The UN is a fundamentally flawed institution (From ArabicNews - Barf Alert)

ArabicNews.com ^ | 4/26/2003 | staff

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

The UN is a fundamentally flawed institution
Regional, Analysis, 4/26/2003

If there was ever a time when it was evident that the UN and its Security Council are useless institutions for solving the major problems facing the world, what happened in Iraq could not be a greater demonstration of that.

On the one hand, the UN Security Council was unable to prevent the United States from invading another country in breach of international law, on the other hand, the Security Council members want to claim it to be a legitimate institution. The US wants it to be legitimate also when it wants the council to achieve one of its goals, and on the other hand, the other Council members wants the Council to be legitimate as this is their place at the power table and afford them some leverage that the USA can throw their way on irrelevant matters.

With the current fight for the legitimacy of the UN as an institution, the US and those who oppose it on the council -- which we will call the opposition -- are fighting each other. At stake is -- who will have a say in Iraq. But the issue is really not only about Iraq -- or north Korea or the Irish problem or Indo-Pakistani problem or the African problems or the Arab - Israeli problem, the issue is how as an international community are we going to govern ourselves. Is it going to be a dictatorship run by the US or a community of nations resolving their problems through democratic institutions.

When the US sought the approval of the UN Security Council to attack Iraq, and failed to win this support, it went ahead and attacked Iraq anyway. Rather than the opposition delegitimizing the US, the US counter attacked by delegitimizing the UN Security Council as being irrelevant. The US seems to be always two steps ahead of the opposition because it is a single country making the decision, while the opposition have to pool several countries to be effective -- at best, which slows them down considerably as a decision and tactical making process. So we are stuck in phase two of this confrontation with the opposition having failed phase one by failing to delegitimize the US and its presence at the Security Council. What are the alternatives. There are many permutations to this problem that we are not going to discuss, so we will focus on a solution.

The problem defined:
1. The UN Security Council is a very undemocratic and very destructive institution to world development -- politically, and economically.
2. The UN Security Council is composed of five permanent members with veto power to obstruct all decisions. This veto power is the very problem that obstructs a democratic process that would begin to facilitate the needed changes in the world.
3. Those holding the veto power will not relinquish this power -- because who wants to give up such monopolistic power when they have it?

As you can see, the situation does not hold much hope. Unless, the UN General Assembly -- an assembly that has demonstrated ineffectiveness in security, political and economic matters, will delegitimize the Security Council or fundamentally change its undemocratic nature; an unlikely event to happen.

The other option is to change the Security Council from within. That is also unlikely, but it is the fastest and most plausible of all scenarios. What it requires is that a single veto wielding country declare publicly, that it is going to veto every single items of the Security Council, until the Council members agree that the very first order of business will be a resolution to fundamentally alter or dissolve to Security Council in order to transform it into a democratic institution with democratic legitimacy and authority.

But which country of the five veto-power countries (US, UK, China, Russia, France), is up to the challenge. Certainly not the USA as it already holds all the power. The UK -- with a foreign policy establishment that is a relic of imperial thinking that is not worth dwelling on -- baring a revolution which would make them think that unifications such as that of GermanyÕs was something to be supported and not opposed. Russia is unsure about which way it wants to go --democracy for the world or hold on to its a role that has degenerated defacto to little more than symbolic, and defensive. China -- will not interested in taking the slightest risk. So we are left with one and only one country: France.

Silence will not counter US active measures and diplomatic dominance. To the contrary, it is a loosing game, for certain. The stakes are extremely high. Phase one was won by international dictatorships. Phase two gives a major opening. Will France, on its own, simply take the chance to change the world? France has been attacked and vilified enough. What is one more condemnation? France can declare in a historic decision tomorrow that: Ò The world is in need of being set on a different course from its current path by creating or reforming its institutions. Towards that end, France declares that it will, and without regard to the issues involved, veto every single issue related to the Security Council, no matter the urgency of the issues."

