year ago, after the obvious differences between the US and the UN over Iraq, Kofi Annan appointed a team of international diplomats to examine ways the UN could be reformed to be more relevant to todays world. The team of diplomats included representatives from the US, Russia, China, UK, France, Brazil, Japan, India and others. This report has now been made public and the contents are very interesting.

Here are some of the main recommendations:

- The UN security council should be expanded, possibly with some new permanent seats (not vetos) for major countries like Brazil and India.

- Threats to international security should be defined and include poverty, pandemics like Aids and environmental disasters, not just threats from weapons of mass destruction, wars and failed states.

- Terrorism would be defined for the first time and should be made part of an international convention. Terrorism would mean any action targeted against non-combatants and civilians.

- To help stop the spread of nuclear weapons, countries wanting fuel for their nuclear power should have automatic rights to get supplies under the International Atomic Energy Agency so long as they complied with inspection regimes.

- Regional organisation like the African Union should be strengthened. Any peacekeeping operation should be funded by the UN itself and member states should pay automatically.

- The UN Human Rights Commission should be re-invigorated with more human rights activists and fewer diplomats on members' delegations.

and most controversial / interesting of all

- calls for a peace-building commission to be established to monitor potential trouble spots, offer help and advice, give warnings and prepare the way for armed intervention as a last resort.
- the Council should be more willing to act pre-emptively, though according to five strict criteria: the threat should be defined, the purpose of intervention should be clear, it should be a last resort, the means should be proportionate, and the consequences should be examined

So basically they are calling for a more intervention based UN which would be more willing to interfere in countries where a threat to international peace has been idtified. Such a threat could include human right abuses against their own population.

It's interesting to note that a number of panel members also wanted a standing UN army, but in the end the current model was decided to be kept.

Paul.

Comments
on Nov 30, 2004
OMG, I tryed to find something in there that looked good. I could only see one thing and they threw that out.

A standing UN Army that would actualy shoot back would be nice. (I know, I'm going to get flamed for this comment).

Other then that these fixes will do nothing, but cause the UN more difficulty of really doing anything usefull.

The idea of giving nuclear material to any county that says it wants a nuclear reactor, send chills down my spine.

Man, do these guys even know human nature?

I could continue all night on this one, but I'll save the rest for someone else, I'm tired and good night.

That's My Two Cents
on Nov 30, 2004
- The UN Human Rights Commission should be re-invigorated with more human rights activists and fewer diplomats on members' delegations.


Actually I did find something that would be an improvement over their present system.

For some reason having China, Libya or any of the other Human Rights violators chair of the commission (just because it's their turn) just don't seem right.

That's again My Two Cents
on Nov 30, 2004
I would like to see a UN where the US isn't paying 20+ percent of the bill.
on Dec 01, 2004
A definiteion of terrorism will be good, as it would remove any doubt in anyones minds as to what is terrorism. It will enable countries like the US to point to terrorists and say they are terrorists because of this, with no opening for disagreement.

It's the US that is pushing for a lot more of the intervention outlook. If the UN had operated under the new proposals 2 years ago then the invasion of Iraq would have been authorised and supported. The biggest change is telling rouge states that the UN WILL use it's legal right to authorise intervention if those countries harm their own citizens.

I personally am happier with the UN NOT having a standing army. It should only be able to intervene where enough countries agree to supply troops to make the intervention possible. This is a safety net in that it effectively restricts intervention to cases where a major player is willing to front the force. This is far more effective than a UN force of 15-20 small sontingents from various countries.

Paul.
on Dec 01, 2004
any action tageted aginst civilians. wouldent that make saddam himself a terrorist?
on Dec 01, 2004
Probably not as I expect dictators already are in a category of their own. He would almost certainly be guilty of genocide though and that would now be a good reason for intervention.

The major reason for the revamp would be to update the UN to allow it to provide a focal point from which to deal with such modern issues like global terrorism, rogue states, genocide and internal strife. At the moment the UN cannot adequetly handle these issues as there is too much fighting over the definition of these issues and whether the UN should be acting.

paul.