Lawyers Group Proposes Reforms for United Nations (HQ Moved From US)

LISBON (Reuters) - The International Association of Lawyers proposed Saturday the United Nations' charter should be overhauled and that its headquarters should be moved from New York, in a call for reform after the Iraq crisis. Failure to reform could lead to a ``total marginalization of this body in the fight for peace and international security in the 21st century,'' the association's president, Antoine Akl, said in an address at its annual congress.

The Paris-based association, grouping almost two million lawyers from 110 countries, said it planned to submit its proposals to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in an effort to strengthen the United Nations.

more...........

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-un-portugal-lawyers.html

...right is hoping for.

I think this will make Bush look like a complete ass to everyone else. At least I would hope it would.

Of course, assuming that the UN does move, the administration will try to spin it as though they asked the UN to leave.

I think this will make Bush look like a complete ass to everyone else. At least I would hope it would.

Of course, assuming that the UN does move, the administration will try to spin it as though they asked the UN to leave.

the rabid right would be insane to want this, becuase what this lawyers organisation is talking about is removing the anti-Democratic, pro-US structure of the UN.

I haven't read the article, mainly because I can't be bothered with registering, but I would bet that the most important change they are talking about is removing the status of "Permanent Member of the Security Council", and thus removing the veto rights of the permanent members.

Why the UN is irrelevant is because in terms of security there are five nations that have a strangle hold on the outcome of any vote - US, UK, France, Russia, and China. Their right of veto ensures that nothing that is not fully approved (or at least accepted) by ALL of these nations can get through, and thus even if the entire rest of the world wanted a resolution, these five nations can quash it.

This is EXACTLY how the rabid right likes the UN to be - under the thumb of the US government. Take away these provisions, and we would have seen a condemnation of the proposed war on Iraq, and in fact may have seen a defensive coalition built to ensure that it did not happen.

That is their worst nightmare - a UN with the power to act contrary to the wishes of the US government, a UN with the ability to punish the US for its transgressions, a UN that actually means something more than a rubber stamp for US policy.

They want to end the power to veto by the 5 permanent members.

And they do want that.

Regardless of whatever these RW morons think about the US involvement in the UN, so what? They have been consistantly wrong on every position they take politically....hell, they elect buffoons like Bush, think the War in Iraq was for democracy, etc...really, they are wrong about this too.

If they believe our interests will be better served outside the UN, they are sadly mistaken and will realize this should their dream come true. If we can't make our case in the only legitimate world forum, where are we going to make it? An isolated US will only hasten our demise as a leader of the free world.

If they moved the UN from NYC, that'd be a real blow to the NYC economy and a major hit to our world prestige, too.

As we have recently seen, they have no use for the UN as a world society of equals. It is only useful when it furthers US policy.

The right has been bitching about the UN since its founding and sees it as nothing but a roadblock when it is not useful for their puposes.

Getting out of the UN, and preferably destroying it in the process, has always been on their agenda.

This is EXACTLY how the rabid right likes the UN to be - under the thumb of the US government. Take away these provisions, and we would have seen a condemnation of the proposed war on Iraq, and in fact may have seen a defensive coalition built to ensure that it did not happen.

The UNSC was entirely capable of passing a condemnation of the proposed Iraq war -- or rather, of the US and UK for proposing an Iraq war. By the charter, you don't get a vote when you're a party to the conflict being discussed, even if you're a permanent member.

But in general, your point is correct. For instance, Israel enjoys a lovely umbrella from its violations of UN edicts, because the USA almost always vetoes any measures that address Israel. (I remember reading somewhere, when France was threatening veto over Iraq resolutions, that America has cast more vetoes just in defense of Israel than France has used since the UN's founding). I don't remember specific cases, but I expect Russia and China used similiar tactics to protect their satellites.

It has always perturbed me that the US has wanted to promote democracy throughout the world, and yet, is instrumental in an UN-democratic organization. I, as a US citizen, have never been allowed to vote, even once, for the US representative at the UN. Have you been allowed to vote for your UN rep?

as are cabinet secretaries, ambassadorships, and judicial nominations, not to mention most of your laws.

This is called "indirect democracy."

Some people say it works better than having everyone have to vote on everything. Your mileage may vary.