[Peace-discuss] U.N.

[Morton K.Brussel]

No doubt, the UN is dominated by the U.S., and has usually bowed to its 
dictates, but it is the only international assembly existent, and has 
given some voice to opposition to U.S. policies. The powerless general 
assembly has, for example, had its voice promulgated on the question of 
Israel and the middle east. And France, Germany and Russia in the 
Security Council were able, with others,  to deny approval for the Iraq 
aggression, albeit weakly.


Clearly, it needs to be radically reformed, but the question is, even 
without that: Would we all be better off without it?

MKB


On Dec 18, 2003, at 2:07 AM, John Baldridge wrote:

> C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>
>> [Regarding Jenifer and John's reflections on the UN, here's a piece by
>> Alex Cockburn that concludes with the position that now seems to me
>> correct: "Please, my friends, no more earnest calls for 'a UN role,' 
>> at
>> least not until the body is radically reconstituted along genuinely
>> democratic lines. As far as Iraq is concerned, all occupying forces 
>> should
>> leave, with all contracts concerning Iraq's national assets and 
>> resources
>> written across the last nine months repudiated, declared null and 
>> void,
>> illegal under international covenant."  --CGE]
>>
>> The UN: It Should Be Late; It Never Was Great
>>
>> By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
>>
>> Nikita Khrushchev wrote in his incomparable memoirs that Soviet 
>> admirals,
>> like admirals everywhere, loved battleships, because they could get 
>> piped
>> aboard in great style amid the respectful hurrahs of their crews. 
>> It's the
>> same with the UN, now more than ever reduced to the servile function 
>> of