UN Reform
This is a pretty decent article i feel from the Wall Street Journal on John Boltan. Everyone should remember the man that Bush wants to represent the US at the UN. Of course, if memory serves and it usually does, Boltan was made the UN rep in a recess appointment. John Boltan was not allowed an up or down vote on the floor of Congress before they adjouned and Bush made him a recess appointment. Apperently, the democrats' worse fears about him have been unfounded. He is not just going around and pissing everyone off by being an asshole. He is just tough about what needs to be done.
And here we come to the point. What is the purpose of the UN and how should it be run? How you answer this question is centrally important to whatever reforms you want to see out the UN anytime soon. We can look just recently in the news about all the corruption at the UN, ranging from minor stuff like ambassadors of countries getting their luxury cars duty free to skirt $7000 in tariffs (alot to some small developing countries) to the massive corruption in the Oil-for-Food scandel. Not quite a scandel but having Sudan elected to the Commission on Human Rights seems like a bad idea to, well, everyone. There are countless others, just google it and see for yourself. The problem is what do we do about it.
The first of the major problems is accountability. There are essentually 3 powers in the UN. The secretary general, the security council, and the general assembly. Problem is that most of the powers are not divided so one can very much be in the other's kool-aid. You can't point to one person or another for screwups. Also, in the councils, the member are all elected by their member countries. They can't be censored really or anything else. With 2 parties in this country, the RNC or the DNC can stop funding a candidate if they make an ass of themself or start doing stupid shit. Can't do that at the UN so you have member states doing whatever they please with no real way of restraint.
Also a fundamental problem is the idea of whether countries are like people, all created equal with one vote a piece. Is the vote of China the equal of Somalia? The US the equal of Denmark? Russia and Sudan are equal? Seems kinda silly when you put it like that but in the General Assemly thats how it works. The security council is similar but the 5 permanent members can all veto actions. So in essence, they are immune to any negative resolution or decisions because they can block all of them. Kinda the opposite problem. Some would think this balances them out but since almost all decisions can be taken to the Security Council if they need to be, then it creates an enourmously inefficient process that is downright unusable for many things. The general assembly can decide on so many of the day to day things that the major powers stay away from it mostly but if they do decide they can dominate any issue they want. Its almost like the only tool given to most countries is a tiny poke and the 5 permenant members have sledgehammers only. There is no middle ground and everyone has either too little or too much power but never the proper amount.
Funding is the same way. As stated in the article, the US and Japan provide just over 40%. Why is this? Should having more money invested give the US a larger role say in the how the UN works? I mean its accountability, eventually the US wants to feel that its money isn't being wasted at the UN, or else why should we keep funding it?
All the previous are complicated issues with no real correct answer. Opinions abound but we can't just prove one better idea vs another. The issue that gets me most however is how to deal with the problem that some of the countries (or a good deal depending on how you wanna look at it) stand for very different things. A dictator ruled country is treated the same as a representative democracy. This most glaring problem was seen as Sudan was put on the Human Right Commission. If you have seen the news there was, and depending on human rights reports, still is a genocide being waged in Darfur right now in Sudan. One that is not being met with any resistance, only implicit encouragement, by the government. So do we really give a damn about what Sudan thinks about human rights? I can't see that as sound policy. I see it as ridiculous.
John Boltan and the UN
And here we come to the point. What is the purpose of the UN and how should it be run? How you answer this question is centrally important to whatever reforms you want to see out the UN anytime soon. We can look just recently in the news about all the corruption at the UN, ranging from minor stuff like ambassadors of countries getting their luxury cars duty free to skirt $7000 in tariffs (alot to some small developing countries) to the massive corruption in the Oil-for-Food scandel. Not quite a scandel but having Sudan elected to the Commission on Human Rights seems like a bad idea to, well, everyone. There are countless others, just google it and see for yourself. The problem is what do we do about it.
The first of the major problems is accountability. There are essentually 3 powers in the UN. The secretary general, the security council, and the general assembly. Problem is that most of the powers are not divided so one can very much be in the other's kool-aid. You can't point to one person or another for screwups. Also, in the councils, the member are all elected by their member countries. They can't be censored really or anything else. With 2 parties in this country, the RNC or the DNC can stop funding a candidate if they make an ass of themself or start doing stupid shit. Can't do that at the UN so you have member states doing whatever they please with no real way of restraint.
