You missed a spot.
After a year of humiliating setbacks, United Nations Secretary General Ban ki-Moon and about 60 of his top lieutenants — the top brass of the entire U.N. system — spent their Labor Day weekend at a remote Austrian Alpine retreat, discussing ways to put their sprawling organization in charge of the world’s agenda.
[…]
As one underlying theme of the sessions, the top U.N. bosses seemed to be grappling often with how to cope with the pesky issue of national sovereignty, which — according to the position papers, anyway — continued to thwart many of their most ambitious schemes, especially when it comes to many different kinds of “global governance.”
Not coincidentally, the conclave of bureaucrats also saw in “global governance” a greater role for themselves.
As a position paper intended for their first group session put it, in the customary glutinous prose of the organization’s internal documents: “the U.N. should be able to take the lead in setting the global agenda, engage effectively with other multinational and regional organizations as well as civil society and non-state stakeholders, and transform itself into a tool to help implement the globally agreed objectives.”
And for that to happen, the paper continues, “it will be necessary to deeply reflect on the substance of sovereignty, and accept that changes in our perceptions are a good indication of the direction we are going.”
“No, you can’t have your own army. The UN Peacekeeping Force will protect you.”
Uh huh.
The most rational plank in a future US foreign policy would be to either de-fund the UN, unilaterally pull out of the UN or at least kick it out of the US and move its headquarters to Dar-fur or Zimbabwe.
The UN should be moved to Beijing.
Perfect place to utter their pronouncements about human rights and the environment from.
Let the UN spew about post-Nationalism from the capital of the most xenophobic nation in the world.
“The UN should be moved to Beijing.”
I nominate Zimbabwe.
There’s also the oddly related Chinese drinking game…
I don’t like you and I don’t like Americans.
I have long since given up on the U.N., and have for years wished and hope the U.S., Canada, and other civilized nations would withdraw from it. If nothing else, if the U.S. would withdraw support, the damned thing would collapse since the U.S. funding outweighs all others combined.
With the U.N. gone, civilized nations could then form a new League of Free Nations (LFN). Membership in the LFN would be strictly monitored and controlled, with new members needing to meet strict entrance criteria. Namely, open democratic systems, open economies, property rights, rule of law. Two bit dictatorships need not apply.
The U.N. has become a cesspool of despotic dictators and is no longer relevant in the 21st century. It’s more than a bit of a joke that crap-hole nations that can’t be found on a map have any say whatsoever in world affairs. In most cases they don’t have their own sh1t together. It should have become clear to all that the U.N. had jumped the shark when Libya became head of the human rights council.
GET. OUT. NOW.
Osama bin Laden would have no more motivation to destroy the U.N. building than Hugh Hefner would feel to destroy the local bordello.
In case anyone needs further illumination, the United Nations is basically the only friend Osama has between Constantinople and the White House.
By the way, now is the time on SDA when I juxtapose:
Osama bin Laden
Obama sin Laden
dance, monkeys.
The United Ninnies run the world Pleeeese. The un could not find their bums with both hands a flash light and a map.
That was my thought when I wrote it Peter. At best, it would be a green on green incident.
You guys are racists to talk about Barry’s next “home” with such contempt.
The teleprompter is mad too.
“…Even the audio room, with its dizzying maze of wires, hasn’t been upgraded since the Second World War.”
Since the UN headquarters wasn’t built and opened until 1952, that’d be hard to believe. What’s NOT hard to believe is the UN agenda to squeeze several billion dollars out of the wealthy Western nations, especially The Great Satan, to renovate the UN headquarters. This sycophantic Ottawa Sun UN-o-phile article goes along with that.
The moneys given to the UN over the last couple of decades by wealthy Western nations, most especially by the US, for renovation purposes don’t seem to have made it to actual, you know, renovations. (Think Oil for Food graft and “you’re getting warmer”, as the old child’s game goes.)
However, I don’t like the idea of moving the UN out of the US to some Third World country. The UN is the enemy of the West, especially the US and “keep your friends close and your enemies even closer”, as Don Corleone taught his son. We, the Western nations, need to keep a close eye on this malignant body.
