Wednesday, 25 July 2007

The United Nations' principles to ruin the world

I am beyond being shocked by the United Nations' support for, and enablement of, international terrorism, dictatorial regimes, Third World corruption and human rights abuses while at the same time propounding the views outlined in its Global Compact.

The Global Compact's ten principles in the areas of human rights, labour, the environment and anti-corruption enjoy universal consensus and are derived from:
  • The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
  • The International Labour Organization's Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work
  • The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development
  • The United Nations Convention Against Corruption
The Global Compact asks companies to embrace, support and enact, within their sphere of influence, a set of core values in the areas of human rights, labour standards, the environment, and anti-corruption:

Human Rights
  • Principle 1: Businesses should support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights; and
  • Principle 2: make sure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses.
Straight off the bat, the UN demonstrates that it is profoundly anti-business. The left can't see anything in other than a political context and therefore it can't understand that business is, and must be, both apolitical and amoral. It is simply not the job of business to support human rights; it already has the two most morally important tasks that exist - the employment of people and generation of profits in order to deliver tax revenue to the state. It is up to individual governments to ensure that human rights abuses do not occur in their countries.

At this point the educated know-nothings posing as the left's elite will bleat on about sweat shops and the like without admitting that workers in Third World sweatshops earned more than the average salary in their countries. When pressure came to bear on companies like Nike jobs were lost (from South America to China) and former workers were left with no income and no prospects. This is a clear example of what happens when the rubber of what appears to be a morally correct, compassionate position actually hits the road.

The greatest human rights abuses occur every day in Sudan, Somalia, Iran, North Korea, China, Cuba and, increasingly, Venezuela and other nascent South American dictatorships. None of these abuses, in which millions of people have been killed, tortured or imprisoned in the few years since the beginning of the new millennium have had anything to do with business. They are all down to corrupt regimes, religious intolerance and the predictable outcome of socialist policies.

How can business make an impact on the human rights abuses of Darfur? The violence of expansionist Islam? The gulag known as North Korea?

It can't. Obviously.

Labour Standards
  • Principle 3: Businesses should uphold the freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining;
  • Principle 4: the elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labour;
  • Principle 5: the effective abolition of child labour; and
  • Principle 6: the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.
These standards show how corrupted the UN has become in our lifetime by socialist doctrine. Twenty or thirty years ago it would have couched these policies in language that hid their true, socialist roots. Collective bargaining costs jobs. Simple as that. It costs tax revenue. It costs economic prosperity. The last thing business should be doing, if it is upholding its moral responsibility to employ people and generate profits, is supporting collective bargaining.

Cuba, North Korea, China etc etc all have forced and compulsory labour regimes yet the United Nations does nothing to deal with them. Furthermore, it propounds eliminating compulsory labour while at the same time advocating for business to compulsorily negotiate with labour organisations.

The issue of child labour is probably only in the list to pull at people's heart strings, as it has been pretty effectively dealt with over the last couple of decades. Not to say it doesn't go on at all, it does, but it's hardly an endemic problem.

The UN and its supporters puts themselves in an awkward position when they attack Western Countries (and particularly the US) for having discriminatory employment regimes. The fact is that if a person is hired as a public servant, for example, then it doesn't matter whether they're black, white, yellow, Christian, Muslim, Jew, gay, straight, tall, short, thin, fat or think that Al Gore really cares for the environment - they are all paid exactly the same amount. The same goes for the left's supposed bogeyman - big business - if you're employed in a bank or a stockbroker or at Hewlett-Packard or at General Motors then you're getting paid pretty much exactly the same regardless of your particular group. Is that how it works in the Middle East (Israel excepted)? In Africa? In South America?

