The In-Security Council: Dump it or Grow it?

Mr. Feroz, this article is an example of why I want our Model United Nation students to be required to read certain articles on Chowk.

Let me go aheaed and agree with yu, PM that pointing to the structural inequality of the UN`s IN-Security Council is hardly a hissy fit. Small minds have meagre thoughts a la Arjun.

To those others who are part of the SOLUTION, not part of the PROBLEM, I do hope yu will come to the World Social (Another World is Possible!) Forum in Mumbai, Jan 16-21, 2004. This is the same radical WSF that began meeting in Porto Alegre, Brasil and is now meeting for the first time in Asia, in MUMBAI, no less. We need radical egalitarianism. Think Gandhi, think Martin Luther King, think Mandela, think Mother Teresa.

I will be giving a workshop:

``WOMEN RE-IMAGINING THE UNITED NATIONS: TAKING POWER, MAKING CHANGE.``
of course men are welcome too.

It will be very interactive. no speeches just sharing of opinions and suggestion and a petition to Kofi Annan and Angela King of the UN.

Can the UN be made more responsive to ordinary people, rather than just to powerful nations?

Some of us think so!

See you there.

ussa

re. arjun_m #54:
``Your proposal is just that..a proposal..not grounded in reality..You need to outline what you plan to do to get the US/UK etc to accept a UN without a SC and the veto power... ``
Here`s a start!

re. #47 Arjun_m:
I agree that there`s no point i nthrwoing hissy fits, which, admittedly some nations do. and that these nations need to strengthen their economies. However, protesting against an unjust system of trade that keeps ``lesser`` nations under the yoke of economic `opression` (for want of a better word) does not amount to a hissy fit. Hope you do dtaw the fine distinctions. Think `tarriffs`. Think `subsidies`.
re. ``This whole thing reminds me of the ``WAAH!!Bob down the halls makes more money than me`` whine.. ``
This much projection cannot be a good thing. :-) Really!!

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

re: Chithra Karunakaran

The idea of having two bodies General Assembly (with one vote per member) and Security Council (with five permanent members; and 10 rotating temporary members) presents a contradiction.

Why allow 5 countries to shoot down any resolution that they don`t like? USSR and USA used their veto power over the last 5 decades to perpetuate the Kashmir and Middle East problems. Perhaps we should have an even playing field in which a club of countries does not enjoy special priveleges.

But the biggest problem with UN is its lack of muscle. Without a standing army, the UN needs to rely on the Big Five (well primarily USA) to provide the muscle. This ultimately means that UN can only function as an appendix to USA. Incidentally, USA is not prepared to even implement an innocuous little UN Environmental Treaty (Kyoto). The less said about unpaid UN dues and resolutions on Israel, the better.

Fortunately, a large number of Americans especially democrats, Green Party, independents, civil rights groups, lawyers and liberals have criticized the neo-cons and extremist media for sidelining the UN. As the election draws near, we are sure to hear more jabs at Bush from democrats on this issue.

Arjun!!

++
What would have happened if the US had nuked all of Vietnam?
++
Why didnt they do it?
It did have something to do with the moral might

The war is not won until its fought.
Before the war began the vietcongs didnt back out fearing the american might.
They fought cos they were fighting for a cause.
The advantages of the form of warfareand all that came later.


++
Like you`ve said, you aren`t going to get anywhere by million man marches or things like that..the answer to might is more might..doesn`t have to be military might..an oil embargo is a form of might in action...consumer boycotts are a form of might...
++
...moral might...then we dont have any disagreement.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

I don`t understand why Indians are not content with one Gandhi and one Nehru. Why do we keep trying to produce more of them?

Gandhites and Nehruites, you played your part, did well in your time; now don`t hang around longer than you are welcome. Fade into history gracefully. History books will honor you. But in todays` world, you are out of date, out of place.

