[Tipacanoe]

Let’s all vote for a UN president


Iain Macwhirter believes that the response to the Boxing Day earthquake shows that people around the globe recognise their interdependence. Now all we need is a democratically elected UN leadership to reflect this unity


I’M writing this column from Brussels, which seemed as good a place as any to see in the first week of the new year – and before you ask, I’m not staying with any politicians. However, you can’t avoid them in this city of the European Union. The Brussels political classes, like our own, have been agonising about the consequences of the Boxing Day tsunami and asking whether the EU is getting a good enough show in the media tsunami that followed the disaster. There was even a minor flurry over the failure of the EU aid commissioner, Louis Michel, to break his holiday and visit the disaster areas to promote the EU response.

Europe wants to show that it is right there in the frontline of crisis relief and humanitarian aid. At this week’s UN donors’ conference in Geneva, the EU will pledge a further €459 million in emergency relief, propose a €1 billion international lending facility for reconstruction and even a “rapid reaction force”, involving both military and relief agencies, to react to natural disasters in future. This idea of a Thunderbirds-style “International Rescue” organisation has been proposed by a number of commentators in Britain in the past week, but the EU is the first to take the idea seriously.

Clearly, the earthquake in the Indian Ocean has shaken up more than just the seabed. After decades of cynicism and neglect, aid and development are suddenly sexy. Governments are jostling with each other to be more humanitarian than thou.

Everyone is trying to get a piece of the action. The Chancellor, Gordon Brown, and the Prime Minister Tony Blair have been busy scheduling rival press conferences to show everyone just how much they care.

I suppose the wretched of the Earth should be heartened that their plight is now something politicians think is worth fighting over. But for how long? The politicians are responding to the spontaneous generosity of the voters. People gave money because pictures of distressed families were appearing nightly on the TV news over Christmas, which is, anyway, a time for giving. When the pictures disappear with the Christmas trees, so will much of the cash. Politicians will return to domestic preoccupations. It will be left to international agencies like the EU, the G8 club of industrialised nations and, above all, the United Nations to ensure that the momentum is not lost.

But there is a problem. The United Nations is in the grip of an internal crisis over inefficiency and corruption which could claim the job of the general secretary, Kofi Annan. The $20bn oil-for-food programme, which the UN administers, has allegedly leaked hundreds of millions into various private pockets. A report on the scandal is expected in the next few weeks. Annan’s own son, Kojo, is an employee of a firm thought to have benefited.

In the wake of the scandal, and other allegations of mismanagement, Republican voices in the US and conservative commentators in Britain have been pronouncing the imminent death of the UN and calling on the G8 to take over. After all, they say, the G8 provides most of the money to run the UN’s aid programmes, so why shouldn’t it just take over the administration of them too?

Well, for one very obvious reason: if the United Nations ceased to represent the nations of the world it would lose all credibility. The UN is already dominated by the G8, since countries like Britain and America compose the permanent membership of the UN security council and have a veto on any decisions they don’t like. The UN isn’t some world democracy – far from it. But at least it provides a forum in which developing countries have a say. To cut them out of any influence would be a gift to Muslim fundamentalists and corrupt African dictators who have long argued that the UN is merely a front for the capitalist West.

This loss of legitimacy would fatally undermine the ability of the United Nations to perform its peace-keeping role in Africa, the Balkans and the Middle East. The UN is expected to take over from the Americans and the British in Iraq, if elections there are successful and civil war avoided. Imagine the G8 trying to do that.

No, the problem is not the UN, but the present constitution of it. The UN is bureaucratic because it is run by bureaucrats and lacks true democratic legitimacy. It is an inter-governmental organisation, similar in some ways to the European Union and has similar problems. Self-perpetuating bureaucracies are prone to corruption and inefficiency.

Billions are fraudulently diverted annually from the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, in a similar manner to the oil-for-food programme. The point, however, is that it is generally member states, not the EU or the UN themselves, where the corruption happens, often because member governments choose to turn a blind eye. Only if the EU became a fully democratic body, with legitimate leadership, could CAP corruption be tamed.