Environment
  • Principle 7: Businesses should support a precautionary approach to environmental challenges;
  • Principle 8: undertake initiatives to promote greater environmental responsibility; and
  • Principle 9: encourage the development and diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies
The 'precautionary principal' emanated from the environment movement and has as its fundamental position that unless a company can guarantee no harm will come from its products then they should not be allowed on the market. Of course, using this logic we wouldn't have penicillin or antibiotics or antiseptics or a vast array of drugs and chemicals that have saved millions of lives while at the same time having adverse affects on a tiny percentage of the population. Also using this logic we shouldn't drive, swim in the ocean, use herbal remedies or even exercise given the potential for fatal consequences. When an aeroplane crashes it's a tragedy for those on board but the lessons learned save the lives of countless future travellers. We learn from our mistakes not by trying to avoid those we can only imagine.

When the Soviet Empire collapsed, as I've pointed out before, the scale of environmental catastrophe shocked even the regime's most ardent critics. Free markets and private ownership have proven to be the most effective at protecting the environment because people have a financial incentive to ensure an ongoing supply of trees, for example, as distinct from the destruction of forests that takes place when governments pander to environmentalists and don't do enough clearing to ensure fires don't wreak massive damage, as happened in Canberra a few years ago.

What product is not more environmentally friendly now than twenty or thirty years ago? Cars certainly are. In order to match the massive fuel consumption of your average 1970 V8 you need to buy a dirty, great Hummer. Today's V8s are more efficient - and thus better for the environment - than most four cylinder cars were back then. This didn't happen through business consciously seeking to create more environmentally friendly cars but by competition to deliver cheaper to run products. Markets create efficiency, including environmental efficiency given a few decades to sort themselves out.

Anti-Corruption
  • Principle 10: Businesses should work against corruption in all its forms, including extortion and bribery.
There is no more corrupt major institution than the United Nations, of which the Oil For Food scandal was just one example. If it's going to lecture on corruption, extortion and bribery then it really needs to get its own house in order first. It turns a blind eye to rapes committed by its peacekeepers, actively supports the North Korean regime by giving it money allocated for aid and ensures a spotlight is not cast on people like Robert Mugabe for the destruction he has wrought to Zimbabwe. It is not for no reason that the United Nations was #1 in my 10 Institutions That Ruin The World list.

The major activities of the UN seem to be hand wringing while being 'concerned', 'deeply concerned' and 'gravely concerned'.

This list of ten principles, if enforced, would immiserise more people by undoing the positive effects of globalisation while at the same time negatively impacting the environment.

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

Using your own words: “I am – also -- beyond being shocked” of how little and stupid is the mind of some people, arriving to so extreme limits of writing “things” like your “comments” …

First of all, “corruption” -- as many other tares -- was not originated in the Third World. They were “imported”. “Imposed” to be more exact.

Since “discovering” and/or “colonization” times, most of that tares where typical “rules” of the “discoverers” and/or “colonizators” … right ? The ones which did not accept them, were – simply -- “eliminated”, “disappeared” , … etc. (I mean: tortures, killed,… etc.); using the long “experience” and all unimaginable “methods” the “discoverers” and/or “colonizators” had in these domains. .. doesn’t it ?

As of today, all this, it is still valid, … correct ? … and … in all “areas” (human rights, labour standards, environment protection, anti-corruption, …) … true ?

In conclusion, by now, terrorism and dictatorial regimes, are only simple, effective and efficient consequence of that “rules”. And, ONLY for all these reasons, any action to avoid that “rules” may, should, must be fully encouraged. In the current and/or so terrible “world (or “humanity”) situation”, if an international organization, like the United Nations, is not able to do it, who – in your “opinion” – will be able ?

Moreover, for many “First” and “Second” World’s geo-politicians, all this, is the “normal” consequence of that “rules”.

“Who” you think are the real “profiteers” ? … of what really happened with the so famous “Oil for Food” Program and related … funds ? I am sure, you will be completely surprised to know “who” really are the ones who really profit all that “corruption”, “extortion”, “bribery”, … etc.