Also a fundamental problem is the idea of whether countries are like people, all created equal with one vote a piece. Is the vote of China the equal of Somalia? The US the equal of Denmark? Russia and Sudan are equal? Seems kinda silly when you put it like that but in the General Assemly thats how it works. The security council is similar but the 5 permanent members can all veto actions. So in essence, they are immune to any negative resolution or decisions because they can block all of them. Kinda the opposite problem. Some would think this balances them out but since almost all decisions can be taken to the Security Council if they need to be, then it creates an enourmously inefficient process that is downright unusable for many things. The general assembly can decide on so many of the day to day things that the major powers stay away from it mostly but if they do decide they can dominate any issue they want. Its almost like the only tool given to most countries is a tiny poke and the 5 permenant members have sledgehammers only. There is no middle ground and everyone has either too little or too much power but never the proper amount.
Funding is the same way. As stated in the article, the US and Japan provide just over 40%. Why is this? Should having more money invested give the US a larger role say in the how the UN works? I mean its accountability, eventually the US wants to feel that its money isn't being wasted at the UN, or else why should we keep funding it?
All the previous are complicated issues with no real correct answer. Opinions abound but we can't just prove one better idea vs another. The issue that gets me most however is how to deal with the problem that some of the countries (or a good deal depending on how you wanna look at it) stand for very different things. A dictator ruled country is treated the same as a representative democracy. This most glaring problem was seen as Sudan was put on the Human Right Commission. If you have seen the news there was, and depending on human rights reports, still is a genocide being waged in Darfur right now in Sudan. One that is not being met with any resistance, only implicit encouragement, by the government. So do we really give a damn about what Sudan thinks about human rights? I can't see that as sound policy. I see it as ridiculous.
John Boltan and the UN
posted by Maddawg at 11/29/2005 12:08:00 PM
2 Comments:
Ok. Well we should probably start by clarifying his name. It's "Bolton." Two "o's."
But I don't really wanna talk about him. Personally, I think the reason he hasn't been the asshole he was in D.C. is that he was a toothless appointment, who didn't have the support of the American people, and the U.N. kinda sees him as the cousin who gets the job because he's related to the boss.
What I REALLY wanted to address was the U.N. I wanted to jump specifically to your second question first, namely the query of whether to equate nation-states as individuals, as in a representative democracy. You think it "seems kinda silly" to equate, say, Russia with Sudan. Or China with Somalia. But meanwhile, you think the Senate is perfectly logical.
Take a look at California and Wyoming. California has 35 million people. Wyoming has just under 500,000. California has like the fifth biggest economy in the WORLD. Wyoming...sells...cows. And yet, they each have 2 Senators represent them. That seems kinda silly, doesn't it Jim? Each Senator from California represents 17.5 million people and, I don't know, a $5 billion economy, while each Senator from Wyoming represents 250,000 people and a $100 economy.
But I'll agree with you. It's time we scrap the U.N. and come up with a legitimate international legislature. If not, we should go back to being isolationist. We're on the fence between wanting to meddle in foreign affairs and not wanting to meddle in foreign affairs. And right now, it looks pretty bad where we choose to meddle and where we choose not to meddle. We'll go to Iraq, which supports the country's oil habit, but we won't touch the humanitarian devastation in Zimbabwe. And that reflects poorly on us as a nation and our government as a government.
The same argument you made about Sudan's input on human rights not being important can be made for Wyoming's input on, say, the right to shoot people. If you live in Wyoming, chances are great that at some point you're going to run into a bear or a wildcat of some sort or some large animal that you will have to defend yourself. The same issue doesn't come up in the, y'know, CIVILIZATION that is spread out through the rest of America. So maybe they shouldn't get as heavy a vote on whether you can carry weapons through dark alley's at night in order to rob somebody.
Um, did you read the article where the Pakistan rep, who highly disagrees with him, says that he finds him to be a good and tough minded ambassador? He is told to be a good diploment that is respected by those that disagree with him. That doesn't chime with your personal opinion.
And i never mention the Senate. Actually, i like the two house system where one is even for each state and one is by population. Its a good system, maybe it should be used in the UN. I actually never took a position on what needs to be done. Just posed some questions.
I won't even bother to get into the "Its all about the Oil" crap yet again. I will however point out that we don't get almost any oil from Iraq. Duh. Its called google. Instant fact check.
Oh i will agree with you on the issue of whether Wyoming should have a say in California. And vice-sersa. Why should California have say if i want to have an assortment of firearms? That should be a state's right issue in my opinion, as many other things that are currently run by the federal government are. Perhaps people can run their own stuff better than other people?
Post a Comment
<< Home