Canada boycotts UN Disamament Conference

[CaptainCrunch]

Good for Canada to stand up to North Korea being made chair of this conference. Between that and Libya being named head of a major human rights committee, and the slap in the face to Canada over the Secuity council posting does the UN actually have any credibility left?

Or is it time to save the money that we give the UN every year and just let it die?

I would be fine if the UN organized humanitarian efforts, but as far as bringing any value to peace enforcement, disarmament and protection of the weak and downtrodden, its become a long running and rather corrupt body.

[mykalberta]

I dont think letting it die is appropriate but what the Cons are doing now I agree with, start directly funding your own projects without UN direction or oversight.

Canada not getting a council seat had nothing to do with anything other than UAE flight rights, the fact that the EU now has 4 seats is ridiculous.

[Daradon]

I've always thought UN seats (or at least committee appointments and council seats) should be earned and not just revolved around members. The point about Libya is right on the nose, how can they head a human rights committee?

I know we need to keep our minds open, and look at values and definitions through other cultures eyes, but seriously, there are some things that are just obviously wrong when it comes to important issues like that. I mean, let's put China or Saudi Arabia as head of womens rights while we're at it.

I do think the UN is important though, because it's the best thing we got. As corrupt and non sensical as it can be, I think it still prevents a lot of unrest and war. It also helps out somewhat when it comes to disaster and famine help, etc.

It's not great, I'm not sure it's even 'good'. But it's better than nothing.

[Resolute 14]

The UN is a failed body. The idea of the UN has merit, however. Perhaps the best thing to do is let it die, and try again.

[blankall]

The UN is a joke. It's essentially just become a mouthpiece for middle eastern dictators. It's not about justice anymore; it's about getting as many friends as you can togehter to influence the vote. Various powers have established voting blocks that make any kind of vote meaningless.

However, I do think the UN plays an important role in at least providing people with a venue to discuss. Basically, I think we should keep the UN around but shouldn't listen to it all that much.

[FlamesAddiction]

I doubt the UN can ever be what people in the western world want it to be. The fact is, most of the world is not free or democratic. Most of the world does not have the same standards of human rights or relatively peaceful borders.

If the idea of the UN is to have a forum where every country can express their views and concerns based on their own values and priorities, then you can't really discriminate. It's pretty clear that the UN is more of a power struggle with different powerful countries and bloqs trying to promote their own agenda. It's not just China, Russia and ME countries that do this. The U.S., Britain, France, and Canada all use the UN for selfish purposes when it suits our needs.

NATO is more or less becoming what people want the UN to be. A multi-national members only forum. It's not that I don't like the UN, but I don't think we need to be as active in as we are. It was imporant 50 years ago, but now I think it should only meet in dire situations.

[CaptainCrunch]

I have several really huge problems with the UN.

1) I agree that the UN has become a public forum for radical states. For example I do have a lot of problems with the slanted approach to the middle eastern peace issues. In order for a peace process to work the UN has to take both sides of the debate seriously. The UN should also be pushing as a tent leg of any process that Hammas be removed from power.

2) The concept of Peace Keeping is dead, its died a slow death since the 1970's. The slaughter of innocents while the UN basically stood by and did little to nothing is a disgrace. More study has to be given to the UN's fole in conflicts, because the current concept has to be based around the concept of peace enforcement. In otherwords, if the UN comes in to make the peace and you try to break it, your going to get bloodied. Peace cannot come until both sides are convinced that war is not profitable.

3) the use of poorly trained 3rd world soldiers who are at times more of a menace then the warring factions. The lack of a proper command structure.

4) the inability to move beyond debate to strongly built mandates and rules of engagement. Enough messing around with these third world despots who are trying to build generational weapons systems (ie Nuclear) the majority of UN nations have a strong airforce, they should be using it.

5) Corruption, especially around food and wealth distribution, enough said.

6) allowing countries political agenda's dictate UN policy, its time for the security council veto's to vanish. Its time to stop tin pot dictators from gaining seats on key committees.

7) If you're not with us your against us. Force all nations to sign a basic understanding of UN standards for their countries, if you can't sign it or can't live up to it your reduced to observer status in the UN.

[GirlySports]

I like the UN when it does humanitarian stuff like WHO, WFP and UNICEF. It would be sad to lose those. But I don't like that it's too political and nations abuse their power while there.

[blankall]

Anyone notice this:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/06...sm-conference/

An anti-terrorism conference led by Iran....that actually encourages terrorist attacks against Western targets.

Citing the “wicked policy” of the United States and Britain, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Iranian Supreme Leader, opened the conference with an apparent call for terror attacks on those countries as he said in a statement it was “a duty for all Muslims to confront and fight this inauspicious offspring.”
He was followed by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President, who claimed Washington manufactured the Holocaust and the 9/11 attacks as pretexts to put down Muslims and to benefit economically from the resulting panic.

[Daradon]

^^^ Oh god, maybe we should just blow up the UN after all... That's just insane... :/

In reality, it's such a tough subject. It definitely needs new rules. I don't know if you can do that without starting over. Would be tough. Maybe you guys are right. Just start over.