“Who” you think are “ruling” the United Nations ? … the Third World Countries ? …

“What” it is the real power – and use -- of the “veto” ? …

Please, read a little bit about, before proposing so stupid principles and/or lists …

Now, about all the current “corruption”, “incompetence”, “favouritism”, “nepotism”, … in United Nations, it is another – and completely different – story, specially in peace keeping activities. We should do whatever necessary to avoid, all of them.

Having all this well in mind, please think twice, before writing so stupid and so clearly oriented, 'concerned', 'deeply concerned' and 'gravely concerned' comments …

Oscar.

KG said...

Oscar, before you begin calling people "stupid" I suggest you: 1) learn something about the subject and 2) learn some basic English comprehension and composition skills.
That's the most incomprehensible collection of garbage I've seen all week and that's putting it politely.

Anonymous said...

Polite “somebody” (kg),

It is always the same "thing"; especially with people like you.
I supposed, I was discussing about "politics", but you are writing about "grammar", "composition", "comprehension", ... ?!?
It is completely useless to continue ... with people like you.
… “as usual”, the typical excuses … to avoid the truth …

Oscar.

KG said...

"It is completely useless to continue ... with people like you."
You bet it is. Because people like me can't be bothered wading through incomprehensible shite in order to decipher what turned out after all to be yet another brainless lefty rant.
And anybody who can defend an organisation that has repeatedly sat on it's hands and watched genocides happen without intervening is in any case a moral pygmy.
I don't know what universe you inhabit, but out here in the real world, if we're hoping to debate something we at least try to express our point of view with some clarity.
You fail. Too bad.

Darren said...

I see sporadic words thrown in there amongst the quote marks, dashes, and ellipses, but were there any thoughts in there? Any at all?

Anonymous said...

... First "politics" ... then "grammar” ... and now … "psycho-analysis". Poor guys, this in ONLY what your developed intellects are able to simply say you do not agree ?
… “Who understands ill, answers ill” … does not it ?

Unfortunately, I was completely wrong. I always though and was sure that “… a word to the wise is more than sufficient …”, but … By now, I am pretty sure, to do not keeping in mind this good proverb, it will carry out funny grammatical lessons and/or useless psychological sessions …

“kg”: I have the impression you are “british” Maybe I am wrong, but in case I am right, I am sure that a little bit of the North Ireland History will help to clarify your ‘ideas” and/or “concepts”. Moreover, like this, I could give you many, many examples.
By the way, what you were doing in Africa and South East Asia ? … I was also by those regions, and I saw very clearly all the tares that the “british colonialism” left there … It is certain, it left also good things, but …

Answering one of your “so banal” questions: “how do you think these sorts of disputes were handled before the United Nations and the League of Nations ? ... With weapons, as it was very usual, with your ancestors …
If you thing that the rule of “one country, one vote” is real, it shows how little you know about international organizations. Please, revise your literature. You want another simple example ? Read about the actual “situation” -- with the mentioned rule -- in the European Union. I suppose, more closed to you, but following your “ideas”, it is very easy to understand you are not a “European”, … true ?).
You remind me Alexander Pope saying “…some people will never learn anything, because they understand everything too soon …”.
“Portuguese”, grammar teacher. Also, very typical in people like you.

“… The ones who always want the last word, ends up talking to themselves …” .

Do you want an example of UN Peace Keeping successes ? Cyprus ! I hope, you will keep your words …
In the other hand, as a mentioned before, I fully agree with all the corruption, incompetence, favouritism, nepotism, …in UN Peace Keeping. We should help UN, to be ready of all that.

I fully agree with Annan, Boutros, … and many other ones. But … please ! do not “forget” about other ones, like your “ … ?” Mallock Brown, and/or Wolfowitz, and/or … I am sure, the list is much, much longer …

To finish, I am very glad to disappoint you, but ... I am not a "leftist", at all …

In reality, people like you are the ones who really are ruining the World.
If you “think” the UN is “managed” by the Third World, you are really nuts !

Oscar.

PS. I always use a “proof-reader”, but … a “british” one … Maybe it is already time to look for another one, like an “Australian” one, or an … By the way, you should do the same.

