United Nations?
 

We've all heard a lot of negative news items about corruption in the UN. Kofi Annan's son is tied into the oil-for-food scandal, and there are murmerings that papertrails can be traced into Germany, Russia, and France.

Can the UN function much longer? Should it? If reform is the answer, then what types of reform are needed that actually stand a chance of being implemented?

The Economist is asking the same questions, but doesn't really have any answers. Article

Then you have the right wing groups telling us to get out.
getusout.org

What is in America's best interests?

Reform it? Leave it alone? Close it down? Move it to Paris and tell them to leave us the hell alone?

Well it's a damn good question really. America's best interest is very hard to tell. depends whether you think the Us is on the right track or not at the moment. i think the key is reform and strengthing of the Security Council. Of course there is a chance the EU is going to undergo...er.....structural reform (a nice way of saying impoding) over the next year or two, that'll spice things up.

i think everything relies on people deciding what the UN really is.

is it a governing power?

which is an idea that causes most americans to choke.

or is it simply an arbitration board that also works on some humanitarian projects?

which most americans support

one of the problems is that people involved with the UN (good ol' Kofi) feel it is a governing power with the ability to dictate what other nations do, while others feel it is a useful tool to maintain a measure of stability on the global scene.

First appreciate why a need for change. The Economist lists some long festering examples of why the UN is not representative - Japan and Germany the 2nd and 3rd largest economies not even represented on Security Council. But then before a country should be on the Security Council, should it not first be representative in solving world problems? Canada has demonstrated far more international responsibility than either Japan and Germany. So much so that Canada was suffering crisis in their military services.

Rightly so is that Africa and South American are completely unrepresented.

A second problem is the bloated UN bureaucracy. 200 Dutch troops could not even call for help - leading 5000 Bosnians to be massacred. They could only call the UN for help between 8 & 5 Eastern time. (And yes, I am not kidding.) Clinton got Kofi Anan in to replace his predecessor who was probably grossly incompetent. Anan is a responsible leader no matter what right wing rhetoric says. But Anan alone is not sufficient to make the UN responsible to a new world order.

UN worked when America wanted world cooperation; was lead by people who understood the world and acted as an honest broker. America has changed for the worse - as demonstrated by anti-Americanism in every nation including Canada. The UN has suffered accordingly because it became dependent on a responsible US and US allies. On the other side, this might be good. You are watching the EU come together because America can no longer be trusted. Other regional interest groups, long necessary and maybe now required to fill a vacuum, are forming or reforming in Africa and the Middle East - and maybe in SE Asia although I seriously doubt the last one.

But all this still requires a universal standards organization that the UN must provide. An organization strong enough to expose US outright torture only because they are not American citizens. An organization that works with and empowers these regional groups and another world power - the NGOs.

The reform study group that includes Paul Volker will report just that. Listen to them. There is massive disinformation in the US. For example, those who blame Kofi Anan's son for corruption in the Iraqi Oil for Food program have invented facts. Anan's son was involved mostly in Nigeria. There may be corruption problems with his son, but not involving the right wing 'Rush Limbaugh' type claims. Disinformation is that widespread in America.

We need the UN no matter what extremists advocate. Fact that the US has become so self-serving, historically uninformed, is slowly turning anti-science, and become more anti-humanity (due to religious extremism) only accelerates the need for UN reform.

But again, I must emphasis, the reasons for this reform, what it is, and where any corruption may lie is almost impossible to learn in the US press thanks to Fox News urban myths and other lies. Most of us probably don't even know of the Volker committe, who is on it, or that it even has existed. The local Action News and Daily Newspaper don't bother with real news when the reader's eyes glaze over. If it does not involve a shooting war, would you then know it is happening? Feel free to explain why Rwanda may declare war on the Congo this month? Why then should Action News even report what has been happening in the UN? Too much news in America about UN reform is from the Rush Limbaugh propaganda machines. That too will be a roadblock to UN reform.

The U.N. has no authority over any sovereign nations on earth. It is not a governing body. The UN is nothing more than a forum for nations to settle disputes diplomatically. It's not supposed to have an armed force, but it considers itself above the sovereignty of nations and openly says it wants to control the world and disarm all nations including America.

Sadly, our idiot of a president also thinks America is here to serve as the muscle for the UN and he plans on taking us one step closer to a one world government because he has promised to sign the FTAA agreement.

