Reform of the UN Security Council

by **Byrne** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 8:02 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The present structure and working methods of the Security Council, which are legacies of the Second World War, are not responsive to the expectations of the current generation and the contemporary needs of humanity. Today, it is undeniable that the Security Council, most critically and urgently, needs legitimacy and effectiveness. It must be acknowledged that as long as the Council is unable to act on behalf of the entire international community in a transparent, just and democratic manner, it will neither be legitimate nor effective. Furthermore, the direct relation between the abuse of veto and the erosion of the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Council has now been clearly and undeniably established. We cannot, and should not, expect the eradication, or even containment, of injustice, imposition and oppression without reforming the structure and working methods of the Council. Is it appropriate to expect this generation to submit to the decisions and arrangements established over half a century ago? Doesn't this generation or future generations have the right to decide themselves about the world in which they want to live? Today, serious reform in the structure and working methods of the Security Council is, more than ever before, necessary. Justice and democracy dictate that the role of the General Assembly, as the highest organ of the United Nations, must be respected. The General Assembly can then, through appropriate mechanisms, take on the task of reforming the Organization and particularly rescue the Security Council from its current state. In the interim, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the African continent should each have a representative as a permanent member of the Security Council, with veto privilege. The resulting balance would hopefully prevent further trampling of the rights of nations. <hr></blockquote> Sounds fair enough to me...........

by **Gouda** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 8:44 am

Yes it is, unless one does not trust the motivations of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Or Hugo Chavez for that matter. The message is correct, to an extent, but the messenger, if not a trickster him/herself, has to somehow emerge not too scathed by the mindwar tactics of other signal tricksters. It is a shame that the voices of regular people who may have similar ideas in mind are little or rarely heard (beyond token indulgence) in the General Assembly or at the elite Security Council table. Their voices are the most legitimate. So this leads to another problem: is it even possible for the interests of humanity to be fairly represented in elite assemblies such as the UN? If the answer is no, I think then we'd be talking about the urgency for an even more radical reform than that proposed by Ahmadinejad, because doesn't Ahmadinejad's prescription above simply amount to making reform for elite (capital, ideological, and/or theological) interests? Changing things to remain the same? Aren't things dire enough that we ought to do away with phased reform for elites? Yet, are we, as a global community, ready to manage a quick, radical, revolutionary change ("from below" as it were) - or wouldn't that also take some phasing in? I'd propose a people's general assembly, an alternative united nations, to mirror that body, keep the heat on them, at least as a moral doppelganger, a loud as hell check and balance, where only the good things are globalized and casual dress is encouraged.

by **AlicetheCurious** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 8:52 am

Sounds good, Gouda, but the logistics will become increasingly difficult and dangerous, as global communications, media, financial and "security" agreements become consolidated and politicized in the hands of the global elites. If we are to catch up, we'll have to start digging some (figurative or actual) underground tunnels to connect with each other...

by **Byrne** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:41 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>the motivations of Ahmadinejad.... <hr></blockquote> Ahmadinejad's motivations are the key, I agree. Iran (Ahmadinejad & others) have publically spoken to the UN over a number of years about the hypocrisy of the US's (et al) behaviour (including the 911 'attacks', the Iraq debacle etc.) over the years & the situation of the UN Security Council going along with US/UK at the expense of almost every other country's interest. I agree with these statememnts. Ahmadinejad's speech reads as a considered intelligent essay. The whole speecj is available as a PDF <a href="http://www.un.org/webcast/ga/61/pdfs/iran-e.pdf" target="top">here</a>. Contrast Ahmadinejad's speech with Bush's speech at the UN, the same day (available as a PDF <a href="http://www.un.org/webcast/ga/61/pdfs/usa-e.pdf" target="top">here</a>. At the very commencement of his speech, what does Bush speak about? September the frickin' Eleventh......... <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Mr. Secretary General, Madam President, distinguished delegates, and ladies and gentlemen: I want to thank you for the privilege of speaking to this General Assembly. Last week, America and the world marked the fifth anniversary of the attacks that filled another September morning with death and suffering. On that terrible day, extremists killed nearly 3,000 innocent people, including citizens of dozens of nations represented right here in this chamber. Since then, the enemies of humanity have continued their campaign of murder. Al Qaeda and those inspired by its extremist ideology have attacked more than two dozen nations. And recently a different group of extremists deliberately provoked a terrible conflict in Lebanon. At the start of the 21st century, it is clear that the world is engaged in a great ideological struggle, between extremists who use terror as a weapon to create fear, and moderate people who work for peace.<hr></blockquote> Bush's first words are a lie and his speech is not coming from the same 'place' as Ahmadinejad's. Bushis trying to convince us that his lot are moderate people who work for peace Baloney. The incredulousness of Bush's position in contrast to the compassioned reasoned speeches [give or take the devil/sulphur statements<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/nerd.gif ALT="8o"> ] of Chavez & Ahmadinejad, will never be presented for the public at large, by the MSM, in order for them to make a reasoned assessment.

by **Gouda** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 12:24 pm

Ahmadinejad is speaking now... yahoo/abc link: <a href="http://www.yahoo.com/s/321710">www.yahoo.com/s/321710</a>

Reform of the UN Security Council

Reform of the UN Security Council

Re: Reform of the UN Security Council

Re: Reform of the UN Security Council

Re: Reform of the UN Security Council

Re: Reform of the UN Security Council

Who is online