Anonymous said...

... if you would like to know a little bit more about the real "qualities" of this so bizarre "writer", please refer to the comments in another of his boring, dreary, empty and so oriented "articles": Typical lefty leaves typical lefty comment.

gary said...

Here's an idea...let's reform the UN such that the organization embraces the concept of democracy...

www.UnitedDemocraticNations.org

It's counterproductive to allow dictators to manipulate global policy.

gary

Anonymous said...

It is not a little bit naive to believe that countries like Cuba, Korea, Egypt, … are “dominating”, “managing”, “supervising”, “controlling”, “overseeing”, “administrating”, … and/or whatever of the kind ? The same for dictators manipulating global policy

The role of China, as a permanent member of the Security Council, is different, but in all cases less active, compared with the roles been played by USA, Russia, UK and France.

Having this very well in mind, I am sure that it will be not difficult at all, to understand, from where the real problems are coming. Why to be blind and/or try -- again and again -- to reinvent the wheel ?

The Humanity needs this kind of fora, where to discuss about its problems. If not, …

A simple example: Some people was able to bring the World (only in 40 years: 1914-18 and 1939-45), to two terrible World Wars. Since 1945, when the UN started its work, and despite of a new generation of geo-politico-economic-strategic wars, mainly as consequences of the interests of the dominating powers, we did not suffered another World War. This is more than sufficient to justify and support the role of the United Nations Organization.

Now, what is real, is the incredible amount of “corruption”, “incompetence”, “favouritism”, “nepotism”, … etc, etc, currently in the UN. We should do everything possible to eliminate all of them, as much as possible. They are the real tares that are making the work of UN, ineffective and inefficient.

It is very good to realise that some people are working very hard to make the famous reform, a reality. However, unfortunately, it is very bad to realise that some people are doing whatever possible to impeach it.

Democracy has nothing to do with the real role of UN, World Peace, yes.

Democracy is not something that must be “imposed” to the People.

Oscar.

gary said...

Oscar,

You said: "Democracy has nothing to do with the real role of UN, World Peace, yes."

The UN is most definitely about human rights. And democracy and human rights go hand in hand. Find the places in the world where human rights are most abused and you will have found places that are not democratic.

gary

Anonymous said...

Yes, right, but the fact is that the term “democracy”, as well as "human rights", has so many, so many interpretations, in our loved World.

This is the main reason why I think that "democracy" and "human rights" are not parallel. They should be, but they are not. Unfortunately !

Today -- and always -- you will find people, in "democratic" countries, claiming that "human rights" are not respected; and ... the opposite ...

It is real “democracy”, a country that has -- still today ! – a king, a queen, a prince, a … and/or something of the kind ? …
It is real “democracy”, a country, having constitutions prepared on … “kingdom” days ? …
It is real “democracy”, a country having what is going on in “Guantanamo” ?
It is real ‘democracy”, a country having what is going on in “Chechnya” ?
It is real “democracy”, a country feloniously stealing, pilfering, … – still today ! – Africa, Asian, Latin-American Populations ?
… and the list is long, very long.

All that countries have what we usually call “free elections”, but …

How we should call the “democracies” that generate, maintain, support and improve “human rights” abuses, based only in their own economic and political strategies ? …

These, and many other, is why Humanity, needs organizations like the United Nations. Having well in mind that we should do whatever possible to eradicate all the current corruption, incompetence, favouritism, nepotism, … If not …

Oscar.

gary said...

Oscar,

You pointed out serveral undemocratic actions of relatively democratic countries. I agree with ALL your observations. But that doesn't disprove the advantages of striving for INCREASED democracy, both in indivudual countries AND at the UN. The point is that, while no country is a perfect democracy, the MORE democratic, the better the human rights.

Oscar, let's use a concrete example...China. Allow me to ask you a few questions:

1) Would you agree that China is a dictatorship?

2) Would you agree that China is very un-democratic?

3) Would you agree that China has a poor record on human rights?

