COMMENTS
New
Posted, Thursday, January 17, 2008, 09:38 am
It is misleading and annoying to call the General Assembly a
"world parliament". The General Assembly is a body composed of
diplomats who, of course, are bound to the instructions of their home
government. These people are not elected, they are appointed by their
government. Actually they are bureaucrats. A parliament is something completely
different. It's composed of elected representatives answerable to their
constituencies, the voters. A thing which would come nearest to a world
parliament would be a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly, see www.unpacampaign.org
UNPA Campaign
New
Posted,
Tuesday, January 15, 2008, 01:33 am
I have always enjoyed reading your articles when
i come across them and the one about the United Nations was a thoughtful
summary of important issues [Ban Ki Moon who ? a man who personifies -rightly
or wrongly -ineffectualness and being a mere mouth piece- for whom?] and a
timely one because of a recent experience i thought to share with you.
Just last week as I was racing back to work at lunchtime I was
flagged down by a young man [an honours student – probably a Pol Sci
student-as it turned out] with a clip board...
At first Greenpeace[who are quite active here in Wellington]
flashed through my mind, but no,
something more novel: sign a petition to voice support [ I think lobby govt
here] for the UN to have the power to intervene in sovereign states affairs in
cases of civil war and to prevent massacre [ like Rwanda or Srebrenica...but
not perhaps criminal invasions by super powers [ & their proxies ] of Iraq
or Lebanon or Palestine]....I didn't hang around long enough to see who was
sponsoring this..but noticed there were no signatures gathered on the page.
I was quite taken aback for a moment, since I at once realized
both the obviously noble humanitarian cause inherent in this proposal [ who
would not agree with preventing bloodshed/murder of innocents stopping general
mayhem & bullies in their tracks etc] and the hidden hooks /pitfalls [
perhaps someone's not too secret agenda] attached to such a proposal since the
UN would be thedesignated cover vehicle /enforcer of this new power... this is
the same UN which while founded on [again] the best of intentions [ at least I
hope they played a part at the beginning and were not just fine words] seems
unable to act when urgent need arises because of the power of those that sit
permanently on the Security Council and the power of veto which each has... I
recalled reading that the US has used its veto power most i.e. not to prevent injustice, murder, mayhem,
ethnic cleansing etc., but to permit it when it served their higher
purpose/interests. The UN is used where possible, as just another option/coercive
instrument of the powerfuls foreign policy esp conspicuously in the case of the US and the ME policy eg.
Palestine and lack of enforcing all those resolutions.... I am sure that if the
US had wanted they would have
'made it so' as Jean Luc Piccard of the star trek/ship enterprise was fond of
saying...
So, without a fundamental restructure [basically as you suggested]
what would change? What would prevent the abuse of such a new power? Nothing.
It seems to me that such a move would only concentrate more power in the hands
of the few by focusing existing tendencies and trends; provide the cover of an
international legal instrument to more efficiently bend prone nations to the
will of the elect & to direct world human resources [expendable manpower
from the third world using tech toys from the first..] under the cover of
humanitarian intervention, to national interests of the powerful and strip what
is left of the earth's physical resources...
So, all these things flashed through my mind in that split second…
but unfortunately I could only politely decline to sign, saying from what I
have read this would not achieve the desired outcome whilst the body itself is
so prone to superpower influence [i.e. manipulation/machinations] ...
Christene (NZ)
New
Posted, Monday, January 17, 2008, 12:48 pm
Check out this new blog about undiplomatic times at:
http://undiplomatictimes.blogspot.com
Bhaskar
New
Posted,
Sunday, January 13, 2008, 08:51 am
Very much enjoy your writing I follow on Global
Research where I also contribute.
I read your article today on Ban Ki-moon and the U.N. with
interest.
I wrote months back about the shame of his predecessor in article
called the Mettle of a UN Secretary-General. I believe and also about U.N. in
article called U.N. Peacekeeping Paramilitarism highlighting mainly Haiti.
We both know how Sectary-Generals are chosen and what their fate
is if they disappoint. Sadly, I hold out no hope for the current one who looks
firmly in U.S. pocket. Like you, I think essential for a total overhaul of U.N.
Little chance though.
Steve
(Home: TheNewAmericanEmpire.com)