NationStates Jolt Archive

It is amazing how deep the Oil For Food scandal went into the UN. It is amazing to see how corrupt that these people in the UN are. It is no wonder that they could not find any WMD's. I think it is time to reconsider the purpose and structure of the UN. I would like to hear some other peoples thoughts about this immense corruption that took palce and what should be done.

Anytime large amounts of money change hands, the potential for corruption exists. This was made worse by a country that did not respect the rule of law, and by an organization bound by a series of unenforcible laws.

It is amazing how deep the Oil For Food scandal went into the UN.
True.

It is amazing to see how corrupt that these people in the UN are.
True, as long as you speak about those involved.

It is no wonder that they could not find any WMD's.
What? Hold the horses.
They were scientists and engineers sent their on an order from the UN, the governments to be exact. So far I am not aware that anyone who had to do with the inspections has been found to be involved in this scandal - and the investigations are AFAIK complete.

I think it is time to reconsider the purpose and structure of the UN.
True.

I would like to hear some other peoples thoughts about this immense corruption that took palce and what should be done.
Those that were involved should go to jail for life. A bit excessive maybe, but if you work for the UN, you need to be better than that. It's a disgrace, and the only thing that stops me from advocating stringing them all up is that I'm against the death penalty.

Otherwise, the usual program: Give the UN a seperate and independent emergency response military and humanitarian force, get rid of the Security Council and replace it with a majority vote etc etc...

I think that if you use the lovely search function for General, you'd find out probably a lot more about what people think/thought about the UN and Oil for Food, including US involvement in it.
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a377/jusenkyoguide/notapproved.jpg

True.


True, as long as you speak about those involved.


What? Hold the horses.
They were scientists and engineers sent their on an order from the UN, the governments to be exact. So far I am not aware that anyone who had to do with the inspections has been found to be involved in this scandal - and the investigations are AFAIK complete.


True.

Those that were involved should go to jail for life. A bit excessive maybe, but if you work for the UN, you need to be better than that. It's a disgrace, and the only thing that stops me from advocating stringing them all up is that I'm against the death penalty.

Otherwise, the usual program: Give the UN a seperate and independent emergency response military and humanitarian force, get rid of the Security Council and replace it with a majority vote etc etc...

Well what I meant by no wonder they could not find WMD's is the fact that they have a history of corruption involving iraq, and influential people had financial interests in keeping Saddam in power, and if they were to find WMD's then it was very likely that would provoke the military action agains iraq. which was not in the interest of key people in the UN

Well what I meant by no wonder they could not find WMD's is the fact that they have a history of corruption involving iraq, and influential people had financial interests in keeping Saddam in power, and if they were to find WMD's then it was very likely that would provoke the military action agains iraq. which was not in the interest of key people in the UN
Or as everyone else knows, there were no WMDs for them to find in the first place.

Well what I meant by no wonder they could not find WMD's is the fact that they have a history of corruption involving iraq, and influential people had financial interests in keeping Saddam in power, and if they were to find WMD's then it was very likely that would provoke the military action agains iraq. which was not in the interest of key people in the UN
And what I am saying is that it doesn't matter. The inspectors were there, they had cameras, they were doing the tests.
You're probably asserting that the US delegation was free of corruption and entirely righteous, in which case I'd have to tell you that the US was watching the inspection work closer than any other nation on earth, understandably.

They couldn't find anything because there was nothing there. It's pretty obvious, all these years later, and with nothing really found.

Otherwise, the usual program: Give the UN a seperate and independent emergency response military and humanitarian force, get rid of the Security Council and replace it with a majority vote etc etc...

I have some real problems with that, because it would mean a fundamental change in what the UN actually does well.

At the moment, it is still a place where nations can get together and yell at each other (who can forget the shoe banging incident, or the "don't wait for the translation moment). So it does actually foster an atmosphere that lends itself to increased diplomatic engagement between states with grievences. How else would the cuban government get to engage the US through diplomatic channels if not for the UN?

It's just not very good at dealing with rogue states, genocide or humanitarian crises.

If, however, the UN was to be reconstituted as a supra-national entity with an independent armed force and no security council veto, then there would have to be serious reconsideration of which nations are allowed representation in the GA. I would not be happy with sudan, burma, CAR &c. having an equal voice with respect to the deployment of UN armed forces.

Unfortunately, that type of necessary tightning would likely drive the "disenfranchised" nations from the UN, reducing the amount of diplomatic engagement that the UN currently fosters so well.