4) Would you agree that the man behind the 'CHINA' nameplate at the UN does NOT factually represent the Chinese people?

I look forward to your reply...

gary
www.UnitedDemocraticNations.org

Anonymous said...

Gary,

I agree with you, but having always in mind that the word “democracy” has many, many “oriented” interpretations, especially today.

What you mentioned in your first paragraph, are ones of the reasons why I did not mentioned China (by the way, I was there recently) in my last message, despite of Tiananmen, Tibet, …. Other reasons are the related comments I made in previous ones.

Yes, I agree that China is a dictatorship regime (… the very well know and the so a famous consequences, of the “party unique”). Yes, I agree that is an un-democratic regime (you are hard when you qualified it of “very un-democratic”, knowing well what is really going on in some called democratic regimes …). Yes, I agree that has a poor record on Human Rights.

Nevertheless, one parameter we should not forget is the one that China, -- as India, Brazil, Congo, ... -- is not a country, is a whole continent ! Together with all the problems related to govern it.

For your fourth question, I have the impression you really do not know the United Nations and how it works. Of the near 200 Member States, I can easily say that the half of the “representants”, do not "represent" (… at all !) their people. Because of the so well known corruption, incompetence, favouritism, nepotism, … etc. most of these “representants” (a majority of them, coming from the so called democratic” countries), are nominated only because of friendship, family, political, … etc. relations. Moreover, when I said only the half, I am very optimist.

There is one “question” that is etching me since already long, long, time: Why the two Germany (West and East) were “allowed” to have -- each one -- a “representant” in the United Nations ? And, why it is not possible to do the same with China and Taiwan ? Amazing, does not it. These are the kinds of things I called “oriented”. “UK” is another case … Who has the veto ? England or Ireland ?

When you realise that, in United Nations, countries like China (despite of its veto, in the Security Council) has the same “value” that things like Liechtenstein: “one country – one vote”; it is very difficult to realize that that is not democratic

You will better realize it, when you will know what it is now happening, in the European Union, with a similar issue.

Buy the way, is it “democracy” when we discover that “police officers” in the London metro cowardly killed a poor Brazilian ? And, that the second-in-rang … in the Scotland Yard !! did whatever possible to hide the truth ?

Is it “democracy” when we discover, long time after, that an US GI Hero (somebody who left everything to serve his country: Pat Tillman) was in reality killed by his own compatriots ? And, a 3-Stars General !! did whatever possible to hide the truth ?

What do you think about what was really going between Libya and France, for the “release” of the Bulgarian Nurses and the Palestinian Physician ? It is disgusting, does not it ? … Is it that “democracy” ?

What do you think about what it is really going between Russia and UK, related to Litvinenko (a former KGB Officer, refugee and … killed !! in Britain, using … atomic resources !!!) ? It is also disgusting, does not it ? … Is it that “democracy” ?

I am sure, you -- that I have the impression, you do not like United Nations only because of “what” they are doing, or maybe only because of “what” they are not doing – will not be very surprised to know that a former “representant” (in UNDP) -- with a very, very bad reputation (… just in what you are complaining: North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, …) -- of a so called democratic country (England and its …” queen”); is now a member of its government .



I am not trying to say that “democracy” must be perfect, but the list is very, very long …

Other kinds of words I am always worry about: “…relatively democratic countries …”. What do you mean with … “relatively” ?!?

Oscar.

gary said...

Oscar, I have a hard time following your logic as I suspect English is not your first language, but I will try to respond.

First, abuses of democracy do not disprove the fact that democratic rule is the best form of government. My favorite quote on the subject...

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. -- Winston Churchill

You said:
For your fourth question, I have the impression you really do not know the United Nations and how it works. Of the near 200 Member States, I can easily say that the half of the 'representants', do not "represent" ( at all !) their people.

This is an incorrect assumption on your part. I never claimed that most current members were legitimate representatives of their countries. You still didn't answer my last question:

4) Would you agree that the man behind the 'CHINA' nameplate at the UN does NOT factually represent the Chinese people?

