Graham seeks UN Reform

[Pete]

Source (http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030613.uun0614/BNStory/International/)

Foriegn Affairs Minister Bill Graham recently met with Secratary General of the United Nations Kofi Annan and presented a list of sweeping changes for the United Nations, including the expulsion of members who fail to uphold the principles of the body.

The most note worth proposal refers to the powerful Security Council. Graham proposes that a majority of Security Council votes should be able to over turn a single veto from a Permanent member, but 2 vetoes be final. Basically he is trying to remove power from sitting in any one nations hands, and each nation would have to work together inorder to pass or stop proposals.

Although "He endorsed a reform proposal that would not allow the use of a veto to block resolutions authorizing military intervention to protect human lives if a Security Council majority favours the intervention," Mr. Graham also "suggested that permanent members of the Security Council should be restricted to using a veto only if they can find a second permanent member to support them."

This would increase the stability of the worlds most powerful organization, and limit the power of any one member at the same time. If these proposals are met warmly by the body, then the age of unilaterial action may come to a close, as a coalition of four permanent members will be needed for anything to get done. No more cowboy style politics, that is if the United Nations can stand up to the United States of America, one of the most beligerant nations inside this body.

A closing proposal was that the Security Council becomes subordinate to the General Assembly, since with 191 nations it represents the opinions of the world, not a five nation elite.

-Pete

[Unrelenting Steve]

Absolutley fantastic, I think I might faint, but what could prevent this from comming about? Wouldnt this have to be intialy passed by the security council first (and then USA would just veto it)? Such a huge restructure shurley would have to incorperate some huge new document that eventual America would have to commit to aswell (and we all no its not going to commit to anything like this).

Neway hopes this actualy comes about, this brings me new hope for the world.

[Anonymous]

Oh, this is complete bullshit. We should be seeking to dissolve the tyrranical United Nations with their plans for global taxation, International courts, and world governance.

So far the U.S. has been one of the few nations to actually stand up to the UN.

[Pete]

I personally think that Graham, the first Foriegn Minister since Trudeau's years to stand up to America, is just farting out his mouth again...but it is always worth the hope that change may come.

As to the UN being Tyrannical, it is the opposite of that, there is no global taxation or world governance. The rules are 'if you feel like it follow them' basis. Graham is trying to make an international village more likely than an international patriarchy. Currently the tyranny in the United Nations comes from America, France, Russia, China, and England.

Edit: My first mention to Tyranny is in the sense that D.C. is using it, the second is in the sense of the patriarchy.

(Edited by CrazyPete at 1:27 pm on June 14, 2003)

[Unrelenting Steve]

DC you ignorant fool, America will be the death of humanity, this might just be salvation, you didnt contradict much of my America is going to be death of us post. So I guess this whole shit for brains yank act is just a ploy, your really not oblivious to the fact America is about the most evil force in history (-Nazi Germany) and the most evil currently existing force.

(Edited by Unrelenting Steve at 6:53 pm on June 14, 2003)

[Pete]

Steve, think past good and evil. Well past evil. It is a highly moralistic term, and often holds religious connotatoins. D.C. is a student of Nietzche and the Existentialist pool of thought, as am I, and 'evil' holds no place in it, as it is as subjective as you can get. Use logic not emotional pleas.

[Unrelenting Steve]

Morally objectionable behavior- evil

I will admit the presence of Salvation changed the tone of my writting to biblical, but evil is on okay word, isnt it?

I could judge them by there own moral standards them, thats logical. Hitler then is ok, because he thought he as doing the human race a favour, but America does many atrocities that directly contradict there proclaimed love for poeple to whom they wish only liberty to.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 3:17 pm on June 14, 2003
Steve, think past good and evil. Well past evil. It is a highly moralistic term, and often holds religious connotatoins. D.C. is a student of Nietzche and the Existentialist pool of thought, as am I, and 'evil' holds no place in it, as it is as subjective as you can get. Use logic not emotional pleas.


To tell the truth, I'm still trying to figure out what I am. I was once an objectivist, but now I seem to be gravitating heavily twords Nietzsche and existentialism. There just seems to be a part of me that wants to completely and utterly reject it at all costs, and so far that seems to have halted the transition, for now.

Perhaps I should try and come up with my own philosophy.

[Pete]

I find my self agreeing with them and having the philosophies before I read them, which IMO is better than gaining them by reading them.