How else would the cuban government get to engage the US through diplomatic channels if not for the UN?
The Committee had before it a letter from Cuba (A/AC.154/362) protesting the denial of a visa to the President of Cuba’s National Assembly to attend the second World Conference of Speakers of Parliament held at United Nations Headquarters, from 7 to 9 September 2005. The letter stated that the pretext for the denial of visas was that the World Conferences of Speakers of Parliament were “private meetings that are not covered by the Agreements on the United Nations Headquarters”. The Cuban letter noted that the Conference was jointly organized by the United Nations and the Inter-Parliamentary Union, according to a General Assembly resolution adopted in November 2004. Cuba also recounted that a visa had been similarly denied in 2000, as well for the first World Conference.
They do? (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/hq642.doc.htm)

And who could forget Yasser Arafat and the General Assembly in 1998...

As for the rest, I have no doubt that in a parliamentary system the best ideas will prevail. It doesn't matter if China gets more votes than the US (and it might not, since it doesn't give all that much money) if the US's ideas are okay, and they argue them well, they will get a majority.

Right now though, a good idea will invariably be vetoed outta the house if any one of the SC countries doesn't like it.

They do? (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/hq642.doc.htm)

And who could forget Yasser Arafat and the General Assembly in 1998...

As for the rest, I have no doubt that in a parliamentary system the best ideas will prevail. It doesn't matter if China gets more votes than the US (and it might not, since it doesn't give all that much money) if the US's ideas are okay, and they argue them well, they will get a majority.

Right now though, a good idea will invariably be vetoed outta the house if any one of the SC countries doesn't like it.

But the point is, while it hasn't always worked, the UN has, by and large, fostered increased diplomatic communication between nations. It is actually good for that.

Giving it this supra-national role would likely end up compromising where it has been succesful, to concentrate on something where it has been a miserable failure.

And I don't think for a second that the "best ideas will prevail". The GA is not a parliament. It is a group of soveriegn nations. It failed rawanda, it is failing sudan, but it has plenty of time brand isreal as racist per se.

Giving it this supra-national role would likely end up compromising where it has been succesful, to concentrate on something where it has been a miserable failure.
Why would it no longer be a good forum...especially if every state has the right to a meaningful opinion, as opposed to a talkfest for only the select few?
Would it not make sense to improve the performance in the areas where it has sucked?

...but it has plenty of time brand isreal as racist per se.
Prove it.
Every single resolution I have seen that was against Israeli actions has been well-reasoned, has meaningful substance to it, and has been ignored.
It's a myth that the UN hates Israel - it is a fact though that Israel couldn't give a sh't about issues the international community has with its policies.
Remember that the UN is not an independent body just yet - and even with my changes it wouldn't be. The same goes by the way also for Rwanda and Sudan, and all the other failures. It was the major powers deadlocking and ignoring until it was too late - not the organisation.

Why would it no longer be a good forum...especially if every state has the right to a meaningful opinion, as opposed to a talkfest for only the select few?
Would it not make sense to improve the performance in the areas where it has sucked?


Prove it.
Every single resolution I have seen that was against Israeli actions has been well-reasoned, has meaningful substance to it, and has been ignored.
It's a myth that the UN hates Israel - it is a fact though that Israel couldn't give a sh't about issues the international community has with its policies.
Remember that the UN is not an independent body just yet - and even with my changes it wouldn't be. The same goes by the way also for Rwanda and Sudan, and all the other failures. It was the major powers deadlocking and ignoring until it was too late - not the organisation.

The 1975 resolution in the GA declaring zionism as racism, for a start, or the last UN conference on racism at durban. Also of the ten emergency sessions called by the GA, six have been with respect to isreal, none were called for rawanda, or the two decades of trouble in the sudan. I am sure that there are more, but those spring to mind instantly.

Clearly the GA is far more concerned about isreal than any of the other humanitarian crises.

And if indeed your plan was adopted, handing that type of power to GA members would almost certianly require a view of who is eligible to sit as part of the GA. At present, no-one gets expelled from the UN - even though arguably several nations should be - because it doesn't matter. On the other hand, if the GA was to be given real teeth, inevitably, the governments of member nations would come under increased scrutiny. This would only lead to a chilling effect.

Nor is it a "talkfest" for the select few. It's true that a select few have all the power, but anyone can go and talk. Which really is what it is about.

On the other hand, if the GA was to be given real teeth, inevitably, the governments of member nations would come under increased scrutiny. This would only lead to a chilling effect.
Why would they have to be kicked out?
They could stay and be annoyed while UN forces are marching all over them to stop genocide etc. No need to exclude them for all eternity.

