Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: UN Convention 7

Journal by pudge

Why is it that in stories about UN officials, we are rarely told the nationality of the officials? There's some convention in use that implicitly tells us that the nationality of the official -- such as Kofi Annan, who is from Ghana -- is not important enough to warrant mention.

I know that part of it is because the UN officials see themselves as above nationality. Annan's chief of staff, Mark Malloch Brown was on Fox News Sunday this week -- nationality unmentioned, but he is from Britain -- and he noted that many of the problems of the UN today are not the fault of the UN, but of the nations which comprise it.

Think about that for a moment. The UN's problems are not with the UN, but with the nations. He says this with a straight face and expects people to buy it. Yeah, if we could just get rid of these pesky nations, we could actually run the UN pretty well.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UN Convention More

UN Convention

Comments Filter:
  • I agree, get the nations out of the UN so it will run better. We, the US, should set an example for the rest of the world and leave first.
    • better still let's stay in, but not fun 3/4th of it. Oh and it should move to Geneva or somewhere that isn't prime NYC real estate. Oh and you owe us 2.3B in parking tickets. Pay now.
  • Turning the question around a bit, why would the nationality of the official matter? I guess, to answer my own question, you would have to believe there is some question of bias or preferential treatment of one's own country involved. Is this what you are getting at?

    As for Mark Malloch Brown, I think he came across very well under a bit of hostile questioning. [foxnews.com]

    MALLOCH BROWN: Well, look, take both those cases [Rwanda and Darfur], you know, we're running at the moment more than a dozen peacekeeping missio

    • I guess, to answer my own question, you would have to believe there is some question of bias or preferential treatment of one's own country involved.

      Of course there is. There's no doubt about it.

      The UN depends on consensus for effective action, which is both its weakness and strength.

      That misses my point. My point is that you can't say the UN is not to blame for this, the nations are. The UN *is* the nations. They try to separate themselves out, and give the impression they are above the nations.
      • Without the security counsel, the UN would then be at the whims of every tiny nation. What would replace it?

        Nothing? We would then have tyranny of little nations.

        Proportional represenation? By why, people or economics? China and India would dominate (two nations I would not be willing to follow).

        The root of the problem is the UN concept, period. Not the architecture of it. Each people of the earth have different values, values that make them their own set of people. It doesn't even have to be with
        • Without the security counsel, the UN would then be at the whims of every tiny nation.

          No it wouldn't. Why do you think that? I don't follow you.
          • The question then becomes, who wields power within the UN?

            If all nations have veto power, nothing gets done until every minor nation gets its piece of the pie. Hence, tyranny of the minor nations.

            Or if we go on majority votes, we say good bye to Israel, because there are more muslim nations and Europe doesn't have the will to protect them either. Again, tyranny of the minor nations.

            With the security counsel removed, what would fill the void left by it. That is what I am getting at.

            Personally, I say g

Slashdot Top Deals

GREAT MOMENTS IN HISTORY (#7): April 2, 1751 Issac Newton becomes discouraged when he falls up a flight of stairs.

Close