![]() |
|
![]() |
|||||||||
SearchCategoriesCitizens for Global Solutions
The MinuteArchives
Misc |
The United Nations is NOT a Dirty Word07/27/07The United Nations is NOT a Dirty Word
Posted by Megan Sallomi
The U.S. has played a formative role in starting the United Nations, and it is a crucial tool for diplomacy and security. However, a small, but vocal, minority has been clamoring to withdraw from the U.N. and cut funding from it due to recent scandals and negative publicity. I’m not saying that the United Nations is perfect, but despite its problems, it is still the most visionary and effective institution for promoting peace and human rights, while running on a budget smaller than the annual budget of a fire department in Tokyo . By Megan Sallomi
07/27/07 11:34:34 am •
3 comments • Trackback (0)
•
Categories: International Institutions, General
Trackback address for this post:Comments, Trackbacks, Pingbacks:
Comment from: gary [Visitor]
The problem with the UN is that it allows dictators to pretend they represent their people. It's a slap in the face of the concept of democracy to allow someone to sit behind the 'CHINA' nameplate an dictate global policy. Furthermore, the concept that only a handful of founding nations are allowed veto status in the security council is a further discrace to representation. France has veto power, but is only the 20th most populous nation. India has no such position, yet is the 2nd most populous nation. I defy you to justify that situation in modern terms. It makes absolutely no sense.
The UN needs to fully embrace the concept of democracy, specifically: http://www.UnitedDemocraticNations.org Until this happens we will suffer through one Darfur after another. So I agree with you...the UN is not a dirty word. But you underestimate the desparate need for reform. gary
Gary -
Thank you for your comment, and I agree with you that the U.N. needs reform, urgently. However I don't agree that abandoning the one tool we already have for improving world peace will solve the problem. The U.N. is composed of its member states; if states weren't members, it wouldn't exist. The U.N. is undemocratic because there is a lack of political will by the member states to make it more so - creating a new organization won't change that. However, using and improving the tools that we already have, and taking pragmatic steps to change the political landscape and make the U.N. more effective will lead us in that direction. There is no precedent for the global setting we face today, and it will take many trials and errors before we learn the best way to address and prevent conflicts. The U.N. Emergency Peace Service is one way that we can continue that important process. Megan
Comment from: gary [Visitor]
Megan,
Let's take China for example. Do you believe that the individual sitting behind the 'CHINA' nameplate actually represents the Chinese people? If yes, I assume that you condone the policy of "might is right". If no, what possible logic would conclude that this individual should be forming global policy? Or to wield veto power in the security council? Second question to you: don't you think legitimizing dictatorships as the UN currently does works AGAINST the goal of encouraging democratic reform in the world? Or do you see democratic reform as not important? I don't understand your position here. gary Leave a comment:
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||