Similarly, the problems of the United Nations will not be solved by less democracy but by more of it. The way to reform the UN is surely to democratise it. Rather than handing over responsibility to a rich club of unelected nations, why not try electing the leadership of the United Nations? This is not as fanciful as it might sound.

The Boxing Day earthquake has demonstrated that the people of the world recognise their increasing interdependence, if only to the extent of seeking a common response to humanitarian disaster. Democracy is not a numbers game. There is no natural limit to the numbers of people who can compose a democratic polity. It would be difficult to organise elections on a global scale, of course, but not impossible using modern sampling techniques.

Of course this would not be a world government, of the kind proposed by the anti-globalisation campaigner, George Monbiot in his book The Age Of Consent. The age of world government is a very long way off and the president of the UN would have limited responsibilities. However, Monbiot was right to point out that in the age of economic globalisation, there has been no comparable globalisation of democracy. Multinational companies have a global reach, but the forces of democratic accountability have not followed. What better way to unite the world than allow it to choose, democratically, the leadership of the UN?

The candidates? Well, you can imagine the kind of world figures who might be interested: Bill Clinton, Nelson Mandela, former US Secretary of State Colin Powell, George Soros, Mikhail Gorbachev. The candidates would have to have demonstrated a capacity to see beyond narrow national interest. The incumbent would have the legitimacy to conduct the kind of internal reforms the UN requires and develop a coherent strategy for tackling global problems.

An elected UN president may sound fantastic – but it is no more fantastic than hoping for Captain Tracy and his crew to ride to the world’s rescue in Thunderbird 5. The United Nations is becoming a key institution in a whole range of areas. It is expected to prevent wars in the Balkans; protect civilian populations in lawless lands such as Darfur; end world poverty; combat Aids; tackle global warming; and look after the victims of the century’s greatest natural disaster. There are moments in history when there is no alternative but to think big. If not now, when?

09 January 2005

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Tipacanoe

Let’s all vote for a UN president

tis a noble topic for a thread....tho several generations ahead of its time, methinks....i just hope the UN (and people) are still around when its an idea whose time has truely come....

[LANMaster]

You've seen the dismal failure of the UN in Rowanda, the Balkans, Somalia and now the Sudan. Not to mention the recent allegations of sexual misconduct on the part of dozens of UN officials in these far flung areas.
You have seen the corruption in the oil for food scandal with Iraq.
You have seen the futility of UN resolutions which have no teeth whatsoever, not only in Iraq but with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as well.
You have seen their clear anti semitism.
You have seen country's like Iran placed at the head of the UN human rights committee.
You have seen the utter uselessness of the UN in the Ivory Coast.
You have seen the utter uselessness of the UN in dealing with North Korea's nuclear ambitions.

...... and you want to give the UN more power????

Duh.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

You've seen the dismal failure of the UN....
...... and you want to give the UN more power????

Duh.

what i see, LAN, is a group of world leader's fumbling around, trying to make a difference....just because the graft and corruption is on a global scale doesn't make it any worse than the graft and corruption in our own institutions......

still...you ARE right....their fumbling has yet to carry any weight, and so the intent seems stupid, i suppose

but there is another side to it ineffectivness....and that is the one remaining "superpower".....until that myth is put into its proper perspective, our actions will continue to supercede anything the UN can possibly do....

[rawmeat]

The real problem with this thread is the word, and its associated misinterpretation, "Democracy". As someone alot smarter than me said, a democracy is simply a tyrany of the majority. Only when the rights of the minority are protected, can a government be responsible to the people. That is why the USA is a representitive republic, not a democracy. For the government was not designed to assign rights (or deny rights), it was designed to protect Universal rights as endowed by the creator that the founders believed in. Therefore, the idea of good and evil, right and wrong is disassociated from man's laws. Man's laws, however, should reflect and defend those rights, not assign new rights. Until we understand that secular relativism is a bunch of hooey and return to a moral compass that does not originate from man, we will be sowing the seeds of our distruction.

The only thing that binds men of different backgrounds together is a common enemy. From the beginning of time, the family unit was the only group, until larger families or aligned families (allied to defeat others) became a threat, then tribes or clans or what have you developed and grew in response to greater threats. The UN as a global government is a non-starter until the "martians" attack.