The United Nations, is fundamentally flawed. So is the European Union and the Arab League and other such major institutions. These institutions are left at the mercy of a single country or two to always obstruct their development. That was the price they had to pay in compromise for them to found these institutions, a price that they pay for when they are trying to grow later. All these institutions are in need of fundamental reforms. England continues to obstructs the fundamental changes needed so that the EU can act as an effective entity. Similarly, Kuwait and others do the same to the Arab League, and the US does the same to the UN. The problem is one and the same. A very small minority cannot and must not have veto power in a democratic institution. This is a fundamental flaw that has and will continue to dramatically slow down and prevent progress. The solution, is to change these institution, or abandon them completely for a much small groupings of countries that are capable institutionally to make a decision, democratically, by sacrificing some sovereignty. This is how nations were build and were able to gain from the economy of scale, and that is what needs to be done for the new national regional groupings.

A dramatic decision on FranceÕs part to this effect will bring the world a new world order. Let there be no mistake about it, half measures are most certainly going to be a loosing game. This is a grand game, and at this time you had better know where you stand, or else, surrender it all again to the US, as we will be back were we started again, one way or other, USA willing.

To save Iraq, the US destroyed it by sanctions, constant military attacks, and finally a flat out military invasion. Maybe the US is correct, some things need to be destroyed in order to rebuild them properly. That is one way of changing things. The other way is by peaceful means. The UN Security Council needs to be destroyed, whether from the outside or the inside. France is our only hope. Let us hope that they fully understand the magnitude and benefits from such an act, for France and the world.

Previous Stories:
  The USA V.S. ArabicNews.com   (3/17/2003)
  The USA V.S. ArabicNews.com   (3/17/2003)
  UN resolution to eject the United States from the United Nations   (3/17/2003)
  UN resolution to eject the United States from the United Nations   (3/17/2003)
  The US against France; a defining moment for world politics or a wasted opportunity   (2/24/2003)
  France holds the key to changing the world, and give it liberty; will France act?   (2/11/2003)
  The practice of lending to developing and underdeveloped governments should end   (5/25/2002)
  Increasing Arab states inter-trade, regional economic integration an absolute imperative   (4/12/2001)
  The state, religion, and the individual in public life   (4/12/2000)
  Economic development strategies   (1/15/2000)
  The foundation for tomorrow's international politics   (10/18/1999)

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

No concern here about Weapons of mass Destruction or the horrors of Saddam.

See this item regarding the Media :

Saddam's Cash

"For years, the Iraqi leader has been waging an intensive, sometimes clandestine, and by most accounts highly effective image war in the Arab world," wrote Wall Street Journal reporters Jane Mayer and Geraldine Brooks in an exposé published February 15, 1991. "His strategy has ranged from financing friendly publications and columnists as far away as Paris to doling out gifts as big as new Mercedes-Benzes."

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I am guessing that this publication is from Morocco: Local gave this:

___________________________________

Tennis: Morocco's Younes El Aynaoui moves to 2nd round in Barcelona open
Morocco, Sports, 4/22/2003

Morocco's Younes El Aynaoui, World No 9, cruised Monday to the second round of the US$ 1 million Barcelona Open.

The Moroccan made it after beating Ecuador's Nicolas Lapenti in two sets to one: 6-3, 3-6, and 7-6.

Another Moroccan taking part in the tournament, Hicham Arazi, will be playing Belgium's Xavier Malisse in the first round.

Previous Stories:
  Basketball: Morocco defeats Libya in African nations' cup heats   (4/19/2003)
  Hassan II Tennis GP: El Aynaoui concedes title to Boutter   (4/15/2003)
  Moroccan Lakhsem wins the WKN title   (4/15/2003)

[ckilmer]

when the moslems refer to Crusaders--they mean christians and specifically the christian right in the USA. when they talk about Pharonists--as in people who worship the pharoh.. they are referring to western statists and particularly european statists and most particularly french statists--and that means the french.

The french for their part by divesting themselves of God and embracing various nihilist philosophies have stripped themselves of all invisible means of support. despite french conceits--they are prey to moslems. they have as much protection in the spiritual realm to moslem predations as african animists.

[Pyrion]

What they don't realize is that there is a growing movement within the United States to get us the hell out of the United Nations. They do have a point -- the United Nations is fundamentally flawed, but there's something they're missing.

