Posted on 11/30/2004 12:54:48 PM PST by NormsRevenge
The United Nations unveiled a sweeping proposal to overhaul the organisation, including the Security Council, in what would be the biggest UN reform since its founding in 1945.
After bitter divisions over the war in Iraq, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan ordered a high-level panel last year to come up with the blueprint and help the United Nations adapt to the 21st century.
The panel's report released Tuesday proposed more than 100 recommendations, including some -- an expansion of the Security Council and a definition of terrorism -- that have eluded UN diplomats for years.
"What is needed is a comprehensive system of collective security, one that tackles both old and new threats, and addresses the security concerns of all states -- rich and poor, weak and strong," Annan said in an introduction to the report.
He said the proposals, which must be approved by member nations, set out "a broad framework for collective security and indeed gives a broader meaning to that concept appropriate for the new millennium."
In setting out a blueprint for collective security decisions, the report also takes implicit aim at the United States over the Iraqi war, which was strongly opposed by Annan and many Security Council member states.
"There is little evident international acceptance of the idea of security being best preserved by a balance of power or by any single -- even benignly motivated -- superpower," the panel said.
"The yearning for an international system governed by the rule of law has grown," it said. "No state, no matter how powerful, can by its own efforts alone make itself invulnerable to today's threats."
Annan has repeatedly maintained that many people around the globe are concerned about disease and poverty rather than terrorism and weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and much of the report underlines his core argument.
The report identifies a wide variety of threats to international security today, citing organised crime, poverty and failed states along with war, terrorism and WMD.
It outlines three principles for collective security -- that current threats go beyond national boundaries, that no nation is strong enough to defend itself alone, and that not every nation will be willing or able to protect its own people or refrain from harming its neighbours.
Annan, whose term ends in 2006, has indicated that he will devote much of his remaining time in office to pushing for the reforms, which would have to be approved by member states.
Revamping the Security Council, the top UN decision-making body, is likely to be the most contentious issue, and the panel itself came up with two competing proposals for expanding the council's membership to 24 seats.
One method would add six new permanent members to the council, which has had the same five permanent states -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- since the United Nations was founded in the wake of World War II.
That proposal would also add three new non-permanent members to the 10 current non-permanent members, who hold rotating two-year seats.
The six new permanent seats, without the veto power that the current five have, would be allotted to two nations from Asia, two from Africa, one from Europe and one from the Americas.
The other proposal would create a third tier of council member nations, which would be given four-year, non-permanent seats, which could be renewed.
Two-thirds of the 191 UN member nations would have to approve any change to the council membership, which would then take effect if none of the permanent members uses its veto power to block the move.
The UN reform panel was headed by former Thai prime minister Anand Panyarachun. Among the other members are Brent Scowcroft, a former US national security advisor, and former Chinese foreign minister Qian Qichen.
Expanding the Security Counsel would not work. They can't accomplish anything as it is. Putting more people on the Counsel would only ensure greater gridlock.
Check for traffic later. Leopards don't change their spots.
Excellent, UN'ers!
While you're at it, why don't you improve your view as well.
Might I suggest........france ;'}
The only reform that would work for the UN was the one the Soviets did, namely voting itself out of existence.
Useless bile, that UN.
Veto. Period.
Works for me.
Collective security and the rule of law my arse. I'll believe there is a rule of law when I see Kofi An'hans in the dock for taking bribes from Saddam. i'm not sure Happy Hans made anything out of it, he should go to prison for being stupid. Besides, he'd probably enjoy prison.
Crap. We are, or would be if we didnt have to worry about others' feelings
The prime sweeping change to the UN should be the immediate withdrawal of the US and all its financial support. Let the rest rule their little universe without our help, since we are clearly not welcome (though our $$ certainly is).
The UN needs to be located in a nation that could benefit from the largesse that flows forth from the bloated salaries paid to these former peons.
Zimbabwe (or is it Zimbabme, Zimbabyou?) comes to mind.
Well, just for the UN to acknowledge it's feebleness is a positive start.
This idea of having 3 Euros on the Security Council though doesn't wash with me. The EU should have 1 permanent seat on the Security Council, not 3.
If you can come up with 100 reccomendations for reforming the UN, it's time to scrap the whole thing. For one, they should ax the Security Counsel. And maybe downsize the Secretariat.
In setting out a blueprint for collective security decisions, the report also takes implicit aim at the United States over the Iraqi war...
Great. Let's veto this lame thing, then within an hour, announce that we are permanently withdrawing from further participation in that uselss org. Then kick their asses from New York!
"Collective security" sounds like a page out of Marx or Engels. There is no such thing as an "international community". The UN is a corrupt,feckless debating club, and thankfully has no real power without the U.S. The U.S. should exit the UN and leave it to die, then work on improving the Coalition of the Committed.
Since we have a veto, I don't see how that benefits us. If they want to do something we don't like, we can just veto it.
I am sure that this plan by Annan is intended to dilute our influence.
If we withdraw, we lose the right to veto them. They can't take any executive action without our authority, and they can't modify the organization without our authority, we'd be silly to leave.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.