Saturday, 27 April 2013

The United Nations and it's Rightful Place

The United Nations and it's Rightful Place

The United Nations has a rightful place, it exists for very good and specific reasons. But if it has a rightful place that means it has a wrongful place, a place it should never interfere in, a place it should not be involved in. 

The United Nations exists as a security organisation, to provide a place so that two or more nations who have an issue can discuss it, without any nation feeling that they have made a concession by simply talking. After all their Ambassadors are there already. The United Nations is not a world Government, nor is it a world Parliament, but it has since it’s creation had many believe that that is exactly what it is or should be. Is the United Nations responsible for that? 

I think not, it seems that many have placed their hopes for a better world upon the United Nations. It is a role that has been forced on it. It is also clear to me that the United Nations has gone through phase’s were it believed it really could be a world Government and other phase’s were it behaved strictly as a client of it’s member states. In effect the United Nations is a club that only recognises other member states, Taiwan but not China, then China but not Taiwan. It does not have it’s own military force, nor can it wage war or peace in it’s own name. It is owned by the member states and they make the decisions. But the member states are not the people of those states, no it is the Government of those states that are represented. 

The United Nations is not an elected body, it is one member state one vote. Do Jewish settlements in the West Bank affect your nation? Yes, then you get to vote on the issue. No, then you still get to vote on the issue. It is a system that sometimes makes an issue clearer and other times makes the issue murkier. 

The real problem with the United Nations is that the Diplomatic Corp and the politicians of many nations believe that the United Nations is more than just a security organisation. To be fair their confusion is understandable, many issues of world importance but with no real security concern have been placed in the hands of the United Nations, such as UNICEF for example.  

The United Nations became a place where International treaties were negotiated, it was convenient for all concerned. Unfortunately for the rest of us it became too convenient. When a treaty involving a number of Nation States was being negotiated, the United Nations became the de-facto setting for such negotiations. The effect was to compel States to join the new club, the treaty club. It meant that we had States that tortured that had input into how treaties on human rights ended up. But United Nations membership means one state, one vote so everyone must be included. 

The result is a two level system, were by large number of countries who have input will either never implement or can never implement the treaty. The other level will enforce the new treaty, the new “universal” standard that is in no way really universal. Here we have one person forced to obey a law decided by a United Nations treaty and another totally immune. Furthermore it undermines National sovereignty as it takes the ability to negotiate the new law out of the hands of the people’s representatives and places it into the hands of Diplomats. While Diplomats may be fine people with the best intentions, in the end they are responsible to the Government and not to the people. Only the elected representatives are responsible to the people and it should be their job entirely to formulate law, not Diplomats and not the unelected United Nations.

Upon Hope Blog - A Conservative Future

No comments:

Post a Comment