UN Restructuring

[Dave]

Indeed. The ability to veto is far too high when it comes to the security council.

[TimeTraveler]

Well according to this article by the AP they were able to get their hands on the Volckner report and it says their is no evidence to suggest Annan had any complexity in the corruption of the oil-for-food program.

 

http://www.adelphia.net/news/read.php?ps=1010&id=11809447

 

Like I said earlier, I think Annan is a great man with great ideals, he is courageous and he wants to make these changes in the UN to fix it up. The UN is not going to go away, no matter how much we may not like it, so the best option is to make changes to make it more effective and I think thats exactly what Annan's proposed plan will do. It's a step in the right direction, it needs to be followed by further steps however.

 

My 2 cents.

 

Would you (or anyone else) be interested in expanding a bit on what the security council could use an overhaul? That sounds like it might be worth getting into.

 

This question could take someone a few days of typing to answer so I will just start it off on one point that I think is very important.

 

Define genocide & set strict standards and necessary responses to end it. What I mean is, it seems to me that when genocide is taking place everyone argues over if it is genocide or is it civil war or should the UN get involved, or blah blah blah, and by the time anyone recognizes it as genocide its too late, massive damage has already been done, and there are many examples of this. When a case becomes considered genocide most always a large amount of the public demands action so often it is debated if a case is genocide or not.

 

I think they needs to structure a serious guideline that will save lives and prevent the butchering and slaughtering of people like what happened in Rwanda, and is happening right now all over the place.

 

Also, lets define terrorism.

[Pangloss]

Well I'm going to respecfully disagree about Anan. He's an ineffectual leader with a long history of ineffectualness in programs that really could have used some.... (uh oh, caught by my own poor choice of adjectives)... effectualness. He makes Clinton's teflon look like the bottom of a 1978 Jeep Wrangler that's been parked on the Jersey shore for 20 years. The guy has that wide-eyed "don't blame me, it's the system" look down to a science.

 

I definitely agree with your suggestions about defining some of these things. They have tried to do that, but thus far without success. Lack of leadership and the tragedy-of-the-commons attitudes by the member nations are why.

[TimeTraveler]

Yeah but look what he is trying to work with? He deserves credit for the progress he has made, at least he is really putting forth an honest effort regardless of it's been successful or not. imo.

[Pangloss]

What progress would that be?

 

As far as I can tell, the only successes that the UN has had under his leadership have been sporadic humanitarian efforts that should never have been necessary in the first place if the UN was working.

 

I'm not saying the UN should be disolved, I'm just wondering how we can view Anan as being successful. This is a leader who seems to operate on the fundamental principle that peace is necessary at all costs, and should never, ever have any kind of teeth or force behind it, period, end of story.

 

How does that ever work, exactly?