The U.N. people are such ignorant doofs. We can barely govern competently at the local municipal level because of burgeoning bureacracies, and they think that they can govern globally?
In addition to the fact that global governance throws National sovereignty down the tubes (which used to be the very foundation of the United NATIONS — underline NATIONS), it means the end of direct democratic representation.
“As one underlying theme of the sessions, the top U.N. bosses seemed to be grappling often with how to cope with the pesky issue of national sovereignty, which — according to the position papers, anyway — continued to thwart many of their most ambitious schemes, especially when it comes to many different kinds of “global governance.””
Let us ask the obvious questions. Whose ‘national sovereignty’ are they targetting?
The US? No. The west? Not really. Their ambitious global sovereignty-tackling schemes are targetted at the usual suspects – the one’s who are on the wrong side of the divide on issues such as child labour, women’s rights, ethnic targetting etc. I can understand the tail’s going up at the notion of national sovereignty being taken apart, but close scrutiny reveals that the projects it is promoting are entirely consistent with western attempts to promote “universal human rights”. Suffice to say, most of these plans will have little bearing on the US, Canada or most democratic countries. You might even say that they are targetting muslim countries and other autarchic societies, which leaves me wondering what the fuss is about?
“multinational and regional organizations as well as civil society and non-state stakeholders”
It amazes me that most people don’t realise that civil society is code for western NGOs. Nothing being said here is particularly controversial. The very idea of global governance is to put the UN Charter of Rights of the Individual into effect by telling states that they cannot, among other things, kill people of certain ethnic/religious groups, stone women to death, burn other’s religious places etc. All very consistent with the west. All very inconsistent with Islam. So why the fuss?
” transform itself into a tool to help implement the globally agreed objectives”
Key words: Globally agreed. If the nation’s of the world don’t agree (especially the veto-carrying great powers), agreements don’t emerge. Exaggerated interpretation aside, all this means is that they want to effectively implement the agreements that all of the countries, including western ones, have agreed on.
““it will be necessary to deeply reflect on the substance of sovereignty, and accept that changes in our perceptions are a good indication of the direction we are going.””
National sovereignty has been a subject of debate ever since the early 1990s and the coining of the term Globalization. Truth is, sovereignty as we have known it in the past, no longer exists. Why? The multinational corporation. It has emerged as the chief engine of economic growth and it has taken on the bureaucrats. We are seeing companies take over from the government in several areas. Immigration, for example, is no longer the sole purview of the state. MNCs are openly involved in immigration processes, to the extent that the UK has effectively delegated to them the right to move workers around as they see fit. The economic logic behind this is fairly simple – you want the best most skilled worker in the right place regardless of his nationality (or place of birth). Flip side: the UK can only keep known criminals out. Anybody wihtout a criminal record can come and go as they please. Similar schemes are being thought up in Japan other European countries.
On a larger scale, we are increasingly seeing companies attempt to influence public policy. Companies may not do it openly, but they privately make it very clear to government officials that they will have no choice but to move their operations to another country if the government doesn’t give them as much leeway as they want. This is all direct interference with national sovereignty. We are seeing it in Canada these days with one of our telcos openly threatening not to upgrade its infrastructure if the government upholds a recommendation to increase competitiveness in Canada. Competitiveness in Canada should be the sole purview of the government, yet a company with clout can challenge it openly.
Where am I going with this? The question mark over sovereignty precedes the UN’s latest gambits. If you are scared about your sovereignty, look at the way MNCs openly challenge governments. We are in a new phase of history, and notions of sovereignty has to be adjusted accordingly. Personally, I would like to see a league of democracies replace this outdated beast, but at the same time, this seems like a step in the right direction.I want to see the UN have the clout and influence to protect women’s rights in Iran. And what if it takes an anti-West stance? Between France, Russia, the US and the UK, I think there’s enough vetos to keep things clear. The vast majority of UN binding agreements are very basic and generally involve what we call ‘universal’ rights and values.
“The U.N. has become a cesspool of despotic dictators and is no longer relevant in the 21st century.”