Just because our government has made mistakes and made "deals with the (current)devil, does not mean that we should not try to do the "right" thing in the future. The insurgents and the terrorists in Iraq are not equivative with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and our other founding fathers.

Peace through strength.

[RAM-PAGE]

Let's see you democratize the Vatican first.

How about Globalising a Regulatory Bureaucracy?

I am getting a bit sick of idiots voting for Martyrdom and Fatalism.

O Tanto Duol, it takes two to Tango, and "Le Rouge et le Noir" of the Scarlet Pimpernel, has lost any appeal it might have had.

It's like listening to a record stuck in the groove, or a - Boring Unctuous Repetitive Parrot.

AKA, The Man from BURP.

'Scu me.

[Tipacanoe]

hUH!

RAM-PAGE, you're incoherent!

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by Tipacanoe

hUH!

RAM-PAGE, you're incoherent!

I have him on ignore.
Don't feed the troll

[RAM-PAGE]

I find the article by Iain Macwhirter to be quite interesting, although why any we need reference to "ThunderBirds" instead of just Military Operatives (for their survival expertise) and just why anything should be considered to be "sexy" is beyond me, especially in the knowledge of the sex traders activities in this area.

Big thinking is another of the problems. Small thinking would be a better way to do things. A smaller population would be at far less risk, whereas an immense population is in danger of cancelling itself out if allowed to grow too big.

Smaller groups survive better, so population reduction in high-risk areas is paramount to peoples safety.

Given this unmitigated disaster, "religious" wars everywhere, and the sex trade in children I would judge that the UN & UNICEF are both ineffectual lame ducks to be perfectly honest with you.

These days, it seems that if you Serve And Protect you are referred to as a SAP or a Sucker.

[LANMaster]

ENEMIES WITHIN
How the United Nations supports terrorists and fuels global chaos

------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 11, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

In light of unprecedented U.N. scandals – involving everything from multi-billion-dollar money laundering for Saddam Hussein's terror machine to widespread sexual abuse and rape of women and children – more Americans than ever are pushing for the U.S. government to alter or abolish its relationship with the beleaguered global body, reports the latest issue of WND's Whistleblower magazine.

Titled "ENEMIES WITHIN: How the United Nations supports terrorists and fuels global chaos," January's Whistleblower documents how and why the global organization, created decades ago to prevent future wars, has morphed into the corrupt, incompetent, power-hungry, terror-supporting body it is today.

Documenting the U.N.'s non-stop history of failures, Whistleblower zeroes in on the group's most recent string of outrages:

The U.N.'s relief efforts are dismal failures. While more than 70,000 innocent families in the Darfur region of Sudan have perished, just to the south, in the Congo, 150 U.N. "peacekeepers" are under criminal indictment on charges ranging from corruption to creating and distributing pornography to rape.

Meanwhile, as this issue of Whistleblower shows, the U.N. has become a house for money laundering and a financier of international terrorism.

For instance, the 9/11 report documents that Osama bin Laden was having serious money problems in 1996, when al-Qaida's annual budget was $30 million. Early in 1997, al-Qaida members met with Iraqi intelligence officers, and an Iraqi delegation later that year visited bin Laden in Afghanistan. Then in October 1997, Kofi Annan reorganized the Iraqi Oil-for-Food program by creating the Office of Iraq Program, which reported directly to Annan.

Less than a year later, bin Laden was the "rich man of the jihad movement," according to the 9/11 investigation. In addition, Saddam Hussein's military budget escalated from $8 million in 1996 to $350 million by 2001. While investigations continue into this unprecedented scandal, the U.N. continues to stonewall. By best estimates, Saddam diverted $21 billion.

"Did this money go to terrorists? I don't think it went to the American Beauty Pageant," said Rep. Chris Shays, who is leading the congressional effort to expose the Oil-for-Food fiasco. "I think you can be absolutely certain it went to terrorists."

