicions of the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), which had earlier estimated that the Iraqi regime generated several billion dollars in illicit earnings through surcharges and oil smuggling in the period between 1997 and 2001.
A mosaic of international corruption is also emerging in the patchwork of politicians and businesses across the world that benefited from the oil-for-food program and helped keep Saddam in power. The Iraqi Oil Ministry recently released a partial list of names of individuals and companies from across the world that received oil from Saddam Hussein’s regime, allegedly at below-market prices. Unsurprisingly, French and Russian names dominate the list, with former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua and the “director of the Russian President’s office” listed as beneficiaries. The list also implicates U.N. Assistant Secretary-General Benon V. Sevan, executive director of the oil-for-food program, who has stringently denied any wrongdoing.[2]
History of the Oil-for-Food Program
The oil-for-food program was established by the United Nations Security Council through Security Council Resolution 986 in 1995 "as a temporary measure to provide for the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people" while economic sanctions remained in place. Of Iraq's population of 24 million, 60 percent were dependent on food shipments administered through oil-for-food.
Between 1996 and 2003, the program generated over $63 billion in revenues for the Iraqi regime. With little oversight from the U.N., the Iraqi dictatorship was able both to circumvent and to exploit the oil-for-food program. It is suspected of selling its oil at bargain basement prices that benefited numerous middlemen while overpaying for various imports, which allowed it to reward suppliers. The program was officially brought to an end in November 2003.[3]
Congressional Hearings
The charges being leveled against the United Nations over its handling of the oil-for-food program are of such a serious nature that they warrant congressional hearings by both the House and Senate. The hearings should investigate how Saddam Hussein was able to exploit a vast U.N.-operated sanctions program to enrich his family, influence foreign governments, and prop up his brutal regime. The hearings should investigate and expose the vast network of politicians and companies that helped keep Saddam Hussein in power. Congress should also examine the close ties between the Russian and French governments and the Iraqi regime, and how this influenced the international debate over Iraq.
A Security Council Commission of Inquiry
In addition to congressional hearings, as a key member of the U.N. Security Council, the United States should lead the way in calling for a wide-ranging and in-depth independent investigation into the way in which the U.N. handled the oil-for-food program.
The Commission should be appointed by the Security Council, but should be completely independent of the United Nations and made up of non-U.N. employees. Great care should be exercised by the United States and Great Britain to prevent such a Commission from being unduly influenced by other Security Council members who may have a vested interest in protecting their own officials.
Conclusions
The abuse of the oil-for-food program was the result of a staggering management failure on the part of the United Nations and has raised troubling questions about the credibility and competence of the world organization. Several conclusions can be drawn:
The oil-for-food debacle reinforces the need for sweeping reform of the United Nations bureaucracy and the need for an annual external audit if its accounts.
Senior U.N. bureaucrats with responsibility for running the oil-for-food program should be investigated and held accountable for their actions. In particular, the role played by Benon V. Sevan, executive director of the Office of Iraq Programs, should be carefully scrutinized. If the allegations against Mr. Sevan are true, he must be prosecuted.
Overall responsibility for the program’s failure should lie with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, who in effect turned a blind eye to one of the biggest financial scandals of modern times. The U.N.’s inability to successfully manage the oil-for-food program represents a spectacular failure of leadership on the part of Mr. Annan.
The mismanagement of the oil-for-food program raises serious doubts about the U.N.’s ability to manage future programs of a similar scale. The United Nations should never again be placed in charge of the administration of an international sanctions regime.
The links between Saddam Hussein’s regime and leading European companies and politicians were extensive. The United States should call for those who violated the sanctions regime to be prosecuted by their governments.
The United States was right to exclude the U.N. from a key role in administering post-war Iraq – the U.N. was clearly incapable of performing such a function.
The Pentagon was right to bar companies from nations who had opposed regime change in Iraq, such as France and Russia, from bidding for U.S.-funded contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq. Russian and French companies in particular benefited from the exploitation of the oil-for-food program.
Nile Gardiner, Ph.D., is Fellow in Anglo-American Security Policy, and James Phillips is Research Fellow in Middle Eastern Affairs, in The Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute at The Heritage Foundation.
billions and billions of money:stongue: |
|
|
| Q5echo |
for the sake of my own argument.
just googled some keywords and came up with the first reqest.
NewsMax.com Wires
Wednesday, April 9, 2003
France has desperately and publicly sought a peaceful solution of the Iraqi crisis with a sole strategic goal: strong influence if not control of the world's future leading oil reserves.
At the same time, French President Jacques Chirac has consolidated his status as heir of former President Charles De Gaulle's policy of independence from the United States.
The Iraqi government remembered Chirac's predecessor Francois Mitterrand's opposition to allied action to evict Iraqi forces from Kuwait, before ultimately joining the Desert Storm coalition, and thus suspected France would eventually not use its veto power to block a second U.N. resolution. With good reason: If it were to have a stake in postwar oil developments, France must have realized it needed to be seen as a supporter of the "coalition of the willing."
Although the veto option did not materialize, opponents of the Iraqi regime accuse France of duplicity, citing opposition to use of force against Saddam's regime as a prime example. They see the French challenge to U.S. hegemony as propaganda for Arab consumption, in an attempt to divert attention from France's own objectives in Iraq.