The best thing America could do (short of withdrawing from Iraq immediately, impeaching Bush and putting him on trial for treason, executing him when they find him guilty) is to completely withdraw from the UN and demand they remove their headquarters from our country.

well, we've heard from answers from our polar (bi-polar?) opposites... now anybody else have ideas on this issue?

What really can we, or should we do to make the UN more effective?

The UN worked well when the world was split into 2 camps capitalist vs. communist. it is nearly impossible to get nations with differing ideas of what is in their best interest to work together if they are not working against some defined, pressing threat. we live in a world where most folks aren't real worried about russians invading so other nations are free to criticize and oppose the US with out a whole lot to lose.

isn't the Economist like holy writ to you, tw? are you saying that the oil for food scandal is all part of the vast right wing conspiracy?

i once heard that 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management... who is more "top management" at the UN than Kofi Anan?

UN? Enforce NY parking regulations and make them pay the tickets or tow the limos. They'll all leave....problem solved. :ymca:

There are two "N"s in my name.

A lookout123 that wants an intelligent discussion would first read the entire post rather than quoting selected sentences to promote his agenda.
Truth and reality is kryptonite to extremists. Here is the part he intentionally ignored: You tell me where I said - or even imply - the OFF program is a vast right wing conspiracy. Shame on you for doing what extremists (right and left) do. Extremists find it profitable to misrepresent centrists - lie by telling half truths - quote sentences completely out of context - distort what was previously said. Ironically, they also call it 'being moral'. After all, if a 'moral' drug addict and money launder can do it, then why not lookout123? So who was brought in to fix a bloated bureacracy? Who instituted these investigations - especially the needed commisson that includes Paul Volcker? Kofi Annan was brought in because the previous Secretary General was bad. Kofi Annan is trying to reform an organization that really needs constitutional changes. So you would blame the man who is trying to fix it only because he told the truth about the invasion of Iraq? An more honest Lookout123 would have instead asked where is the UN Inspector General. Why is Kofi Annan not asking of him some very embarrassing questions?

How convenient that Lookout123 forgot those details - as all right wing extremists must do to save us from ourselves. Worse, who knew the scandel was ongoing? Most of the diplomatic world including the US government. Can't be? They are the moral friends of right wing extremists? So instead we will forget to mention those who knew, kept silent, and may have been involved. Instead we blame Kojo Annan.

Lookout123 claims that Kojo Annan was fully involved in the OFF scandel. He says so because right wing extremists are mad at Kofi Annan for telling the truth about America's illegal invasion of Iraq. The mental midget president is taking revenge on anyone who tells the truth about a lying 'god choosen' president. Lookout123 is a good soldier in the extremist army. Had Lookout123 instead been honest, he would have provided a real list of suspects: Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Egypt, United Arab Emerites, Russia, France, Indonesia, Malaysia, Ukraine, Belarussia, China, Swizterland, Yemen, Namibia, Qatar, Britian, Lebanon, and Vietnam. Suspects who (may have) profited personally include members of presidential staffs in numerous countries, including President Megawati of Indonesia, members of Parliaments in many other countries, Interior Ministers, Elf, Exxon/Mobil, and Chevron/Texaco. Notice the many he conveniently forgot to mention - just like Rush Limbaugh does to promote lies. Lookout123 wants us to forget those who are probably most guilty. So like Rush Limbaugh, Lookout123 tells half truths and blames Kojo Annan.

Its quite simple. Tell lies - half truths. Then when honest facts arrrive, those he has brainwashed will deny the honest report. Hitler did same to take over Germany. Ironic that a right wing extremist like Lookout123 would use same tactics of right wing 1930s Germany. You see, Lookout123, I too can play your game of spin. And being so extremist, you have more to lose.

Now apologize for not reading my previous post, for taking it out of context, and ask your reworded questions with humility you now owe me.

If only the 9/11 hijackers could have struck about 35 blocks north. *sigh*

If only thier 3 targets had been the UN building while Bush was addressing them, the Whitehouse during a Rumsfield press briefing on Iraq, and the Capitol building while Congress was voting for the Patriot Act.

and the Capitol building while Congress was voting for the Patriot Act

Anachronism alert! ...but potentially an excellent Hollywood idea. Hmm...

"Sir, we have to go back in time to sign these bills into law to stop the terrorists!"

And not because he hired the guy who ran the entire operation??

If we want to get into an argument of how responsible a top leader is for the decisions and actions of people he hired, we can move on to G.W. "Buck, What Buck?" Bush.

Here ya go Rich, this may help. Information about obsessive-compulsive disorder