Finally, you asked what I mean by 'relatively' democratic countries. By this I mean countries:

- where the people vote for their leaders
- where people are allowed freedom of speech
- where freedom of press exists

And that's just a start. I hope that answers your question. And by the way, China satisfies NONE of the above criteria.

gary

Anonymous said...

Gary,

… to be short, because it seems that my English … :

China is – obviously – included in the … “assumption of my part”.

Please, give me only one country that fully complains with your “starting” parameters to qualify a country of been “democratic” or not.

“Relatively” -- in my humble English – is something “allusive”, related to phrases like “as much as”, “as far as”. Something containing – not an assumption – but an allusion. Something not been fully expressed. To be short: A simple “metaphor”. Am I right ?

gary said...

Oscar, I can name dozens of countries that would probably qualify. France would qualify. England and the US would qualify. Italy would qualify. Denmark would qualify. While we could spend all day pointing out crimes and un-democratic actions on the part of these countries, they are still sufficiently democratic to qualify. People vote in these countries (often untelligently to be sure). The newspapers report news in these countries without being shut down. And people say whatever they want - free speech.

It's very important to understand that the UND would not be a group of perfect democracies, but rather a group of nations that cross the threshhold. Democracy cannot be precicely defined in practice, but is instead a sliding scale. It would be like judging how healthy the various vegetables are in my garden. I have lots of tomatoes, cucumbers, squash and cantelope. All are fairly healthy...no pesticides, lots of vitamins. But they are not all exactly the same degree of healthy...it is a sliding scale.

Is it difficult to create a sliding scale for democracy? Yes, very much so. But what choice do we have? If we allow the dictators who rule China and North Korea to dictate global policy on human rights, we will NEVER have human rights. Most will agree...what we have currently with the United Nations is NOT working. Too many dictators, too many human rights abuses, too many wars, too many starving people. So clearly change is needed.

One more point. You like to point out undemocratic activities of countries that I have called democratic. I completey agree with you! Just the other day president Bush decided to give billions of dollars worth of weapons to several dictatorships. This is a VERY bad idea. It works AGAINST democratic reform. If the UN was more effective, the members would point this out. A more democratic United Nations would help push it's members into being more democratic and away from bad foreign policy decisions. So don't look at criminal activities as a reason why the UDN wouldn't work, but rather as an argument why we NEED the UDN.

You have made a lot of excellent points. I hope I have made the UDN concept more clear and addressed your points.

gary
www.UnitedDemocraticNations.org

Anonymous said...

Gary,

Fine ! … but why trying to reinvent the wheel, again and again, ... repeatedly, ... UN is already there, and we should do whatever possible to make it better. The “organization” is OK, the “real problem” is “some” people. That is the reality. All the rest is utopia and/or … oriented.

You remind me a very funny situation: Some time ago, I was in Paris to attend some meetings related to climate change. I was surprised to realize that, only inside the UN System, there are more of 35 organizations and/or agencies, dealing with … the same issue: “Climate Change” !! Is very sad to realize that most of those entities are created, founded, initiated, originated, … etc. etc. only “to get money” !!!

Related to UN and some powers’ “bad foreign policy decisions”. Of course that there are many "member states" complaining about, but they are only "small ones,” and nobody – especially the media – are listening to them …: “…

By the way, do you know how much is the US part in the UN Budget ? Only this parameter is going against the original, genuine, honest, sincere, straight, frank, open, … real and truthful meaning of the word “democracy” (for already … two millenniums !!).