Indian Gandhites and Nehruvites have gotten greedy. They want all Gandhis and Nehrus to be born only in India.

arjun_m,
You are trying to shoehorn everything into this ``might is right`` thing. For example, you say civil rights was forced on the seggregationist states by the mighty federal government. That part is right. But which mighty entity got the federal government to come on the side of civil rights? Similarly, why did the mighty brits gave up on india? Might, as Puyu or someone else said, may mean different things, not necessarily military or enforcement power. I think the author is essentially right that the structure of the UN can be changed into a fairer arrangement but a million people signing petitions is unlikely to be that force of change. Millions of people marching all over the world didn`t prevent two crazies from starting a war...

#42
Unkalji, Israel probably sells more high-tech weapons than anyone else to the exclusion of perhasps the US and Russia. They also are rumored to have nukes which were tested for them by S. Africa. I don`t think anyone in his sane mind would say Israel is a world power. The reality is that if France or GB had gone to war unprovoked against a sovereign nation on invented reasons as the US recently did, there would be hell to pay. So, no, I don`t think they are world powers.
A broader point I think is that a world power ought to be willing to exercise that power. I don`t think China qualifies on this count.

Arjun!!
as i said ,what if the vietnamese had resigned to the american might.
Surely, America was mightier in all conventional sense.
But Vietnam didnt buy it and thought how they could be mightier.
They didnt accept defeat APRIORI.
May be you/we dont realize your/our might!
Its disappointing that you dont believe in human spirit!

And as for the black civil movement it did win Kennedy`s support ,didnt it?
And it made a difference, didnt it?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

``and my proposal to dump the SC is a solution.``

Dump it and what? Like I said, it is one thing to tear down existing structures, another to propose alternatives.

``So stuka`s comment comment about not offering solutions is lacking in substance. ``

ummm, no. Actually your ``solution`` is...lacking in substance I mean..

puyu`s point about making a start is exactly right. We are making some headway here.

and my proposal to dump the SC is a solution. So stuka`s comment comment about not offering solutions is lacking in substance.

A million petitions, sent by We the People, cannot be entirely ignored, even by that apathetic and self-preserving intergovernmental body.

Do some people here think that the UN is capable of undertaking significant structural internal reform.? Self-destructing their own jobs and perks?

If the UN Charter says ``We the People`` I am going to asume they mean me and you. So I am willing to take action to talk back.

I did not write this piece as hot air., and never waste my time at the watercooler. Maybe we can save some lives, put some of the money into the hands of women and children, cotton growers and milk producers, solar energy developers and windgenerators, who need it badly.

So if anyone wants to float a petition on Petitions on Line website, let me know. I notice some good writers here.

I will not be responding to any further posts. Thanks everybody, no matter what your position is on this topic.

Lastly, if you want to help you are welcome to send the article along with your comments to:

Fred Eckhard Annan`s Spokesperson
Shashi Tharoor Secretariat
Angela King Women

All bureaucrats., and no, I don`t hobnob with bureaucrats.

CKK

know your might!!
:-)

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Might is Rightists!!

does it include moral might?
If not please explain all those civil rights movements .
Not all of them were failures and I guess proved themselves right!

It just doesnt have to be non-violent civil rights movements the humiliating moral stance of the weak!
Vietnam,Cuba....
What if they had accepted their might (whatever be it,poli..,eco..) was right?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

stuka

Alternatives come up in discussions.
Some one some where has to make a start.
It may not be (well,ill even say wont be) THE start.
still...

++
People do it around coffee machines and water coolers every day.
++

Is chowk very different from the above?

Arjun:
re. There is no Affirmative Action in global politics...live with it...
Dude, would you say that Might is as right today as it was, say, 300 years ago? PLease think carefully before answering.
Also, would you say it`s as right ths year as it was two yeas ago?Assuming you agree that in the world of Global politics, the degree to which might can enforce `it`s`` fiat varies, you`ve conceded that ``affirmative action`` does play a role, however tiny at them moment.. It`s little steps... but you have to look at the really large picture to have any appreciation of the change. Vision helps you get there too!
And let`s not forget, Affirmative ACtion in the US would have been unthinkable a hundred years ago.. If it could happen at the State-scale, who is to say that (with some sort of organizatio nakin to world governement), it won`t happen in the future... It`s not impossible to imagine the ``lesser`` states organizing (THE KEY!!) themselves so as to affect the balance of where might lies. But you have to begin with some sort of vision for this to even BEGIN to happen. Incidentally, has anyone read the article I hotlinked in #4? Comments would be welcome.
rgds,
PM