I suspect this is precisely what htey are trying to change. The national sovereignty they seek to erode is that of the despots, not the democrats.
Colin from Mission B.C. I salute you! The U.N. as was commented on here some time ago, evolved to be the means of communication between the two post WWII spheres of influence, with tacit recognition of the power of the most populous nation.
There is no revelance for the U.N’s continuation, unless an Islamic nation is selected to represent the interests of this medieval religion.
Then a sphere of influence dialogue between secular and islamic interests can be spun into oblivion to avoid the upcoming nuclear threat. Cheers;
I read that Jesse Jackson ran for, and won, the office of Senator for the District of Columbia. This is an office with no vote, no perks and no interest to the rest of the world. Then, after he was in “office”, he tried to lead a effort to make the “office” a voting seat.
This whole global governance seems about the same thing. No ‘real’ politician cares much about the UN because it isn’t really important. But, once they have the positions, now these UN types want to get the power they feel they deserve.
Kick them all off the damn continent and let them fend for themselves!
Colin from Mission:
As prerequisites for membership in your model of an organization of free nations, you wrote “Namely, open democratic systems, open economies, property rights, rule of law. Two bit dictatorships need not apply”.
Four basic requirements for membership including rule of law and property rights? We Canadians fail on two of those basic requirements (property rights and rule of law) so I guess that leaves us on the outside looking in.
the UN says “our agenda ” and the democracy of nations be damned.
To: devil’s advocate at September 9, 2010 2:40 PM
With all due respect to your demonness, you’re nuts! Despots don’t listen to what the U.N. says — I’m not saying the UN hasn’t helped with human rights, but it takes decades to effect even the tiniest changes when dealing with countries that aren’t democratic. Unless you depose tyrants militarily, be prepared to have “the patience of Job”.
The only thing global governance will do enforcement-wise is shove the Left’s idiot conspiracies down the throats of democracies: e.g.: “Stop producing oil in Alberta because it is causing drought and starvation in Africa!” The idea that Government can control global weather, or anything else on a global level, is human arrogance unsurpassed since the Nazis thought they could establish an Aryan “super race” to take over the world.
“The moneys given to the UN over the last couple of decades by wealthy Western nations, most especially by the US, for renovation purposes don’t seem to have made it to actual, you know”
Actually, not much money has been given to the UN. It operates on a budget that is lower than the New York Port Authority.
Where do the billions go? They go into ensuring that this disparate collection of nations continues to operate unimpeded. Sitting in a continent with just three countries, it might be difficult to concieve how complex the world can be. Fly out to Asia sometime. Your flight will fly in international corridors through the airspace of several countries without having to worry about flying into other planes or getting shot down. Who do you think came up with the system? Who do you think keeps an eye on it? Who do you think fixes it? The bureaucrats at ICAO in Montreal and Geneva. ICAO is a subdivision of the UN. Look at the eradication of polio in developing countries at a time when phones were a luxury unknown in most parts of the world. Who coordinated the shipment of drugs and the creation of procedures? The World Health Organisation, located in Geneva. This notion that the UN is located solely in the US is a bit of an old wive’s tale. While it is true that its primary goal is to ensure world peace (after all, we all do remember Adlai Stevenson’s pivotal “till hell freezes over” speech at the UN during the Cuban missile crisis), it has evolved into an organization that does a lot more than meets the eye. The World Food Organization has staved off the effects of many a famine. Things like these often go unnoticed.
There is, in humans, a base urge to be critical. Our criticism of the UN is, unsurprisingly, similar to our criticism of our governments. We criticize them for the way they run the country, and this is warranted criticism, but it ignores the reality that the government does do some good things – infrastructure development (that road in front of your house comes in real handy, eh?), clearing the streets in winter, etc. I will happily concede that governments are inefficient and occassionally corrupt, as is the UN, but for the most part, it is the only real option we have. There are no real viable alternatives that we know of. We can claim that the streets would be clear even if there was no government. But would it?
