Abbott’s UN cut is expensive and unnecessary

Sam says:

06:58am | 23/07/10

Not Surprising Really, the UN feels the frequent need to reaffirm itself so that it can delude itself to have a purpose.

James1 says:

10:00am | 23/07/10

So the work of all the various UN relief organisations in disaster zones is worthless and irrelevant?  You may know a thing or two about domestic politics, gentlemen, but your knowledge of world politics is clearly dismal.

BobM says:

10:39am | 23/07/10

The UN is a waste of space, time , money and paper. When it actually does something for the good of the world, it may become relevant again.

James1 says:

11:01am | 23/07/10

So providing food relief to the famine stricken is not “something good for the world”?  When you actually look into the activities of the UN apart from the UNSC and General Assembly, your input into this discussion may become relevant.

Brad of Bentleigh says:

12:48pm | 23/07/10

James has a good point. I should have qualified my statement, as the UN does indeed, do some good work. This unfortunatly is de-valued by the rest of the rubbish that goes on in the organisation.
Perhaps it was my astonishment at the opening statement by the author of this peice, the suggestion that ditching the security council position, would somehow be expensive! Here I was thinking that chasing the position was what was costing all those millions of taxpayer funds, not to mention the fact that our foreign aid budget has been ransacked to buy votes in Africa and other countries not normally benefiting from our free cash. Ms Bryce has certainly spent a fortune lobbying on behalf of the government (which is an abuse of the GG office).
So, appologies James1, you make an excellent point.

Julie Coker-Godson says:

12:52pm | 23/07/10

The UN is as useless today as it was in the lead up to WWII. If my memory serves me the UN went under another badge during the Great War (name escapes me for the moment). It was disbanded under that name because it was ineffective and became the UN.  Nothing much has changed. We don’t need to be chasing around for a seat at the table just because Evatt did it.  Evatt paid more attention to what was going on overseas than he did here in Australia and he paid the price for it too by creating the biggest party political split in Australia’s history.  We need to look after our own affairs first and then we can start to assist in looking after others.

Ryan says:

01:18pm | 23/07/10

@Julie Coker-Godson: It was called “The League of Nations” and was as irrelevant as the current UN. In fact Benito Mussolini stated something that is clearly just as pertinent to the UN:  “The League is very well when sparrows shout, but no good at all when eagles fall out.”
Once they start to become a pain in the side of large nations, they become irrelevant very quickly.

WilliamC says:

05:40am | 24/07/10

James1 is correct in saying that the UN has been succesful and essential in humanitarian disasters. Yet this is does not entirely answer the question of the relavence of the UN. In a humanitarian aspect it is an extremely relavent body. Yet politically it is not.

Why?

The powers of the UN are being hampered by Veto-Powered countries (China), Anthony is being fancifal at best to suggest that Australia would “be a necessary counterpoint to China,” China treats no-one especially Australia with much diplomatic respect (Copenhagen Anyone).

Abott’s policy is not a pragmatic cost saving policy, rather a demarcation between two differing Ideologies towards International Relations, Labor seems to be Activist Multilaterialist with intrinsic links to multilaterialism. Whereas Abott (whose position doesn’t seem to be as clearly as defined one would assume is out of the Howard mould, i.e. Individual Engagement with countries, with the ANZUS alliance at the Apex of AFP)

James1 says:

10:01am | 23/07/10

Do you even know if you are talking about the UN more generally, or the Security Council in particular?

Sam says:

10:42am | 23/07/10

James1,

The Security Council. To get a non-permanent seat on the Security Council there is an election which involves so much promising and compromise that in the end countries cannot achieve what they want to achieve on the Security Council, that is why Australia has not sort a seat on the Security Council, but focussed on other more productive Forums and Talks, to achieve Security, Economic, Social, and Political Gains.

