UN reform

I see this in searching thought I would pass it on for debate.


Gingrich promises major U.N. reform <HR style="COLOR: #000066" align=left width="50%">
Big News Network.com Sunday 20th February, 2005 (UPI)

Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich Saturday promised to lead the charge for major reforms in the organization and conduct of the United Nations.

Gingrich, with former U.S. Senate Democrat Leader George Mitchell, the co-chairman of a task force on U.N. reform, set out a vision for reform before delegates to the annual Conservative Political Action Conference.

"I intend to bring into the room with me one simple premise," Gingrich said. "Any organization that permits Sudan to join its human rights commission while investigating genocide in that country is in need of profound and fundamental reform."

"And," Gingrich added, "it is up to the United States to ensure these reforms are considered and enacted because other members of the U.N. security council cannot be counted on to carry the burden. Oil matters more to France and China than human rights in Darfour, the region of Sudan where the genocide has occurred. They want to get oil more than they want to see human rights and we in the United States need to say that loudly and publicly all around the world."

US, UN, France, China, Sudan, genocide, oil.

The rest is spin.

US, UN, France, China, Sudan, genocide, oil.

The rest is spin.Can you elaborate.

TS out

"Any organization that permits Sudan to join its human rights commission while investigating genocide in that country is in need of profound and fundamental reform."

Spin. Doesn't it make sense to involve the people concerned in the process? People who understand the intricacies of the situation intimately might be the ones best equipped to provide a lasting solution.

"And," Gingrich added, "it is up to the United States to ensure these reforms are considered and enacted because other members of the U.N. security council cannot be counted on to carry the burden."
Stated like a fact when it is only an opinion. Spin.

Oil matters more to France and China than human rights in Darfour, the region of Sudan where the genocide has occurred. They want to get oil more than they want to see human rights and we in the United States need to say that loudly and publicly all around the world."

Where do you even start with that one. Spin.

Ok, the Un no doubtedly needs reform, even they have admitted this and allowed several commisions over the past 5 years study and propose changes.

First off though, Gingrich is an idiot. How can the US carry the burden of creating reform in an international institution. Sure we can propose and support our ideas but we cannot single-handedly change this organization.

Also, he seems to hold the US in a rather high light with regards to human rights. Afterall, we of course intervened in Rwanda, we have no alliance with Pakistan who happens to be equally guilty of human rights violations as Saddam was, and we most certainly did not take more than 6 months to even publicly admit that "acts of genocide" occured in Sudan. So yeah, forget the rhetoric on China and France, we (US) have our hand just as far in this mess as they do.

As for how to reform this institution? Good question. I'll try to find the article I read on this but if you google UN reform I'm sure you'll come across the proposals of some of the commisions. Anyways, in my opinion, the UN needs a standing peace keeping force, kind of like the newly formed pan African militia (not sure fo its exact name sorry). To boot, it needs to set up a larger security council where no one nation can just veto a proposal. Fact is, every country has some stake in one smaller country or another, and so long as a major power can say no to intervention, intervention will not happen.

Furthermore, the international court needs to help set international law through precedence. Deterence from human rights violation can come from either one nation threatening another (West vs. whatever African nation or Mid Eastern, or wherever, pick your posion) or from an international understanding that knows no exception. Of course this does mean that the UN needs a more reliable military arm at first to ensure that the decisions of the court are enforced.

Anyways, that's all for now, if this discussion takes off I'll share more. Just bear in mind these ideas are not very refined, and I really don't know what is trully best for the UN considering my study of it is limited.

"I intend to bring into the room with me one simple premise," Gingrich said. "Any organization that permits Sudan to join its human rights commission while investigating genocide in that country is in need of profound and fundamental reform."



Any politician that cries about the failings of the UN while ignoring the failings of his own nation deserves to be laughed off the podium.

Fuck off Newt you idiot.Come back when your country is brave enough to support protocols that help the world before they help your business cronies.The UN is a long way from perfect, but at least it doesn't use D.U. for pleasure and profit.

Any politician that cries about the failings of the UN while ignoring the failings of his own nation deserves to be laughed off the podium.

Makes me wonder why we don't hear that when Kofi levels critisism....

Could have something to do with the fact that when he levels criticism, it's not for things that he is doing himself.

Example - "The War in Iraq is illegal" .Not only is he stating fact rather than opinion,he's not actually waging an illegal war elswhere while criticising the U.S.

I forgot. The UN can do no wrong.

I forgot. The UN can do no wrong.
Well, here's the thing, when the US acts on foregin plicy it acts in a unified manner because we are the United States, we are a unified nation under a constitution. So it's not surprising that the UN should make mistakes on the account of having over 100 countries going different directions. Until the UN becomes further unified, this is a fruitless argument. You simply can't compare the UN to any other nation.