In the same way, we can criticise the UN for its many many problems, but that should not take away from the very real, and beneficial, work it is doing. Think about it when you are in an aluminum tube hurtling through the skies at a couple of hundred miles per hour over Turkmenistan or Mongolia. When a UN official says global governance, he is not trying to take over the country. Rather, he is trying to make sure that globally agreed norms and agreements are respected and maintained, so that, amongst other things, your flight doesn’t get shot down in a “globally agreed” aviation corridor.
My demonness. Brilliant.
“”Stop producing oil in Alberta because it is causing drought and starvation in Africa!” The idea that Government can control global weather, or anything else on a global level, is human arrogance unsurpassed since the Nazis thought they could establish an Aryan “super race” to take over the world.”
Ah, but see, you are ignoring the blatantly obvious here. The UN is a meeting point. Most of the agreements are non-binding. The one’s that are binding are vetted by veto-carrying nations, including the US.
Now if the US, and all the other western countries, are already being ruled by idiot leftists, then you have more things to worry about than the UN’s resolutions. They wouldn’t really need a UN resolution to make you do things their way, would they? Any anti-western binding resolution will get tossed out by one (or more) of the western veto-carrying powers. Therefore, the checks are all in place.
The only resolutions that you do see going through, are the very basic ones that deal with basic rights and values that you and I support. There is never going to be a climate change resolution for one simple reason – China, Russia and the US can (and will) veto it. If, however, all these countries do support the enforcement of a climate change resolution, you can bet your last dollar they’ll do it without knowing, or caring, if the UN has a resolution on it, in which case, there is no threat to national sovereignty (as you suggest).
“I’m not saying the UN hasn’t helped with human rights, but it takes decades to effect even the tiniest changes when dealing with countries that aren’t democratic.”
It isn’t just about human rights, but that said, the idea to engage civil society and local groups is a basic strategy in empowering the local population against a despotic regime. That they are willing to take a more active stance on this is something to be welcomed. These groups are generally human rights/human empowerment groups (MSF, ESF, Missionary groups etc). They generally don’t concern themselves with global warming or other political issues.
devils advocate @ 3:02pm: “norms and agreements are respected and maintained, so that, amongst other things, your flight doesn’t get shot down in a “globally agreed” aviation corridor”.
There is no “globally agreed” aviation corridor. There are “InterNATIONALLY agreed” aviation corridors (undeline NATIONALLY).
There is no “Global Community” either, and if there were then I would challenge anyone to provide me the address of the Global Community so that I could go visit it on my next vacation.
Globalism is so abstract that it is logically untenable. It is unworkable in reality, and hence purely ideological.
“There is no “globally agreed” aviation corridor. There are “InterNATIONALLY agreed” aviation corridors (undeline NATIONALLY).”
These are pointless semantics. Internationally agreed and globally, in this context, mean the same thing. The aviation corridors are not part of a bilateral agreement between two countries. It is a mulitlateral agreement (since you insist on playing technicalities) that includes every nation in the world. The corridors apply as much to planes originating from Venezuela as they do to to planes originating in Papua New Guinea. In this sense, they are ‘global’.
In any case, if you want to play semantics, I would love to hear you define nation and nationality. I really would.
“There is no “Global Community” either, and if there were then I would challenge anyone to provide me the address of the Global Community so that I could go visit it on my next vacation.”
Alright, you win. Now can you give me the address of the international community?
“Globalism is so abstract that it is logically untenable. It is unworkable in reality, and hence purely ideological.”
Globalism, internationalism, multinationalism. Different words. Same meaning. I think you’ll understand it better when (if?) an Australian company, headquartered in Melbourne, buys a vast swathe of Canadian territory (think Potash). Thats indicative of the company’s global/international/multinational business reach. Whichever term floats your boat.
“devil-may-care” @3:30 pm “These are pointless semantics. Internationally agreed and globally, in this context, mean the same thing.”
Actually they are fundamental nuances, differentiating the centrality of the democratically-elected sovereign Nation-State, versus the intangible “Global Government” enforced by — whoever. David Suzuki? He stated that he wants to put “climate deniers” in jail.
Suppose I state that I would like to put people like David Suzuki in jail — in the name of Global Government? Who’s right?
The UN should be moved to Beijing.”
I nominate Zimbabwe.