``I guess by that line of thinking, Rev. Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa and Nelson Mandela made no contribution to the advance of human ideals. ``

They did, from an agitantionist`s perspective, not an administrative perspective. It is one thing to point out criticisms, quite another to point out alternatives. If all Newton had done was ask WHY an apple falls to the ground, and left it at that, he would have been known as the neighborhood loon rather than the great scientist that he was.

Maybe the author`s article would have more credibility if she also came up with what she feel is an alternative system which other countries would buy into. Then yes, her premise that the current system is dysfunctional would be compared to the alternative she suggests, thereby setting up some stimulated thinking. Otherwise, pointing out weaknesses in any existing organization, inter-state or intra, is the easiest thing to do. People do it around coffee machines and water coolers every day.

#15 by soysauce

[When you say the veto power simply acknowledges ``might``, you must have only the US in mind. I can`t see GB or France or even for that matter China as world powers.]

Most countries buy their high-tech toys from Great Britain or France. E.g., Mirage fighters from France, Harriers from Great Britain. People from countries that are dependent on France and Great Britain for their very survival when it comes to warfare ought to stop characterizing them as froggies or pommies respectively. Your 1 billion Maasanamuthus can very easily be vaporized by the nuclear weapons that Britain and France possess. As to China, it has picked a fight with every single neighbor and occupied their territory (including Russia) so it qualifies as a country with guts if not as a world power.

Of course a mindset that says you have ``privileges`` as opposed to ``rights`` because of who you are leads you to believe that impotent countries have the right to lecture sanctimoniously and condescendingly countries that have the means AND the will to kick butt.

Britain was willing to go to war with Argentina over the Falkland Islands to prove that you can`t trifle with her. France sends its troops to its former colonial outposts in Africa without requiring a UN vote because it has the MEANS and the WILL to do so. Impotent third-rate countries who can`t or won`t kick Pakistan`s a$$ ought to stop making morality out of necessity.

Wow, I wish I had digit`s ability to cut to the chase. In taking on Arjun, he applies scientific method. That`s exactly what we need. Just imagine if, like arjun and some others, Newton had concluded `` Apples always fall to the ground -- that`s the way it is, that`s the way it`s always been.`` Instead he asked WHY? and the rest of course is history, or rather science as we know it. Or take John Lennon`s Why in his song ``Imagine.`` We need more Newtons and john lennons and fewer dick cheneys and wolfowitzes.

My decision to focus on the UN Security Council is based precisly upon getting answers to Why? But yu cannot really ask why unless you state the problem. The problem is that the Charter says one thing and the UN`s Security Council is set up to do something else. Why?

Having spent an inordinate number of hours at the UN`s New York Headquarters and read more documents than I care to count, I think we have a serious problem on our hands. We the People -- the UN actually uses this phrase. Well, does the UN mean it?

A million petitions demanding to dissolve the UN Security Council in its current form and take away its veto power would be an excellent starting strategy.

Hey thanks for the posts, pro and con and everything in between.

CKK

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

In response to arjun_m, who wrote in :#34 to PM:

``Dude..Things don`t turn out just because you want them to be a certain way...Even if we assume we can move towards a system in which might isn`t right, how do you think we`ll get there...``democratizing`` the UN is no solution..it creates a false illusion of equality where none exists... ``

What you say offers absoloutely no insight into WHY the UN is so dysfunctional. Simply stating ``because it is that way`` is not an answer. It is no secret that the UN is politically a mess, however it is so largely because the ``mighty`` have co-opted it/subverted it for their own ``righteous`` reasons.

If you are of the view that it must neccessarily be this way because of some immutable flaw of the human mind, then so be it...that`s not a view I personally subscribe to (head in sand and all). So you`ll exuse those of us that think that there is yet hope for some sort of improvement, no matter how imperfect...we`re not asking for an act on par with transmuting water into wine.