We (as in the people of the United States) don't need the United Nations. Not only is the United Nations fundamentally flawed, but it's also fundamentally irrelevant. The United Nations, without the United States (and Great Britain to a lesser extent) doesn't have the capability to enforce its resolutions with military force, given that its other member nations are either too poor or too afraid to put their (effectively nonexistant) military forces into the UN pool. As demonstrated with the failed attempt at the sanctions regime, followed by the failed attempt at the inspections regime, things only started working when the tangible threat of military force was applied.

And when all is said and done, we really don't need to give a flying fuck what the rest of the world thinks. How we govern ourselves and our military forces is contingent upon the people, and only the people, of the United States of America, to decide for themselves whether or not they want to go to war. World opinion be damned, they aren't paying taxes to support our troops.

They can have their bullshit United Nations reformations. It won't mean anything.

[George W. Bush]

On the one hand, the UN Security Council was unable to prevent the United States from invading another country in breach of international law, on the other hand, the Security Council members want to claim it to be a legitimate institution. The US wants it to be legitimate also when it wants the council to achieve one of its goals, and on the other hand, the other Council members wants the Council to be legitimate as this is their place at the power table and afford them some leverage that the USA can throw their way on irrelevant matters.

Perceptive writing by our Arab boy-reporters.

... the issue is how as an international community are we going to govern ourselves. Is it going to be a dictatorship run by the US or a community of nations resolving their problems through democratic institutions.

A dictatorship? Are they asking for the right to vote in U.S. elections? Look, we're a military superpower because we're an economic global superpower the likes of which the world has never seen and the oldest and truest democracy in the world and because we are a republic and not a pure democracy like the pansy parliamentary countries are, much to their own detriment. And when Islamo-nutjobs kill our citizens by the thousands, the sleeping giant will awaken. Just go ask Japan whether it's good to wake the giant.

I did like the part where they think France should veto everything. If only! Please, Mr. Chiraq, do this for the downtrodden people of the world! Veto us! Veto us!

To save Iraq, the US destroyed it by sanctions, constant military attacks, and finally a flat out military invasion.

Apparently, our fully-televised Iraqi exercise was one of the few effective educational television events in history. I really really liked this observation. Despite the general stupidity of the rest of the article, this statement demonstrates our Arab friends are educable with proper stimulus. The kind of stimulus the 3^rd ID can provide.

The UN Security Council needs to be destroyed, whether from the outside or the inside. France is our only hope.

Then you are truly and royally screwed.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

ROFL!

Good job!

I thought Morrocco was a pretty reliable US friend but I guess the commies (Socialists ) own this paper also!

[tet68]

France has been attacked and vilified enough.

Hardly!

I have not yet begun to vilify.
Fromagers, The continum of cheese is no longer yours.
All your cheese are belong to US.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

All your cheese are belong to US.

ROFL!

[AmericanVictory]

What is this "international law" that such writers keep brining up, where is it set out and just how did we breach it? Just curious. It never seems to get substantiated or articulated.

[bart99]

Not a bad article except for the obvious anti-american bias. It's points are valid.
However, when the author says
"the issue is how as an international community are we going to govern ourselves.", then I guess we should answer by saying that the US is governed by it's constitution and it's congress and it's three bodies of Executive, legistative, and courts (whichever that is called - I forget), and we aren't going to BE governed by 150 third-rate world countries that are inherently anti-american.

Another approach could be to disolve the UN as a "governing" entity, and just allow it's humantiarian functions to survive. Wait - Lybia is in charge of what? Forget that.

Personally, I think the US should announce it's intention to veto ALL resolutions that come to the Security council until China and Russia decide to do something about North Korea. WE took care of Iraq. Iran will implode. And the middle east will never see a resolution with the UN general assembly condeming Israel two times every week and never condem Arafat and company.

[McGavin999]

Too bad these people don't understand what the Security Council is. As a matter of fact, too bad they don't understand where the funding for the UN comes from. Too bad they don't understand that without the US there would be an immediate 60% reduction in the ability of the UN to provide humanitarian aid and an immediate drop of 95% of the UN ability to field a military.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Lets hope that they get the opportunity to find out what happens without the US supporting the UN.

See this, it could happen, possibly:

David Warren: U.S. No Longer Cares What Others Think (Payback is a…)