End quote:————
If the UN takes Obama with them they can rename Zimbabwe to Zimbamawe.
What Colin from Mission B.C. at September 9, 2010 1:34 PM said!
{End the corrupt UN}
Also – Bin Laden is dead and has been dead for years. This was predicted shortly after 911 and stands true today. The CIA has admitted to faking Bin Laden video’s since, and he is the quintessential ghost to keep chasing into any country that stands in the globalist’s way.
I’m from the UN and here to help.
O-jezzz, God save us all. (-:
Hell, Kate, I’ll knock the thing down for just eighteen virgins, 75% discount !!!
PETER
OMG………… lol
yup, lets vote on it.
Who here is in favor of another layer of government?
Coming your way, the WMD registry. Protecting citizens from REGISTERED nukes.
Petraeus(SP?)is an a-hole..I guess the taliban were just about to hug the American soldiers, and kiss and make up, when along came this dastardly plot to burn the Quran… Now OMG, the soldiers are in danger, God help us.. All the political correcties, got there dicks in a ringer and gave in to the blackmail that is the “Cult” of Peace.. Even our Primeminister, gave into this wimp mongering, and called this book of death and hate, a Holy Book.. Now every time we look sideways at these murderous creeps, one of our leaders is going to have to ask for forgiveness..Just shows how far down the road we have travelled towards being “Surrender Monkeys….The fellow who was planning the burning said today, they were considering not going forward with it, because they had proved their point, and I am sure he meant, that the world knuckles under to these pieces of excrement.
“Actually they are fundamental nuances, differentiating the centrality of the democratically-elected sovereign Nation-State”
Nation-Sates are not always democratically elected. You are meshing terms. If you want to play the semantic game, you have to define your terms. Define sovereignty and define the nation as opposed to the nation-state.
“Who here is in favor of another layer of government?”
Its not actually government in the traditional sense of the word. Its more along the lines of ‘administration’.
“Petraeus(SP?)is an a-hole..I guess the taliban were just about to hug the American soldiers, and kiss and make up, when along came this dastardly plot to burn the Quran…”
????!
I’ve got an idea – let’s take the UN and the CBC and merge them into a single entity to socially engineer peace, harmony and the liberal way throughout the world.
We can call this new entity ‘tit$ on a bull’
devil @ 7:55pm
You’re a nitwit devil. If you want me to write an academic treatise send me a cheque in the mail first. My specialty in University was the United Nations.
“If you want me to write an academic treatise send me a cheque in the mail first. My specialty in University was the United Nations.”
A poli-sci hack? No wonder. You wouldn’t happened to have stumbeled on any books by Gellner or Smith or even Benedict Anderson, would you? They all provide readymade (but distinct) definitions of the nation. Pick on any one of the three.
I don’t care much for political science (a misnomer if ever there was one – it definitely isn’t a science), but I would be incredibly surprised if you have never stumbled upon their work over the course of your university education. They certainly show up in specialised areas of law.
Expanding on my offer, I won’t even have to fly into the building, a near miss should bring the damn thing down.
So they want to rule, do they?
“One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.”
The islamists have the same idea, and they’re much better at accomplishing it. It will turn out the UN are nothing more than useful idiots to Islam.
For the refreshing honesty, why doesn’t UN just admit they have zero capability and conscience and just want funding?
Ask Ricardo, I would imagine that’s in Chapter 17 of the thesis.
Hey UN! I just heard the EU say your mother wears army boots. Waddya gonna do about it?
You are somewhat hang on muslims and Islamic states, aren’t you, DA.
You are writing “Their ambitious global sovereignty-tackling schemes are targetted at the usual suspects ………….Muslim countries and other autarchic societies. . Suffice to say, most of these plans will have little bearing on the US, Canada or most democratic countries…which leaves me wondering what the fuss is about? .
It is, DA, about encroachment on national rights .