Ref arjun_m #34

[There is no Affirmative Action in global politics...live with it...]

You have gone too far. You have now gone and wrecked Soysauce`s day.

Watch what you say. People raised on a steady diet of Affirmative Action are reading the interacts!

I am particularly grateful to Ahmadzai, Soysauce and Rational Faith for their knowledge and perspectives. We need that balance and freewheeling energy at chowk.

RF doesn`t agree with the premise of my article at all. But that`s very good too! I am also fascinated by the Hobbesian view of arjun that might is right, that dominant power without equity and justice are considered worthwhile goals, and the rejection(by RF) of Gandhian humanism and Nehruvian globalism and secularism is Ok too. I guess by that line of thinking, Rev. Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa and Nelson Mandela made no contribution to the advance of human ideals.

Well, nothing like discussion to sharpen one`s own line of argument. Thanks. Peace.
CKK

``As a professor of psychology and sociology (postcolonial) at CUNY and as a political activist ....``

Aaaahhh, that explains it.

PM:
Thanks for the explanation. In that case, let me offer my position which is similar to Arjun`s...

The ``What ought to be`` can be a utopian ideal, hence unacheivable unless grounded upon what is.

Arjun`s perspective (tying in with TAhmed`s quote of a solution rather than a just solution) is based on trying to mould reality to achieve objectives, partially if not completely.

The basis of the article is the political apartheid that exists between nations in a multi-lateral body. Here are some issues that are relelevant:

1. The author takes it as a given that organizational inequality is unjust. But is it? Is it just for the US to be judged by the same standards as Nauru?

2. The UN is a voluntary body that makes no claims on the actual soverignity of nations. It is a multi-lateral gathering in the sense that it allows for the mechanism of consultation. It is not, even under the charter of the UN, meant to be a world government.

3. Even if we are to discuss the normative, there has to be a common vision. The author is an individual who is ill at ease with the power that her country excercises. Is that a shared vision? Are there citizens of other countries that are similarly uncomfortable with a higher position in the pecking order of nations and thus want to voluntarily reduce their countris` ability to influence world events? What about those countries where it is not the will of the people but a ruling elite/dictator that makes decisions? Is the voice of that nation state to be taken at par with functioning democracies and after all what consists of a functional democracy?

The issue the author brings up is thereby not restricted to the security council. It is a fundamental questioning of what constitutes nation states and what governs their behavior within an international framework. Thus, their is no normative, or at least a common one.

As Arjun succinctly put it, the Veto power of the UN is a reflection of the recognition of power and influence, not an originater.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

ussa #33 Actually, on palestine, I think an observation that a judge in the US made many years ago applies here as well: sometimes it is better to find a solution, he said, then to find a just solution.

50 years is a long enough time for any political problem to fester. Indeed, five years is too long a time. After that, the cost in human suffering is simply not worth any amount of redrawing of national boundries. There comes a point when one should just accept the status quo, declare victory, and move on from there. (and of course this applies in india=pakistan politics too).

This is the same principle I mentioned in my previous post, viewed in a slightly different context: place individual(s) above nationalities and religions. There is nothing sacred about national borders, which are generally the result of historical events and accidents. There is a lot sacred about human life (I would rather be alive than have the world`s boundries drawn exactly to my liking - and why should I think others`s lives are less important than my own). Particularly in today`s situation, when people by the millions migrate across borders. The important thing is the rights and opportunities that are available to individuals within a country.

re. stuka #27:
re. the normative and the descriptive:
Dude, it`s the differnce between what ought to be (i.e, dealing with norms) and what actually is.
Arjun has repeatedly proved himself a masterful describer of situations (e.g. ``might is right``) but often confuses it with, or seemingly has no vision of, how things ought to be.
Hope I haven`t done him an injustice here. But that cetainly is what I`ve gathered from his posts.

T.ahmed, it is observations like yours that keep ME going, at any rate! I really feel strengthened by your perspective. It`s ordinary Indians, ordinary Pakistanis like ourselves who will make the bonds that are essential prerequisites for a life as neighbors and friends.

