Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Reform For the UN????????????

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Reform For the UN????????????

    Kofi Annan Calls for Bold U.N. Changes

    11 minutes ago Top Stories - AP


    By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer

    UNITED NATIONS - Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) has called for the boldest changes to the United Nations (news - web sites) in the history of the world body, saying they are needed to tackle global threats in the 21st century. But getting leaders to agree on the package won't be easy.


    AFP/File Photo


    Reuters
    Slideshow: Kofi Annan



    Related Links
    • Overview of Proposed Reforms (AP)



    Some questioned the timing of his appeal, just before former U.S. Federal Reserve (news - web sites) Chairman Paul Volcker releases the results of his investigation into corruption in the U.N. oil-for-food program in Iraq (news - web sites). In particular, Volcker is looking into the activities of Annan and his son, Kojo, who worked in Africa for a company that had an oil-for-food contract.


    The scandal is one of several that have dogged the world body this year. The sex abuse by peacekeeping troops in Congo and the resignation of the U.N. refugee chief amid sexual harassment charges have also tainted the U.N. image.


    Mark Malloch Brown, the secretary-general's chief of staff, dismissed media comments that Annan's report was "a panicked response" to the U.N.'s problems.


    "Look at it as the secretary-general refusing to be distracted," he said.


    Annan is proposing the most extensive overhaul of the world body since it was founded in 1945. His reform package calls for a realignment of the United Nations to give additional weight to key development, security and human rights issues. It also sets out plans to make the world body more efficient, open, and accountable — including strengthening the independence and authority of the U.N.'s internal watchdog.


    Volcker's report is expected by the end of March, but Annan is operating on the belief that he will be cleared: He has invited world leaders to a summit in September to consider the reform package, which was released Sunday ahead of its presentation to the U.N. General Assembly on Monday.


    "These are reforms that are within reach — reforms that are actionable if we can garner the necessary political will," Annan said in the introduction to the report, which called 2005 "a historic opportunity" to create a better life for millions of people.


    He urged the leaders to "act boldly" and adopt "the most far-reaching reforms in the history of the United Nations," which was founded in 1945.


    But getting leaders of all 191 U.N. member states to agree on the package will be a challenge.


    "It's a very well-prepared gamble," Malloch Brown said, urging world leaders to focus on the positive and adopt the package by consensus in September.


    "For us, the key point is that the deal holds together," he said. "This is a package. Don't go for a la carte shopping on it."


    One of the major proposals in the package calls for a new Human Rights Council as a major U.N. organ — possibly on a par with the Security Council — to replace the Geneva-based Commission on Human Rights. That panel has long faced criticism for allowing the worst-offending countries to use their membership to protect one another from condemnation.


    "The creation of the council would accord human rights a more authoritative position," and put it on the same level as security and development, Annan said.


    Annan also called for an expansion of the U.N. Security Council to reflect the global realities today, but he left the details to the General Assembly. He urged its members to decide on a plan before the September summit, preferably by consensus, but if that's impossible by a vote.


    Annan backed two options proposed in December by a high-level panel. One would add six new permanent members and the other would create a new tier of eight semi-permanent members: two each from Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas. He left open the possibility of other ideas.


    The report said the Security Council already has the authority under the U.N. Charter to use military force, even preventively, but it should adopt a resolution specifying the criteria for decisions on whether to use force. The criteria should include the seriousness of the threat, whether non-military action could stop it, and whether there is a reasonable chance that military action would succeed.





    In cases of genocide, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity, Annan urged all states to accept that there is a "responsibility to protect" those being killed, which requires collective action.

    Currently, the report noted, half the countries emerging from violent conflict revert to conflict within five years. To prevent the return to war, Annan called for the creation of a Peacebuilding Commission, as well as a Democracy Fund to provide money and technical expertise to countries seeking to establish or strengthen their democracy.

    For years, a comprehensive convention against terrorism has been held up over a definition of terrorism, with some countries arguing that one nation's terrorists are another's freedom fighters. Annan said the debate must end and all countries must accept that resisting occupation "cannot include the right to deliberately kill or maim civilians."

    He called for adoption of a convention by September 2006 with the definition of terrorism in the high-level panel's report. It said terrorism includes any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."

    The secretary-general also urged all rich countries to establish a timetable to reach the goal set 35 years ago of earmarking 0.7 percent of gross national product for development assistance no later than 2015, starting with a significant increase no later than 2006. The United States currently has one of the lowest levels — about 0.15 percent.



    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._annan_reforms
    "They want to test our feelings.They want to know whether Muslims are extremists or not. Death to them and their newspapers."

    Protester

  • #2
    Too little. Too late. Annan has awakened to see his ship veering towards the iceberg. We all know what will happen next.
    Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.