Reading what you wrote it seems that the main (or the only) target of present UN moves are the Muslim countries. But somehow you forgot to mention that the immigration from poorer (Muslim) countries to the highly developed west will also be one of the aims of that global governance. You did not mention the global redistribution of wealth perhaps because, it would have (according to you) little bearing on the US, Canada or most democratic countries . You also did not mention that it would be Muslim and some African countries which will be beneficiary of the UN policy of “international migration governance” .You are so focused on human rights that you equal one part of UN activities with overall UN work and disregard UN thirst for global governance.
You are writing: “The very idea of global governance is to put the UN Charter of Rights of the Individual into effect by telling states that they cannot, among other things, kill people of certain ethnic/religious groups, stone women to death, burn other’s religious places etc. All very consistent with the west. All very inconsistent with Islam.” But somehow you are missing the creation of incentives for profound transformation of attitudes and consumption styles. Which would target western countries and China. Not the Muslim countries.
You are also writing about Western vetoes: “what if it takes an anti-West stance? Between France, Russia, the US and the UK, I think there’s enough vetoes to keep things clear. The vast majority of UN binding agreements are very basic and generally involve what we call ‘universal’ rights and values. However you are forgetting to mention that the vetoes in the UN apply only to Security Council. The UN General Assembly passes its resolution by 2/3 votes. There is no veto in General Assembly.
You are writing that “MNCs openly challenge governments” and writing that MNCs are openly involved in immigration processes, to the extent that the UK has effectively delegated to them the right to move workers around as they see fit” However you are somehow forgetting to talk about ECOSOC which since 1998, held a meeting each April with finance ministers heading key committees of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
You wrote: actually, not much money has been given to the UN. It operates on a budget that is lower than the New York Port Authority. But it is operating budget only. This does not count other expenditures like peacekeeping budget (5 bln USD) or special programmes like UNICEF, WFP or UNDP. So even that comparison is wrong because 6.3 bln dollars NY Port Authority is its whole budget but UN 4.3 bln means only operating budget. Anyway, it is not a UN budget that people complain against. It is an inefficient use of funds and lack of accountability. It is kleptocracy and scandals. If UN can not police itself how can it police the world?
And it is not that UN is located in US, the complain is that out of all countries only US met the UN ceiling budget.
UN as you wrote is doing ” very real, and beneficial, work” but that is not this work which is criticized, it is the fact that with inefficiencies, scandals and bickering UN bureaucrats want to dictate the all of us what we can and can not do, in other words it want to be a global government when it can not govern itself.
“Reading what you wrote it seems that the main (or the only) target of present UN moves are the Muslim countries.”
I suppose you could add some sub-Saharan African countries to the list, but yes, it is mostly about human rights violations in muslim countries. Most Asian and Latin American countries have changed their laws to democratic/secular standards. The only holdouts are in the Middle East. Take note of the noises coming out of the UN bureaucracy during the Iran unrest in ’08.
“It is, DA, about encroachment on national rights .”
Indeed. But that encroachment can only take place when it is agreed upon by the countries themselves – as is the case with aviation corridors, for example. If you are worried about encroachment on national rights, take some time to read up on bell in Canada these days.
” But somehow you forgot to mention that the immigration from poorer (Muslim) countries to the highly developed west will also be one of the aims of that global governance.”
Talk about misinterpretation. The whole migration framework issue is aimed at protecting the rights of migrant workers going from poor countries (India, Philipinnes) to the rich countries (UAE, Saudi Arabia) where human rights violations are rife. You wouldn’t believe the stories if I told them to you. This has nothing to do with migration from east to west or India to Canada. It has a lot to do with controlling human trafficking and human rights violations in Asia and Africa. Its one thing picking out things out of context. Anyone (and I mean literally anyone) familiar with the discourse on these topics will point out that the whole thing is being pushed by South and South East Asian countries who are miffed about the treatment their nationals are recieving in the middle east. The Indian government has gone so far as to maintain a database of abusive employers in these countries and is pushing for the UN to create a framework that will allow countries to consolidate such information in a name-and-shame campaign. I am literally flabbergasted by your interpretation of the whole thing.
“You did not mention the global redistribution of wealth perhaps because, it would have (according to you) little bearing on the US, Canada or most democratic countries .”