As a professor of psychology and sociology (postcolonial) at CUNY and as a political activist and citizen of the hyperpower I have described in my article decrying the Security Council, I realize a face a contradiction. My article is based on direct observation of events at the UN, especially the Security Council and from reading numerous documents thereto.

This is how I feel --I feel like a Palestinian at CUNY! Of course I cannot even begin to imagine the daily horror or being a Plestininian in the Occupied Territories. But I empathize with that sense of estrangement and alienation. I sometimes wear an Arafat headscarf at faculty meetings, just to feel sane and politically moral in the ``good`` old usa. I am sitting in a rich, greedy and yes, `free` country, and that can be painful to the spirit, if not to wallet. Luckily I own almost nothing, so that`s good.

The ethnic dominance of the faculty in all US universities (have yu also looked at the top policymakers at the State Department and the Defense Department and all the foreign policy thinktanks?) and consequently the complete lack of support of Palestinian sovereignty in the US academy and US political life, is frightening. Pakistan, India or any part of South Asia is a freer place for political thought than the US!

Is it any wonder that the Palestinians were estranged, forcibly removed from their lands from their homeland under UN auspices, in 1948? We are living with the tragic consequences of that decision every single day.
The Security Council made that horrific decision. That`s dominance, that`s inequality, that`s the UN Security Council.
CKK

Harimau:

``[I developed ideas of social justice and fairness and love for people and things South Asian, because my parents raised me not to hate or be prejudiced.]

Sheeesh, there goes the (Urstruly) theory that every Indian is a closet Bajrang Dal supporter. ``

LOL!! If she does not support giving Kashmir wholesale to Ppakistan, she will become a Bajrang Dal supporter as well...at least in his eyes :)

Ref ussa #25

[I developed ideas of social justice and fairness and love for people and things South Asian, because my parents raised me not to hate or be prejudiced.]

Sheeesh, there goes the (Urstruly) theory that every Indian is a closet Bajrang Dal supporter.

ussa #25 you write ``because my parents raised me not to hate or be prejudiced. ``

Those are refreshing words indeed. My hats off to your parents who obviously were a classy people. Dont try to reason with jay though - this man has been repeating his hate-pakistan posts for years on chowk now. His hatred is hard-wired in him. I must say if someone had told me such characters existed in real life, I would not have believed it.

Anyway, I couldnt agree more with what you write. I have spent over two decades working with people of all nationalities, and one thing is clear: people are people. Differences between nationalities are superficial and meaningless for any practical purposes. As long as one keeps a person individuality above his nationality or ethnicity or religion, we wont go wrong. This is not just a ``feel good`` thing - this has implications in a practical sense in decisions we make every day. Example: In my past career, I had Indians and Pakistanis and a number of other nationalities working for me. 25 years later, with much water having flowed under the bridge, I look back and have nothing but gratitude for the sincerity with these people - regardless of nationality fulfilled the trust I had placed on them (bosses are as dependent on their staff for success as vice versa).

One more thing: Growing up in a poverty stricken country like Pakistan, I realize that the single most important priority for poor countries (and indeed for the rich as well) is to fight poverty. 5 billion of the world`s 6 billion people are living in economically miserable conditions. If we fail, the children of the well-off people will find themselves swamped by problems that we cant imagine today. This is all the more reason why, despite (and indeed all the more because of) the miserable record of Pakistan and India at the government level to resolve their problems, it is so important (and indeed a moral imperitive, given the miserable conditions in which the vast majority of Indians and Pakistanis live) for well-off indians and pakistanis to (as you say) interact in a friendly and civilized manner. One day the governments will catch up with them, and end this waste of energy and resources trying to play games with one another.

Ferozk, I agree with yu. That was the whole point of my article -- the UN Security Council is part of a POLITICAL process, perspective and power equation that supports inequality and dominance as the qualifying criteria for relationships among member states.
Thank you for your analysis.
CKK

PM:

``I guess for some folks there is no difference between the normative and the descriptive. ``

What do you mean?