Now, related to the “democratic” countries you mentioned at the beginning: They are not “bad foreign policy decisions” what is really happening now, between France and Libya ? (… do you know that a magazine’s reporter was fired only because they published a photo showing Sarkozy’s wife kissing a lover ?) … They are not “bad foreign policy decisions” what really happened between England and North Ireland ? (… what is going on now, is one of the successes of the European Union, if not, who knows what it should happen) … They are not “bad foreign policy decisions” what really happened between Italy and the US CIA secret flights ? (… the same with the other related countries) … They are not “bad foreign policy decisions” to really know why Denmark is not a “full member” of the European Union ? … I have lots of examples, for all of them. Of course, you will say: “democracy” is not perfection, but …

I am really sorry to be so franc, but I really think all “parallel” institutions, are real utopia (… or oriented ones). I fully agree with your good wisdom, philosophy, thinking, intentions and realizations about UND, but I am convinced that it will be much more profitable to Humanity, if we work out all possible ways and try to make UN a real “good” (… I also think that “perfection” is the worst enemy of “good”) institution, to the benefit of all member states.

If it is not possible to manage only one institution, why to insist in creating new ones, together with new complications and problems ? …

I really liked your words: “sufficiently” democratic, “more” democratic, …. In all cases, I am fully convinced that it is near impossible to really evaluate “democracy”, in our today’s dear World.

The same for “Human Rights”. When I was a kid, I was educated in the way that people fighting for independence in their countries, were lovely called “Heroes”. Some time ago, they were romantically called “Guerrilleros”. Today, they are simply called “Terrorists”. Funny, does not it ?

HUMANITY DOES NOT NEED UND and/or any other thing of the kind.

PLEASE, simply try to use all your energy and activities to do UN a better organization.

Oscar.

gary said...

Oscar,

If the UN can be reformed to be democratic, that would be fine. I agree that we don't need both organizations. But from what I have read about the UN, even small reforms are not possible. By your own admission the UN is a mess (35 climate organiation existing only for profit).

The other problem with reforming the UN is that we would need to kick countries out. Probably easier to just start over.

You said:
I am fully convinced that it is near impossible to really evaluate “democracy”, in our today’s dear World.
Not true! Here's one example:
www.democracycaucus.net

Yes, I'm aware of how much the US part of the UN budget is. That's another thing we would need to change. This new proposal also calls for a UN headquarters that moves from one nation to another. It's very important that no one nation 'owns' the UDN.

Oscar, you say we don't need two organizations. You say the UN is corrupt and a mess. What is your answer?

gary

Anonymous said...

Gary,

Sorry of the delay, I was in duty mission.

Yes, please be sure, UN can be reformed and be democratic. Many qualified people are actually working very hard, with these objectives. It is not easy, it will take time, but I am sure they will succeed. It is the only way, for the benefit of our dear Humanity.

I do not agree with your statement saying that it is necessary to kick some countries out. By experience, I can assure you that it is much, much better to have “that” countries “inside” the organization. UN is a worldwide forum, not an exclusive club. Think about the parameter that the situation in “that” countries is not the real willing of their people. They are the consequences of corrupted dictators and/or despots, trying to impose their “rules” by all cruel and brutal ways. Ways that some of the actual “power” countries, did (… some of them are still doing it !) in their kingdoms, colonies, protected territories, positions, … etc. Think also about the parameter that these situations are -- some times -- fully supported by countries very well qualified of “democratic” ones.

Despite the fact that some institutions have important principals, like “… dedicated to the promotion and fulfilment of the principles of democracy and human rights embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Warsaw Declaration of the Community of Democracies ...”, I continue thinking that today it is near impossible to really evaluate “democracy” in some countries, included the today’s called “developed” ones.

Kofi Annan words in www.democracycaucus.net are real in our today’s world: “When the UN can truly call itself a community of democracies …” it is the best example that people is working (very hard) on it. Despite the fact that I do not agree many of Annan’s "activities" during his time in UN, but this is only my humble opinion.

Sorry of this, but your comments about the US Part in the UN Budget, and UN Headquarters moving from one nation to another … tell me, in a very clear way, that you do not know how international organizations work.

This is my permanent answer: WE DO NOT NEED PARALLEL ORGANIZATIONS. It is already a tremendous problem to manage well only ONE …

Best Regards,

Oscar.