The global redistribution of wealth (wow it sounds scary) is code for free trade. They’re pushing for free trade agreements. So, incidentally, are the US and Canada. The entire issue basically deals with agreements on competitive advantages, which is the source of the failure of most free trade negotiations. Yes, I guess it does affect Canada and the US, insofar as global free trade would require that we stop subsidising our farmers. Of course, the push for free trade is coming from outside the UN, not just from within it.
“You also did not mention that it would be Muslim and some African countries which will be beneficiary of the UN policy of “international migration governance” .”
See above. It deals mostly with human trafficking and migrant rights. The beneficiaries include Africa, but not the middle east. The other beneficiaries are south and south east asia.
“the creation of incentives for profound transformation of attitudes and consumption styles.”
That applies wholesale to all countries. If you are into economics (on the basis of your words, I suspect not), you will note that this is nothing particularly new. In general, over the past few years, CEOs, bankers and government policy makers the world over have been making the same statements -namely that globalization is a reality and that global spending patterns have to change. They want to increase consumption patters in countries with high saving patterns (South Asia/East Asia) and reduce spending patterns in countries with high personal debt accumulation (US). In fact, this statement does not apply at all to Muslim countries, whose economy is seen as being too underdeveloped. The middle eastern Sheikhs (who hold most of the ‘muslim’ money) are typically factored in alongside western consumers because most of there assets are in the west. This statement generally applies to India, China (high savings) and North America (low savings). The middle eastern economies are largely insignificant since most of their capital is already invested abroad.
“The UN General Assembly passes its resolution by 2/3 votes. There is no veto in General Assembly.”
Yes. And there is nothing that the General Assembly can pass that is binding. In other words, the GA can say what it wants and make whatever decisions it wants to, but countries are not legally obligated to enforce them. In simpler words, a GA resolution is a recommendation. It is not a law and it is not binding. Therefore a GA resolution on climate change would be meaningless to any country that is not interested in climate change.
Only Security Council resolutions are binding. They are, as you note, subject to veto.
“However you are somehow forgetting to talk about ECOSOC which since 1998, held a meeting each April with finance ministers heading key committees of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).”
ECOSOC is the Economic and Social Council. It is a forum that comprises of member nations. It is NOT, as you seem to indicate, a group of shady UN bureaucrats. It consists of government delegations from various countries who serve (IIRC) a three-year term. These delegation are voted in by the GA. As such, ECOSOC merely reflects the views of its members. The decisions are made by the representatives of the governments who are on the council at any given time.
In any case, the ECOSOC meetings have been replaced by the G8/G20 summits. They’re kind of old news now. And a pretty meaningless exercise. The only purpose they serve is to provide a forum for individual governments to challenge WB and IMF policies. Its the one place where they are guaranteed access to the policy wonks at IMF and WB. Hardly an anti-democratic sovereignty busting activity, that.
“This does not count other expenditures like peacekeeping budget (5 bln USD) or special programmes like UNICEF, WFP or UNDP. So even that comparison is wrong because 6.3 bln dollars NY Port Authority is its whole budget but UN 4.3 bln means only operating budget.”
You’re right and you are wrong. I only just saw checked the budget numbers for the UN – I’ve been relying on old numbers. The UN’s core operating budget is USD 4.3 bn over 2 years, or 2.15 bn per year. With peacekeeping estimated at 4.5-5bn per year, they will be just a little over the Port Authority’s 6.3 bn estimate. So you are right on calling me out for saying that the UN’s operating budget is lower than the Port Authority. It is now, for the first time in a long long time, higher than the Port Authority. That may be more of a reflection of the fact that the USD has lost its value against the Euro, especially when you factor in the fact that most UN agencies are located in Europe. Furthermore, you were apparently unaware that the UN’s operating budget is calculated over 2 years, not one.
“Anyway, it is not a UN budget that people complain against. It is an inefficient use of funds and lack of accountability. It is kleptocracy and scandals. If UN can not police itself how can it police the world?”
Agreed. But is there any viable alternative? Is there any organization that can take over the roles that the UN currently plays? For all the mismanagement and kleptocracy, the UN, like most of the governments that comprise it, does just enough to keep most of its constituents happy most of the time.