Jay, I can`t agree with your denigrating comments on Pakistan. Pakistan, like every member state of the UN acts in its own perceived interest. Because of its undeniable geoolitical importance, successive governments have had to walk a careful and wary line. Indians and Pakistanis, who generally go gaga over each other when they actually meet, must try not to be exploitd by their respective governments but focus more on their interpersonal connections.

My credo is: Orchards shall bloom along the LOC! Soft borders Make Warm Neighbors! Let`s Nuke Each Other with Prosperity, Justice and Fairness!

Individuals throughout South Asia and overseas, acting in solidarity can transform rigid, costly and dangerously powerful and inequitable structures like the UN Security Council.

Rome wasn`t built in a day and the UN Security cannot be toppled in a day either.
Best Regards,

CKK

p.s. No, I am not as you say, a ``homegrown Keralite`` under the tutelage of EMS. I have never lived in Kerala. I developed ideas of social justice and fairness and love for people and things South Asian, because my parents raised me not to hate or be prejudiced.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Ref stuka #9

[Let me also exprress my disbelief that there are still socialists in India.]

From http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/India,

``India is a Union of states with an increasingly federal structure. Officially it is declared as The SovereignSocialist Secular Democratic Republic of India.``

Was the Constitution amended by Indira Gandhi to change the official name of the country to ``Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic``? The simpler and more descriptive term would have been ``Crapola``.

Un is a voluntary organisation where the soveriegn nation states conforms to the UN policy purely on a voluntary basis. US walked out of The world court when it ordered compensation for mining the nicaraguan ports.

A UN case study

Pakistan is good example to understand the UN workings. Pakistan few weeks ago raised the kashmir issue. India responded by declaring that there will be no talks. Pakistan fired the short range ghaouri missile. Every one ignored. yesterday pakistan fired the longer range one, even india ignored. Why, the yanks have taken away the bomb, they do not want it to go off in a US port in a pak merchant ship. No one cares.
Gulf cooperation council invites india, not a musli nuclear power, because pakistan is a grotesque country, an aneamic with one muscular leg, the nuclear leg. It is a handicap, and the world treat pakistan as one, with concessions and loan write offs, even australia offered sick sheep for the starving millions.

For a good home grown keralite like Ms karunakaran, coming out of the shadows of EMS namboodiripad and the vayalar rebellion, a world body not based on one country one vote and one influence is a little hard to swallow.
The veto powers account for 70 percent of global economy and 99.9 percent of military power. What else counts, for that matter what else is in global affairs. I forgot, the religious values, the jihad. Yes that counts, and that is what the veto power nations are dealing with.

To understand the future of the UN, look at the life of the League of Nations: as a political body, it was no match for the imperitives of national sovereignty. Its economic agencies were more successful, and some continue to this day as UN agencies.

Thanks _digit,
Now maybe you can take one of `em prostheses and give Arjun one in his realpolitik rear. :-)
I guess for some folks there is no difference between the normative and the descriptive. Fortunately such visionless folks find a way to blow themselves into oblivion at some point.

re: Chithra Karunakaran

The article was topical and dealt with a serious, but an emerging problem. The United Nations has to be reformed, but the question is how to reform it in a manner, which arrives at a common consensus. When the charter of the United Nations was agreed upon in 1945, the world was still fighting the Second World War and it was still a colonial world ruled by the Europeans. Since 1945 much has changed, but the United Nations has failed to adapt to the changing international evironment. In fact, the United Nations never had a chance to implement its intentions, because after 1945 it soon became imbroiled in the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union and it was only in 1990s that it was freed from that, but ended up being dominated by the United States in the unipolar world politics that followed the end of the Cold War. In other words, the United Nations never had the chance to assert its role and the idea for, which it was created.

The United Nations has two political levels; Security Council and the General Assembly. The General Assembly is a forum for dicussion of international issues and it not a platform for suggesting solutions. The real power, within the United Nations, lies in the Security Council and that too within the circle of the permanent member states: China, France, United States, Russia and United Kingdom. What needs to be reformed is not the United Nations per se, but the Security Council. The Security Council needs to be defanged from its veto powers and its needs to be re-organized. Presently, there are three European nations on the council; Russia, France and United Kindom and one from Asia - China. This is an overtly Eurocentric organization and the principle of election to the Security Council has to be regional and that too based on demographic representation, economic performace and the ability to uphold the notions of collective security in the international arena and the historic record of upholding United Nations past resolutions and not ignoring them.