Funded by the Genocidal Maniac
Opposition leaders accuse France of freely violating international law and the U.N. charter when it comes to safeguarding its interests and argue that Paris' opposition to war was solely to avert its good friend and client Saddam Hussein's ouster.
They point to a quarter of a century of such close relations that Baghdad generously contributed to Chirac's election campaigns and made annual donations to the Gaullist Rassemblement Pour La Republique political party, founded by Chirac.
They cite mutual public declarations of admiration made by the two leaders during Chirac's 1975 trip to Baghdad as prime minister, a visit that ushered in the golden age in French-Iraqi relations.
Shortly thereafter, France provided financial and technical assistance for the Ozirak, Iraq's first nuclear reactor. Israel eventually bombed the Ozirak, keeping Saddam from having a nuclear offensive capability during the Gulf War in 1990-91. At the time, Chirac's critics called him "Jacques Ozirak," much as now U.S. commentators have taken to referring to the French president as "Jacques Iraq."
Follow the Money, Oil, Weapons ...
After Chirac's 1975 visit, Iraq became the leading buyer of French arms, as well as France's main oil supplier. In fact from 1980 until Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, exports to Iraq and Saudi Arabia accounted for 75 percent of France's total arms sales, with the United States eventually taking the lead in Saudi Arabia.
The situation has been further complicated by a struggle between France and Russia over commercial dominance in Iraq.
France was strongly criticized by Baghdad last year when it agreed to the U.N. imposing "smart sanctions" against Iraq. At the time, the Iraqi newspaper Babel, run by Saddam's eldest son Uday, warned France its stance endangered French oil "interests and privileges" in Iraq.
France's leading oil company, Total Elf, which has held exclusive negotiating rights for the huge Majnoun and Bin Omar oil fields, was about to sign new contracts late last year, prior to the Iraqi oil minister being dismissed for canceling contracts with Russia.
Stifling the Opposition
In a bid to recoup its position, the Chirac regime has been the sole major European country refusing to receive Iraqi opposition leaders or hold official discussions with them.
Thus the diplomatic dilemma for Jacques Chirac: Having viewed French interests better served with a friendly Saddam Hussein in power, he has rightly feared the U.S.-led coalition would topple the Iraqi despot. And with good reason.
Analysis by Hussain Hindawi, a native Iraqi historian, humanitarian and journalist who is editor of UPI's Arabic News Service, and John R. Thomson, who has been involved in the Middle East since 1966 as businessman, diplomat and journalist.
Copyright 2003 by United Press International.
All rights reserved. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
Gotta get back to work.
later. |
|
|
| anuneventrade |
Some excerpts from an address concerning the U.S. role in the U.N.
| quote: | Still, the rancor that characterized much of our interaction with the UN over Iraq has led many to ask why, why do we continue to go to the United Nations when it so often appears that its operating principle is to oppose us, no matter what. That is a fair question.
The answer is that the United States Government, which helped to found the United Nations, remains committed to it both in principle and in practice. This is true whether we are talking about the Security Council and Iraq, counterterrorism, peacekeeping in the Congo or Liberia, humanitarian relief, the Commission on Human Rights, or the work of the UN’s specialized agencies.
The bottom line is that we recognize that neither the United States, with all its wealth and military power, nor the United Nations with its universal membership can solve the world’s problems alone. If the United Nations did not exist today, we would try to create it. It may not look the same, but an international forum like it makes sense both from a diplomatic standpoint, and from a national security standpoint. Working within the UN system helps us better leverage our political, financial, and military capabilities, so as to be ready to respond to any new challenges that arise.
That is not to say that the U.S. Government thinks the UN is fine as it is. Far from it. The system is huge, costly, cumbersome, and vastly ineffective in many areas. Too many programs that began with the best intentions have outlived their usefulness. The General Assembly spends months debating, negotiating, and voting for the same resolutions, year after year. Members are elected to UN bodies when, properly, they should be sanctioned by those bodies. |
| quote: | We place a priority as well on promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, and sustainable development. To advance development, we are working in the UN to change the way it dispenses advice about economic policies and aid. We have made considerable progress in this area. The Monterrey Consensus was the seminal breakthrough. Public and private sector leaders agreed that, while they all have a role to play, developing countries hold primary responsibility for their own development. And good governance is key. If we get the process right, we will liberate the energies of people and mobilize all the resources available to help development take root, and thrive.
None of these efforts can fully succeed, however, if the UN does not become more efficient with the vast resources the world gives it. Its proposed budget has surpassed $3 billion for the first time this year. Its agencies and commissions will only meet their objectives if they follow this one rule: Remain tightly focused on their technical and specialized missions, and do not veer off into politicized debates. We will continue to work with the UN Secretariat to improve results-based budgeting, best practices, and all the management reforms under consideration. |
The full address
More on my actual opinion later :) |
|
|
| occrider |
| Damn ... just my luck that I'm away on a business trip when a thread I can spend hours on comes up :( ... oh well, at least I'm in Orlando :D |
|
|
| anuneventrade |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Damn ... just my luck that I'm away on a business trip when a thread I can spend hours on comes up :( ... oh well, at least I'm in Orlando :D |
:eyes: I live in Orlando!! :eyes: |
|
|
|
|