    Comment


    • #3
      Like I'd trust anything the snake says anyway.

      -dale

      Comment


      • #4
        The only thing that can reform the UN to my satisfaction is a firing squad.

        The UN has caused more innocent deaths since it's inception than any other cause in that same timespan.

        Comment


        • #5
          They do need reform. They want a package heres my package.

          A) Send the HQ to paris
          B) Cut all US spending
          C) The US pulls out
          D) Kofi is publicly shot.

          Theres my ABCD for success. ;)
          "Our citizenship in the United States is our national character. Our citizenship in any particular state is only our local distinction. By the latter we are known at home, by the former to the world. Our great title is AMERICANS…" -- Thomas Paine

          Comment


          • #6
            Kofi Anan is not the UN. He will probably resign after the proposed September reforms. The biggest disapointment for me is the continuation of the 5 permanent security council members powers of veto. With this still in place, any other reform is semantics.
            In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

            Leibniz

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by parihaka
              The biggest disapointment for me is the continuation of the 5 permanent security council members powers of veto. With this still in place, any other reform is semantics.
              You would give the weak an equal voice with the strong? Doomed to failure. Those who have economic and military power will always possess more of a say than those without, and a system that ignores that truth will cease to exist in short order, when the strong ignore the weak.
              Last edited by lwarmonger; 22 Mar 05,, 06:08.

              Comment


              • #8
                I must say that I find it ironic that while at the same time Kofi Annan talks about trying to purge the corruption so endemic in the UN, he is also asking for more money to go to the organization.

                Also, a plan to improve UN effectiveness is hardly going to achieve such an end by adding additional Security Council members. Such a move would only slow down the already glacial pace at which the UN creates policy. A truly inefficient and ineffective solution that will only make things worse, something that I have come to expect from the UN!

                Comment


                • #9
                  France and the UK have no real place as a permanent member of the SC anymore.

                  Neither of them is a world power. Hell, Russia barely qualifies IMO.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by M21Sniper
                    France and the UK have no real place as a permanent member of the SC anymore.

                    Neither of them is a world power. Hell, Russia barely qualifies IMO.
                    Well, once they give up their soveriegnty to the EU, then France and Britain can be merged into one vote (Russia has still got enough of an armed forces and nuclear deterrant to maintain it's spot on it's own)!

                    :)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by lwarmonger
                      You would give the weak an equal voice with the strong? Doomed to failure. Those who have economic and military power will always possess more of a say than those without, and a system that ignores that truth will cease to exist in short order, when the strong ignore the weak.
                      Under the logic you assume, if the UN had existed in 1938 Nazi Germany would have had far greater voice than most others, (including the US based on army size & capability). The point of the UN is that all nations have a voice, it was corrupted at its inception by the inclusion of the veto for the big 5, and has remained corrupted ever since, captured by those 5.
                      In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                      Leibniz

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by lwarmonger
                        Well, once they give up their soveriegnty to the EU, then France and Britain can be merged into one vote (Russia has still got enough of an armed forces and nuclear deterrant to maintain it's spot on it's own)!

                        :)

                        I doubt that the UK will every give it soverignity to the EU.

                        Fools they would be if they did.
                        "Our citizenship in the United States is our national character. Our citizenship in any particular state is only our local distinction. By the latter we are known at home, by the former to the world. Our great title is AMERICANS…" -- Thomas Paine

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The EU is a death trap.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by parihaka
                            Under the logic you assume, if the UN had existed in 1938 Nazi Germany would have had far greater voice than most others, (including the US based on army size & capability). The point of the UN is that all nations have a voice, it was corrupted at its inception by the inclusion of the veto for the big 5, and has remained corrupted ever since, captured by those 5.
                            Strength is not based solely on army size, it is based upon military strength, industrial strength, national cohesion and national will. These factors are what determine a nation's ability to influence events elsewhere, and to not take them into account when determining the voice that nations have in an international organization is foolhardy. To give Ethiopia an equal voice to the United States when it comes to shaping international policy is idiotic, and would never function. The weaker nations would vote in redistributions of wealth from the strong ones, and then the strong ones would withdraw from the UN, and then the organization would collapse. In order for the weaker nations to gain an equal voice, they would have to become equally capable of contributing, and they aren't. You may not like it, but it's the way it is, and to ignore it is foolhardy.

                            What you are saying would be true if the UN was simply a forum for international discussion. However it isn't. It shapes a great deal of international policy, and requires a large amount of money and effort to maintain. Therefore it must be taken into account who is capable of contributing what, and who is more capable of making changes in the status quo.
                            Last edited by lwarmonger; 24 Mar 05,, 20:37.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Do any of these reforms involve making the Secretary General or the UN itself accountable to anyone?
                              F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X