I think you'd need to go past the leaders and have some sort of global movement that demanded it.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by blankall

Anyone notice this:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/06...sm-conference/

An anti-terrorism conference led by Iran....that actually encourages terrorist attacks against Western targets.

Honestly Aberjnutbar should have been arrested the moment that he stepped into the UN for crimes against his people, but at the end of the day, the UN is really a ball less organization.

I remember when I did my peace keeping tour my thought every day was that if something ever happened, I'd get killed because the UN closed at 5:00 so any decisions that concern my well being would have to wait until 9 the next morning.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Honestly Aberjnutbar should have been arrested the moment that he stepped into the UN for crimes against his people, but at the end of the day, the UN is really a ball less organization.

I remember when I did my peace keeping tour my thought every day was that if something ever happened, I'd get killed because the UN closed at 5:00 so any decisions that concern my well being would have to wait until 9 the next morning.

It is truly a colossal waste of money and time. Period.

[SebC]

Canada should just split into 193 countries, and rule the world!

[Lil Pedro]

How is North Korea chair of a "conference on disarmament" when the state has had the gaul to leave the Non-Proliferation Treaty numerous times, openly test nuclear weapons and threaten nations within its realm with nuclear weapons? Mind blowing
The United Nations is a laughable world organization that has no means at promoting world peace and cooperation

[mikey_the_redneck]

The U.N. is a disgusting organization, ...and deserves to be considered a joke.

From Codex Alimentarius to Agenda 21 to their human trafficking scandals to their experimantal vaccine programs, ...enough is enough. And you know they won't recognize Palistine when that vote comes up later this summer.

Their goal is to establish a form of global taxation, and to dis-arm all citizens and nations of the world. Red flag!

Let nations set their own standards and keep their sovereignty.

[Yeah_Baby]

Is the problem the UN, is an international systems that puts way too much power in the hands of states. The UN is essentially a paper tiger an international system that values national sovereignty over all else, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

[CaptainCrunch]

You're never ever going to get away from the power of the state because frankly if you gave the UN universal power then you can bet that things will get worse because the UN is a weak organization that would quickly be over run by voting blocks run by dictators and monstrous rogue states.

The problem with the UN is a lack of strong leadership and the ability to back up its mandates.

If you want peace anywhere in the world then you should back it up with guns, tanks, artillary and air and sea power, not a bunch of guys in jeeps with rifles praying to god that they're not going to get shot.

You want to define a peace in the middle east? fine, then you split up Israel from Palestine and you put 2 tank divisions between the countries, and you warn the Palestinians that if a rocket launches towards Israel you'll destroy the city block that the rocket launched from, and you tell Israel if they launch an air strike the airstrip will be destroyed.

Think of what would have happened in Rwanda if the UN would have used rapid response armor and AC 130 gunships. There would have been no genocide.

Peace Keeping is a concept that needs to be defined as an early 21st century failure and then redefined with a tougher mandate. If you're the leader in charge of a rampaging army committing acts of genocide or worse, then say hello to either a bomb coming through your bed room winder or hello to the muzzle of a rifle carried by a JTF-2 or Army Ranger or Seal attached to a UN special forces group.

But in its current state, with its current leadership, the UN is rapidly approaching the same fate as the league of nations, a well meaning failure.


The idea of a global diplomatic body with the goal of peaceful resolution is laudable, but it utterly fails if you don't have the strength to enforce your vision.

[Lil Pedro]

Problems with the UN:
1) all decisions go through the permanent member states, and their veto power
2) all decisions made in the UN are not binding due to Article 2.7 of the UN Charter
3) the GA essentially has no power, yet it represents all member states
4) the non-permament members in the security council reflect regions, which is good, yet some regions are vastly over-represented (e.g. Europe), while other regions are vastly under-represented (e.g. Canada)
/rant

[CaptainCrunch]

I always thought it was a complete crime that France got a veto vote in the UN when they essentially didn't earn it in WW2. Yet Canada who was one of the founding members, played a key role in Europe in WW2 and was one of the largest supporters in the UN, and we're a also member without a permanent security council seat.

I still can't believe that they actually let Aberjlunatic speak at a UN conference instead of arresting him and putting him in front of the international courts.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

You're never ever going to get away from the power of the state because frankly if you gave the UN universal power then you can bet that things will get worse because the UN is a weak organization that would quickly be over run by voting blocks run by dictators and monstrous rogue states.

But if the UN had all the power, there wouldn't be any states. It would have to be elected directly.

I have no idea what that orgnanization would look like, but I suspect it would be a better system than "one sovereign state, one vote". In fact, as I sort of alluded to, the current system artificially promotes independence movements, which I'm not sure is a good thing. In a way, this notion of the nation-state takes us away from models which promote coexistence. I'd rather see the triumph of a form of liberalism where minority rights are protected by constitutions put in place by the majority, than to see the minorities leave, only to become the new oppresive majorities, and so on and so forth, which is what the "one state, one vote" system promotes.