Why would they have to be kicked out?
They could stay and be annoyed while UN forces are marching all over them to stop genocide etc. No need to exclude them for all eternity.

What about countries that are not commiting genocide, but are run by corrupt despotic regimes? Clearly, there is going to be more scrutiny about who can and cannot vote under your plan.

What about countries that are not commiting genocide, but are run by corrupt despotic regimes? Clearly, there is going to be more scrutiny about who can and cannot vote under your plan.
I was always under the impression that corrupt despotic regimes simply need to get no support from us and they'll collapse by themselves. People don't enjoy being oppressed.
As for the DPRK, the only regime that has perfected the 1984-scenario...I'm perplexed at what to do about it. But still, representation through a corrupt regime is better than no representation at all.
The only real issue I can see if in such a case various factions in a country claim to be a government, and the rest of the world has to decide which one. But I guess they sort that out somehow right now too.

I was always under the impression that corrupt despotic regimes simply need to get no support from us and they'll collapse by themselves. People don't enjoy being oppressed.
As for the DPRK, the only regime that has perfected the 1984-scenario...I'm perplexed at what to do about it. But still, representation through a corrupt regime is better than no representation at all.
The only real issue I can see if in such a case various factions in a country claim to be a government, and the rest of the world has to decide which one. But I guess they sort that out somehow right now too.

Well see that's my point. Right now, the DPRK is not completely isolated, it does have access to the UN. Would that still be the case if there were to be greater scrutiny of GA member governments - which would naturally occur if the GA gained real teeth? Concievably I could see nations like DPRK, or Uganda in the seventies, withdrawing if called to task in any serious fashion. At the very least they would be marginalized.

I look at that as a bad thing.

Also I am not convinced that despotic regimes just collapse of their own accord. The DPRK is still there, and the only reason that Idi Amin was deposed is because he vastly underestimated the will of the Tanzanians to fight. I don't see zimbabwe or the sudan improving any time soon either.

At the very least they would be marginalized.
And here you have my point: They already are! Along with about 200 other countries.

And here you have my point: They already are! Along with about 200 other countries.

By and large everyone at the UN is treated the same, regardless of the state of their government. (Except for the five permanent security council members).

That would change under your system.

I disagree with the idea that all those countries are marginalized too. Is the whole idea of a congress of nations coming together and voting on where to send UN strike corps around the world something that we should really aspire to? I would say not.

Is the whole idea of a congress of nations coming together and voting on where to send UN strike corps around the world something that we should really aspire to? I would say not.
And so you advocate a dictatorship of the few and privileged?

You cannot possibly hope to convince me that the UNSC would vote any way for any other reason than the member nation's selfish interests.
Rwanda's viewpoint was not considered. Neither was the people of Sudan's, nor the Government's there.

It's a farce, a relic of a time when people still considered it okay to hold colonies and play the world like a harp. I feel that despite its shortcomings, my system would ensure that those who are actually affected, who actually have a stake in a situation, can go out and act either way.

And so you advocate a dictatorship of the few and privileged?

You cannot possibly hope to convince me that the UNSC would vote any way for any other reason than the member nation's selfish interests.
Rwanda's viewpoint was not considered. Neither was the people of Sudan's, nor the Government's there.

It's a farce, a relic of a time when people still considered it okay to hold colonies and play the world like a harp. I feel that despite its shortcomings, my system would ensure that those who are actually affected, who actually have a stake in a situation, can go out and act either way.

They can act either way now, if they want.

In any case, the permanent members are hardly dictators. They can't make the UN do anything, they can only veto stuff.

Plus I can't see why your system would necessarily make the UN more effective. Didn't the general assembly kill a draft resolution on darfur last year? Only the security council has taken any constructive (albeit small) steps.

It is amazing how deep the Oil For Food scandal went into the UN.
Only if you were a blind leper who hadn't been paying any attention to world politics.

In any case, the permanent members are hardly dictators. They can't make the UN do anything, they can only veto stuff.
In practice it comes out all the same though. Even if a SC-non-member proposes something, they will have to run it through all the members first, otherwise they won't even have to bother.

Plus I can't see why your system would necessarily make the UN more effective.
Every issue will actually be listened to because power is distributed more evenly. Not every single resolution has to coincide with the SC-member's interests.

Didn't the general assembly kill a draft resolution on darfur last year?
No idea, do you have a link?
1556, 1564 and 1591 were accepted.

Only the security council has taken any constructive (albeit small) steps.
And I am arguing that is because they are the only ones who can.

No idea, do you have a link?
1556, 1564 and 1591 were accepted.


http://www.unwatch.org/wed/125.html

And I am arguing that is because they are the only ones who can.

