The United Nations, as a humanitarian organisation, has done an enormous amount of good work and I would be the first person to recognise the benefits of some of the UN projects that have brought good results.
In other areas however, UN processes have been disastrous in terms of its main objectives that being to gain and maintain peace and prosperity for all. Instead, the UN, and the Security Council in particular, has become the mouthpiece for those countries that hold veto rights and in terms of effectiveness, the UN is no longer relevant.
Time therefore, to either make major changes within UN processes or, if that is not possible, the call in the receivers.
Some of the changes that need to be made are vital if the UN is to regain some of its lost credibility and authority would have to be reasonably far-reaching.
In terms of the Security Council, I am of the view CALL that the veto provisions should be abolished. These provisions have only assisted rogue countries such as Israel and Serbia to do their dirty deeds upon innocent populations through their respective proxies - mainly the US and Russia. The veto provisions also delay and often diminish peace processes between the various parties that are in dispute.
The Security Council should, in my view, also be expanded as to provide a better representative voice instead of the current unrepresentative clique that runs it the moment.
Adopted motions of an expanding, non-veto holding, Security Council should also be binding upon member states.
A good and current example of where things might have been different would have to be the State of Israel. For many decades Israel has engaged in a process of land and property theft and then was surprised when people objected and resisted. Had there been proper non-veto and binding processes within the UN Security Council, Israel would have been where it belongs, behind its pre-1967 borders.
The same non-effective processes have applied in Africa as well as other places throughout the world.
Another area of reform would have to be in the areas of International Law. It is not much good picking up the world's human rights abusers from the various minor and non-influential countries when major abusing offenders, and I shall name Tony Blair, John Howard, George Bush and a grubby little individual called Rumsfeld, have basically been immune from prosecution. International Law must apply to all, and all human rights offenders, including the four mentioned, should stand trial for human rights offences. No exceptions and no exclusions should be what applies, not the selective farce we have at the moment.
General Assembly motions, as adopted, should also be binding.
Winding up the UN should be a fairy simple process with humanitarian work being taken over by better-run and better equipped independent organisations while security responses could also be handled by organisations such as Euroforce, the African Union and other yet to be defined regional bodies.
So, there it is for the UN. My message to Ban-Ki-Moon would be clear. "Either the UN performs or is disbanded, your choice".
In other areas however, UN processes have been disastrous in terms of its main objectives that being to gain and maintain peace and prosperity for all. Instead, the UN, and the Security Council in particular, has become the mouthpiece for those countries that hold veto rights and in terms of effectiveness, the UN is no longer relevant.
Time therefore, to either make major changes within UN processes or, if that is not possible, the call in the receivers.
Some of the changes that need to be made are vital if the UN is to regain some of its lost credibility and authority would have to be reasonably far-reaching.
"
The veto provisions delay and often diminish peace processes between the various parties that are in dispute.The Security Council should, in my view, also be expanded as to provide a better representative voice instead of the current unrepresentative clique that runs it the moment.
Adopted motions of an expanding, non-veto holding, Security Council should also be binding upon member states.
A good and current example of where things might have been different would have to be the State of Israel. For many decades Israel has engaged in a process of land and property theft and then was surprised when people objected and resisted. Had there been proper non-veto and binding processes within the UN Security Council, Israel would have been where it belongs, behind its pre-1967 borders.
The same non-effective processes have applied in Africa as well as other places throughout the world.
"
International Law must apply to all, and all human rights offenders, including Tony Blair, John Howard, George Bush and Rumsfeld, should stand trial for human rights offences.Another area of reform would have to be in the areas of International Law. It is not much good picking up the world's human rights abusers from the various minor and non-influential countries when major abusing offenders, and I shall name Tony Blair, John Howard, George Bush and a grubby little individual called Rumsfeld, have basically been immune from prosecution. International Law must apply to all, and all human rights offenders, including the four mentioned, should stand trial for human rights offences. No exceptions and no exclusions should be what applies, not the selective farce we have at the moment.
General Assembly motions, as adopted, should also be binding.
Winding up the UN should be a fairy simple process with humanitarian work being taken over by better-run and better equipped independent organisations while security responses could also be handled by organisations such as Euroforce, the African Union and other yet to be defined regional bodies.
So, there it is for the UN. My message to Ban-Ki-Moon would be clear. "Either the UN performs or is disbanded, your choice".
|
Some of our content may be related to gambling.    |