The problems encountered in the reformation of the United Nations are more political and then they are administrative.

Ciao

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

In response to PM:

``And lets not forget WHO, INICEF and `mineclearers` and synthetic legs (what`s the word?)``

Prosthesis...(?)

The WHO and UNICEF alone make the UN worthwhile. Thanks to their global immunization effort, much of the developing world, including the the Indian sub-continent, isn`t a puss filled smallpox pit.

But I suppose in this ``might is right`` world, that doesn`t count for much...

#14 arjum_m
Man, talk of mixed metaphores!
When you say the veto power simply acknowledges ``might``, you must have only the US in mind. I can`t see GB or France or even for that matter China as world powers.
If the veto power were to be rearranged such that blocks (or is it blocs?) of countries had veto power thru their elected representatives, then there`s some hope it will not be simply a case of might being right. The UN should be a regulatory body that has authority over the conduct between sovereign nations. Else it serves only as a cover for the 5 permanent members to continue with their private agendas. The only incentive for any country to stay within UN at present is that by being outside of it, it risks assault by a military superior.
Also, US wields influence over the UN by virtue of the fact that it is the agency`s largest benefactor. Perhaps that ought to be changed as well.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Damn! I meant `irrelvant` of course, not `relevant` on first line of last post.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

For all those saying the Un is sompletely releveant, I have a few words to offer:
Bosnia, Kosova, East Timor, Sierra Leonne, Cyprus, Burundi. Okay, you can associate al those words with the words `late` and `feet dragging`, but try to imagine what the world would have been withouteven the late intervention.
And lets not forget WHO, INICEF and `mineclearers` and synthetic legs (what`s the word?)

And to the interactor who wrote: ``The people who are talikg now like Mahatir Mohammad aginst global injustices will be made Idi Amins and Qaddafis.``...
Hey, as much as like the bloke, it`s odd that Mahatir had nothing to say about the unjust system of globalization pre-97 eco-bust, when Malaysia, like most of SE Asia, was more than happy to benefit from the outrageous flow of capital INTO their economies, unsupported by any real development.

This is leftist philosophy that has kept India down for the past 45 years. All nations are not equal. I think Rational Faith and Arjun have said everything I would have wanted to say in any case. Nehru`s biggest mistake of giving up a UN seat to China is actually hailed as a good thing. Too bad the Chinese were never too grateful.

Let me also exprress my disbelief that there are still socialists in India.

Thank you Ms. Karunakaran for writing this. But I think nothing will change. The neo-colonial powers will go to extreme lengths to preserve their hegemony. What is happening now at UN has happened before when after 1st world war French were severly short-changed by both UK and US. But this time the are holding their cards. I think eventually France and Germany will get their fair share of booty from the middle east and everything will go back to ``normal``. The people who are talikg now like Mahatir Mohammad aginst global injustices will be made Idi Amins and Qaddafis. If 400 years of past history is any evidence it is clear that West has so far been unable to one single international institution that has its basis in the priciples of justice and fairness. All of their institutions are there to preserve their economic and military hegemony and their prosperity. Everytime they eat their second slice of bread, it is soaked in the blood of some third worlder - despite that they are not willing to give up their second slice and they even want more.

Of relevance, perhaps:
How to Stop America, by George Monbiot
excerpt:

---

Presidents Roosevelt and Truman were smart operators. They knew that the hegemony of the United States could not be sustained without the active compliance of other nations. So they set out, before and after the end of the Second World War, to design a global political system which permitted the other powers to believe that they were part of the governing project.

When Franklin Roosevelt negotiated the charter of the United Nations, he demanded that the United States should have the power to block any decisions the UN sought to make. But he also permitted the other victors of the war and their foremost allies - the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, China and France - to wield the same veto.