The general assembly chooses the ten other members of the security council. At least nine votes are needed to make anything happen. Further the GA can always invoke a uniting for peace resolution (1950 UN resolution 377), to over-ride the security council when it fails "to excerise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security."

So it's not as toothless as you make out, just extraordinary circumstances are needed before it can act.

If anything, part of the problem is that the GA and it's members have never functioned well in respect of international crises, like sudan, and tend instead to engage in petty geo-politics instead of dealing with the matter at hand. Which is exactly why I am against any expansion of their powers. (As well as the obvious chilling effect it could cause).

http://www.unwatch.org/wed/125.html
Thanks. As I said, three other resolutions regarding the issue came through - but this here is an obvious example of petty politics.

The general assembly chooses the ten other members of the security council.
Who don't have a veto.

At least nine votes are needed to make anything happen.
And no one using a veto.

If anything, part of the problem is that the GA and it's members have never functioned well in respect of international crises, like sudan, and tend instead to engage in petty geo-politics instead of dealing with the matter at hand. Which is exactly why I am against any expansion of their powers. (As well as the obvious chilling effect it could cause).
What about making the UNSC bigger then?

I still believe that it is then up to countries to convince the majority of delegates. I'm not advocating leaving things as they are now just without UNSC - it would have to be a simple majority-vote, parliamentary system.

I am simply not convinced that France, China or the US are any more worthy of holding this power than Uganda, Brazil or Indonesia.

Thanks. As I said, three other resolutions regarding the issue came through - but this here is an obvious example of petty politics.


Who don't have a veto.


And no one using a veto.


What about making the UNSC bigger then?

I still believe that it is then up to countries to convince the majority of delegates. I'm not advocating leaving things as they are now just without UNSC - it would have to be a simple majority-vote, parliamentary system.

I am simply not convinced that France, China or the US are any more worthy of holding this power than Uganda, Brazil or Indonesia.

In theory, I have no problem with an expanding the number of permanent seats. I would prefer to see nations like Germany or Japan considered before Uganda though. (And for obvious reasons). I don't have a problem with brazil. If anything, it is a good idea, since latin-america is so poorly represented. I would also consider India but I doubt that would be acceptable; especially to Pakistan or China.

Part of the current problems, I think, stem from the fact that there is a fundamental schism between the anglo nations and the rest of the security council in their respective visions of the future of the world and the operation of international law. Clearly the US and the UK have chosen to persue a set of goals which is at odds with the vision the other permanent members, and as a consequence, the five permanent members are also playing politics with their votes to a certain extent.

I do believe however, that this is a temporary state of affairs. Things blow over, after all.

That said, there is still always going to be the problem of reasources too. In part, the Rwandan situation became so grave because the US at that time felt it was unable to contribute materially to any peacekeeping effort (this was just after Somalia), and therefore Clinton was reluctant to take a strong line, knowing that he would not be able to back up his words. However the UN is organized, that is always going to be a problem, one way or another. Even if the UN has its own dedicated forces.

I would prefer to see nations like Germany or Japan considered before Uganda though. (And for obvious reasons).
Uganda is a pretty democratic and nice nation on the path to growth and successfully fighting AIDS.

I do believe however, that this is a temporary state of affairs. Things blow over, after all.
You say that after the very same issue has persisted through 50 years of the Cold War.

Uganda is a pretty democratic and nice nation on the path to growth and successfully fighting AIDS.

They have only just this year decided to permit multi-party politics. It's a little early to say that they are pretty democratic. It's also telling that the ban on political parties was enacted ostensibly to reduce sectarian violence, so I will wait a bit before I pass judgment on the democratic nature of Uganda.

In any case, it really isn't capable of taking a leadership role at this time. There are still human rights questions, and problems with the Ugandan defense force and Lord's resistance army.

You say that after the very same issue has persisted through 50 years of the Cold War.

The cold war is over. Russia was admitted to the G8. Before the current fracas, the major powers were starting to align. As I look at the long term trends, there seems to be more a growing community of interest among the "big five". Even accounting for the current tensions in respect of Iraq and whatnot, things are a lot better than they were forty years ago. So I do say that.

Bush and Blair will be gone a few years. Hopefully China will liberalize as its economy grows. Really, there is a good chance that the five permanent members will start to act with more harmony. (Provided China and Japan, and China and Taiwan can work out a better long term modus vivendi, which is more likely than not).

U.N. Reform, Advance and Retreat (http://www.unwatch.org/wed/133.html)

A good article to read about the very issue of reformation of the UN at this point.