Contents of "ENEMIES WITHIN" include:


"Time to stop the U.N. madness" by Joseph Farah

"United Nations: a history of failure," in which Henry Lamb lays out the global body's dismal record of stopping war and preventing genocide

"'Global governance' – the U.N.'s new mission," on how global bureaucrats shifted their focus from defusing wars to running the world

"U.N. 'peacekeepers' rape women, children" – a shocking report on the latest widespread sex scandal that threatens the U.N.'s already bad reputation

"Let the U.N. leave – and take terrorism with it" by Howard Kaloogian, the former California legislator spearheading the current national campaign to get the U.N. out of the U.S.

"Battle waged to stop U.N. expansion," on how the United Nations is attempting to expand its base of operations in New York City – with the help of U.S. taxpayers

"Tower of Babble: How the United Nations has fueled global chaos" – an exclusive and extended excerpt from the stunning new blockbuster book "Tower of Babble" by former Israeli Ambassador to the U.N. Dore Gold

"U.N. employees: No confidence in Annan" – showing how even U.N. employees themselves see the need for radical changes in the global organization

"Bill Clinton to run U.N.?" That's right, when current Secretary-General Kofi Annan is out of the way, Clinton "definitely wants to do it," say insiders

"How the U.N. enriched Saddam," a complete – and completely mind-boggling – analysis of the Oil-for-Food mega-scandal, by Henry Lamb

"Kojo – how business gets done," an inside look at the highly suspect dealings of Kofi's son

"Anti-family assaults planned for U.N. conference," by Mary Jo Anderson, who provides an exclusive in-depth preview of the upcoming fight over global abortion rights and legalized same-sex unions

"Senate challenges U.N. court's reach," on how the U.S. government is standing firm on the International Criminal Court, refusing to make Americans subject to its jurisdiction

"GIs can be forced to wear U.N. beret" – a disturbing update on the case of Michael New, the U.S. soldier court-martialed for refusing to wear U.N. military garb

"The real problem with the United Nations," by U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, wherein the Texas congressman and staunch constitutionalist reveals why the U.N. will always be illegitimate.
"The simple truth," says Rep. Paul in this special Whistleblower article, "is that the U.N. is not concerned with our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, our domestic laws or our national interests. It is concerned only with expanding its power. U.N. supporters may ridicule the notion that the U.N. represents the beginning of one-world government," says the veteran congressman, "but what other label can be applied to an organization that seeks global laws, global courts, global taxes, centralized legislative power and a worldwide army?"

"The U.N.," adds WND founder and Editor Joseph Farah, "is not just, as many Americans suspect, a group of incompetent busybodies. It is, instead, a global criminal enterprise determined to shift power away from individuals and sovereign nation-states to a small band of unaccountable international elites."

link

[RAM-PAGE]

The basic concept is to steal from the Rich Mans table.

This basically means that as many poor as can be produced are continually stealing.

Hence the cry ... have MORE babies!

Cry baby, cry Wolf.

Need any more immigrants?

[Tipacanoe]

Lan: Your posts are not helpful.

They really don't add anything to the struggle to realize these goals:

PREAMBLE

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,



AND FOR THESE ENDS
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,


HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS
Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

Why don't you do something positive in your life and pitch in to make the world a better place?

[LANMaster]

Hi Tipper,

I don't believe that handing that kind of power to the United Nations will serve to make the world a better place.

You see, we both have the same goal of global peace and prosperity. We just see a different road on which to get there.



Good evening

[RAM-PAGE]

Originally Posted by RP

PREAMBLE

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINE

To save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of Men and Women and of Nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which Justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of International Law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

To practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain International Peace and Security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS

Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an International Organisation to be known as the United Nations.

How about making the world a safer place?

Firstly, far too many "freedoms" are being abused.


Then there are *twists* being used on words. (Word play.)


Fundamental is now fudamentalism, and we may ALL wonder just who is funding it.

Freedom is being free to do as you please and not that which pleases God.

Economic has been translated into a greed "economy" instead of making economies.

Oliver Twist & Fagin.

"You gotta pick a pocket or two, you ... got to pick a pocket or two."

Pure farce.


As I said to start with, How about making the world a safer place?