In submitting this article to Chowk, I hoped Pakistanis, Indians, the thoughtful people on chowk, all South Asians would join in thinking creatively and constructively and ``out-of-the-box,`` about the UN structure. It is a bureaucracy to support which each member state pays tens of thousands of dollars in membership dues. We also support expensive apartments, pay high salaries to our representatives and directly or indirectly we support the power structure of elite, dominant states.

I am not necessarily saying ``scrap the entire UN pronto.`` Obviously that would be undesirable and unrealistic. But perhaps People Power is what we need to reorder the UN`s priorities. Look what happened to the WTO when India, China and Brazil joined together and protested agricultural subsidies? And Pakistan and India joined together with other so-called developing countries to oppose the rich Euro-American alliance.

We the People can make a difference but it will require all the People.

I view the UN as a weak, costly structure serving a militarily, socially and economically dominant elite. It also serves primarily the elites of our own respective countries. It has no authority, no power and worst, no accountability. The millions of dollars spent there can more effectively serve the poor and the disenfranchised in sme of the poorest peoples in Africa.

The Security Council is the crux of the problem, the worm in the rotten UN apple. The Security Council is the sole instrument used by the US to deny basic human rights and sovereignty to the Palestinian people. That`s reason enough to scrap the SC.

If any of you are coming to the Meeting of the World Social Forum in Mumbai, a continuation of the historic work accomplished iby the World Social Forum in Porto lagre, Brasil, (Jan 16-Jan21,2004) I and hopefully others, will be doing a People`s Workshop discussion on the UN. See you there!

Thank you for all your comments and do keep them coming.

Chithra KarunaKaran

This is an excellent article.

UN must remain relevant. Veto power must go, as both Dr. Mahatir and President Musharraf have demanded recently.

You are right on target when you write:

``Maybe India, Norway, Pakistan, Mauritius, Sweden, Iran, Brazil, Sri Lanka and historically diverse others can help move the UN into the 21st century with political equality of all member states, at every level of operation of the UN. Article 109 can be invoked to amend the UN Charter.``

The General Assembly is too broad and the veto-wielding club of the security council too narrow that happy middle has to be found. A few powerful countries cannot stay outside international law and yet the UN has to stay relevant.

Chithra:

...the UN is a much maligned and flawed international institution where powers is exercised disproportionately…but it can still be viable…and it is the only one of its kind…

(digression: like democracy—which can be maligned and flawed)

…re: Security Council membership…in its present format it is a power grab…to make it representational there should be one member each from north and south america, and europe and two each from asia and africa…and they should be elected for a period of ten years…(If I could I would vote for India and China for the asian seats)

…also…very important…

...there should be a permanent UN Emergency Force under this reconstituted Security Council ready for deployment at any trouble spot within 24 hours…financed by a tax of a tenth of a cent on each liter of gasoline sold worldwide…so it can be outside the influence of major powers…

…condemnation of rogue acts by nation/s without sanction of force will remain whinings of a paper tiger…

…t

Chithra ji,

``with India, under Nehru, deferring its own claim of membership, to China``

Don`t you see how foolishly India acted in those days of world-peace and non-violence, concepts for which nobody else gave a damn.

India should move completely away from those impractical and high-minded times. For the next 50 years India should focus completely on building itself a strong and powerful country.

``India’s membership, if it happens, will make Pakistan and other South Asian nations feel more insecure. That will not be a good thing. Building bonds between blood-related neighbors and historically enmeshed partners is more important than Security Council membership.``

Why should India`s membership make anyone in South Asia feel insecure? If a country has adversarial relationship with India then it will feel insecure whether or not it is in South Asia. The argument that those who don`t like India will feel insecure so India shouldn`t build itself up is a naive, Nehruvian, worse Gandhian.

The security council is not going to change. China, for whose membership Nehru worked, will not let India in. So India should forget about security council. It should acquire the intellectual, political, economic, and military strength that nobody can ignore it, security council member or not.

For foreign policy and economic-military strength, our role model must be china. No more the humiliation of the American 7th fleet standing in the Indian ocean ready to bomb India.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts