• Home
  • The Minute

The United Nations is NOT a Dirty Word

07/27/07

The 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 .

The U.N. Emergency Peace Service is the perfect example. Here is an excellent way to update and improve the global response to conflict and genocide that has been perceived as a non-starter because of partisan politics. Peacekeeping has greatly improved in the past decades, but it is not perfect. Both sides agree that it needs to be reformed for the 21st century and the current conflicts occurring around the world. UNEPS would have faster response capabilities, greater interoperability, and improved accountability. It would be able to get into conflicts before they escalate into genocide or spread to other states. Not only would this save millions of lives and billions of dollars, but it would also reform the U.N. in a pragmatic, forward-thinking way.

For the past several weeks, Citizens for Global Solutions has been lobbying on the hill in support of H.Res.213, a resolution that supports the creation of a UNEPS. The sense we’ve gotten from a lot of offices is that it sounds like a good idea, and could be very effective, but they’ve been hearing a lot from the vocal, anti-U.N. minority that I mentioned earlier. One office was pretty enthusiastic and supportive, but didn’t want to sign on because there weren’t enough members of his party on the bill. Keep in mind, this is a proposal that could save millions of lives and billions of dollars. The U.S. needs reform in the U.N., not withdrawal. Partisan politics and negative, one-dimensional approaches to reform only impedes the process, causing even more problems at the U.N. After all, if it didn’t exist, we’d have to make it up.

By Megan Sallomi

07/27/07 11:34:34 am • 3 commentsTrackback (0) PermalinkPermalink
Categories: International Institutions, General

Trackback address for this post:

This is a captcha-picture. It is used to prevent mass-access by robots.

Please enter the characters from the image above. (case insensitive)

Comments, Trackbacks, Pingbacks:

Comment from: gary [Visitor] Email · http://www.UnitedDemocraticNations.org
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
PermalinkPermalink 07/30/07 @ 19:33
Comment from: Megan Sallomi [Member] Email
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
PermalinkPermalink 07/31/07 @ 12:35
Comment from: gary [Visitor] Email · http://www.UnitedDemocraticNations.org
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
PermalinkPermalink 07/31/07 @ 15:28

Leave a comment:

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.

Allowed XHTML tags: <p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small>
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email and url)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will NOT be displayed.))
This is a captcha-picture. It is used to prevent mass-access by robots.

Please enter the characters from the image above. (case insensitive)