The UN and Reform
Back to political posting I go.
After what appears to have been a fair bit of haggling, the U.N. General Assembly agreed to lift the international body's spending cap - without the promised reforms in governance. It doesn't take a great deal of insight to figure out where the votes lined up:
It also left the U.N.'s biggest financial contributors — the United States and Japan — at odds with the overwhelming majority of the 192 member states which are from the developing world. The poorer countries insist they also want management reform and an efficient U.N. Secretariat, but they object to any measures that would diminish their control over the U.N. budget and management.
Personally, I think the fundamental problem with the U.N. is that it treats every nation the same, be these regimes liberal-democratic, illiberal-theocratic, or any other permutation. In this set up, it's nothing at all for necessary measures to get stymied by anyone and everyone.
The most common retort is "Well, at least nations are talking and not fighting!" But let me press the issue: I don't think it's better. Fighting is a bit more conclusive. All the talking in the world didn't save the Rwandans, the Bosnians, or the Sudanese in Darfur. In fact, our preference for peace-talk may limit the ability of oppressed peoples to defend themselves. Aggressors do not seem to feel similarly constrained.
What sort of international insitutions are needed in the modern world, then? I put it to you! posted by Joshua @ 11:43 PM
1 Comments:
I think the main problem with the UN is what you think to be one of its more nobler elements: the idea that every state has a say.
It seems to me such a set-up neglects the international situation as it is in imagining some ideal situation in which every country should be treated equally. This leads to a dangerous lack of consequence for the villainous decisions of horrible regimes, who know their basic existence is guaranteed by membership. If Mugabe said tomorrow "I plan to kill half my country... just 'coz," what would the result be? He would be allowed to kill half his country while the UN wrings its hands and hold ridiculous votes.
I much prefer NATO-like organizations, which have a distinctive membership threshold (as well as flexible membership) and a clear purpose. I would create some sort of League of Democratic Nations, with a NATO-like charter of common defense. My first members: the U.S., the U.K., Canada, Australia, Japan, and India.
Post a Comment
<< Home