“And it is not that UN is located in US, the complain is that out of all countries only US met the UN ceiling budget. ”
With all due respect, you can hardly blame the UN for that. If the UN had an enforcement mechanism then I would agree that the UN is to blame. But it obviously doesn’t, otherwise all the countries would be obligated to meet the ceiling. In other words, the US is choosing to fulfill this obligation. The responsibility, then, lies with the US government, not the UN.
“UN as you wrote is doing ” very real, and beneficial, work” but that is not this work which is criticized,”
Au contraire, there are several here who want to see the UN disbanded. The comments on this thread speak for themselves. I am merely pointing out that the UN does, in fact, do good things. Yes it is inefficient and has its episodes of corruption, but should that be allowed to take away from the very real work it does. The UN is kind of like democracy – it is a terrible instituion, but it is the best that we have right now.
The U.N. has become a cesspool of despotic dictators and is no longer relevant in the 21st century.”
[quote]I suspect this is precisely what htey are trying to change. The national sovereignty they seek to erode is that of the despots, not the democrats [/quote]devil’s advocate
DA,
I think you understand exactly what you said!
I rest my case!
Funny, I seem to recall an Austrian corporal who had a nice hideaway up in the alpine areas he used to plot the overthrow of the rest of the world. One assumes the UN’s isn’t called the eagle’s nest, I hope…
DA
If you believe that UN spent their Labor Day weekend discussing how to put their organization in charge of violation of human rights in Muslim countries then nobody forbids you to do so. It is what many Muslim countries and some Muslims claim UN is about. It is what many Muslim governments complain about. It is what OIC members agree about. You may even believe that “UN is kind of like democracy – it is a terrible institution” which many muslim and some non-muslim believe. However there is a difference between the two –democracy is indeed is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time; UN is a terrible institution but there are some which are better.
This reminds me of the EU Parliament just after Rompey assumed his “Presidency”.
It was proceeding famously until that Brit member rose and said “who are you? Nobody has ever heard of you!”
The UN is a global bureaucracy dominated by the majority…a collection of despots and dictators…..who only contribute corrupt bureaucrats to extort funds from democratically governed nations.
Don’t move it….just close it…..diplomatic contact worked better prior to it’s inception.
Why do the nations … imagine a vain thing?
We would be so much further ahead to give all the money to charities and disband the United Nations. Their track record in accomplishment per dollar spent is quite dismal compared to NGOs in the field. And they have failed entirely in a number of challenges.
We need to act as though another world war has come and gone, and restructure this body so that you can only join if you have a democratic government. All the rest should have to sit on the sidelines until they shape up. And that includes China, screw ’em, they have had too much influence for the whole sixty years they have been a so-called important country.
Think of the money they could save on interpreters, they would all be speaking English. If the rules were strict enough, they could boot out the narco-states as well. I’ve even got a name for the new organization — NATO plus.
I like Peter’s suggestion best. Maybe move homeless people into the tower. Turn it into a giant rehab center. Something humane like that, the sort of thing the UN used to be good at.
Funny too how all the “loony” theories regarding the UN, climate change, and global governance have turned out to be true, ain’t it?
“UN is a terrible institution but there are some which are better.”
I’ll bite. Name the better institutions that have the same scope and responsibilities as the UN.
I can only think of one similar institution, and it was a lot worse. It was called the League of Nations.
“And that includes China, screw ’em, they have had too much influence for the whole sixty years they have been a so-called important country.”
All for it.
However, I would love to know how you think this would work, especially when you factor in the annoying bits, such as the fact that Arab and Chinese money has been invested in virtually every western company of note. Suffice it to say, if they disagree with the decisions of the new organization, they might take their money out. Where will that leave us?
Welcome to globalization.
devil’s advocate
[[Suffice it to say, if they disagree with the decisions of the new organization, they might take their money out. Where will that leave us?]]
Same place…..we just tell them their money is living in the “Hotel California”. IOW keep the money and tell them to buzz off. Drop a nuke on Mecca during the Haj….just to impress them….it worked on the Japanese….the poster boy for an implacable enemy,