The UN in General. By Its own admission it will not achieve the goals it has set. The work that some of the UN agencies is quite beneficial (however it could be performed by better more efficient regional agencies), but as a whole the Secretariat, and the Forum that it provides is rather useless. There is a reason why we have the G20, APEC, ASEAN, and other more recent International Forums are smaller, it is because they are more managable.

James1 says:

10:59am | 23/07/10

None of those institutions perform the same function as the UNDP, the WFP or UNICEF.  Nor should they.  Indeed, none of the institutions you mention are even agencies.  Furthermore, why would ASEAN be interested in providing famine relief to Somalia?  The African Union would be incapable of providing famine relief to Somalia.  ASEAN could not have acted as an honest broker in the peace process in Cambodia, only the UN could.  Neither could ASEAN have acted as an honest broker in East Timor.  There are times when a (however dysfunctional otherwise) supranational global body is required, and when regional institutions are insufficient.

You are spot on with the UNSC though.  A telling statement came out of the United States in 2007, when its Special Representative to the UN said that the UNSC has shown its relevance in world politics, due to its ability to act as a vehicle for US interests.  All of the P5 see it that way.  So reform the UN, sure, but it would be a disaster to the starving were it to be done away with.

The reason we have APEC is to facilitate discussions on economic reform and trade liberalisation in the Asia-Pacific region.  ASEAN exists to facilitate discussion and regionalism between Southeast Asian states.  The ASEAN Regional Forum does the same on security matters.  The G20 is a forum for the world’s largest economies to coordinate economic policy. That is the reason for their existence, not “because they are more manageable”.

Adam Diver says:

08:55am | 23/07/10

Good Point Anthony let me see:

Israel?/Palestine
Africa
North Korea
Iran

If the organisation never makes a stand than nothing will be done. Member states are not perfect and they are definately not equal. If you treat them as such you will get the results that we get now…Nothing.

Also you mention many reasons why we deserve a spot on the council. In that case why exactly do we need to bid for it. Is it like hosting the world cup or something.

Lastly and most importantly it is the finer details like this that seperate Labor from liberal. Just because its half of one percent does not make it trifle. Think that way over 20-30 different programs and suddenly you have 10-20% of lost budget cuts.

Mary Huff says:

09:22am | 23/07/10

Seriously, dude, if you believe the UN is worth a dime, then you should consider surgery to remove your extra chromosome. The UN is a joke. It is run by despot regimes that support other despots. It is the enemy of democracy. Look at some of the more ridiculous decisions they’ve made just this year: Appointed Iran to a panel to control women’s rights (the same Iran that demands women be hidden and killed in the street). The human rights commission includes China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Libya (i.e., the biggest human rights violators in the world). The IPCC is laughable and exists only to get more funding.

In short, the UN shouldn’t exist anymore (it is now an irrelevance and only supported by left leaning lunatics who want to institute a worldwide socialist government) and Australia should certainly not be funding the rampant corruption that is endemic in the UN.

James1 says:

10:05am | 23/07/10

Adam and Mary,

By focusing on the parts of the UN that support your argument, your true agenda comes through very clearly.  Sure, trying for a seat on the Security Council seems pretty pointless, but do you seriously contend that the world would be better off without the various UN relief agencies doing work in disaster zones?  Do you think East Timor would be better off if the UN didn’t exist?  Or Cambodia?  Sure, it fails sometimes, but it also succeeds, and the world is better off for its successes. 

Or, are you simply trying to discredit the ALP?  Or in Mary’s case, suffering from a bit of Montana mountain fever…

watty says:

11:50am | 23/07/10

“Action to mitigate climate change” As witnessed in Copenhagen?

“The UN is the only universal forum of nations and the only organisation which can facilitate worldwide cooperation” As witnessed in Copenhagen.?

May I suggest you are too involved in all things United Nations to be any more than a spinmeister for a corrupted organisation.

“Action to mitigate climate change, the protection of human rights globally, the pursuit of total nuclear disarmament, the eradication of absolute poverty—all endeavours coordinated by the UN”

Just what difference would Australia being a member of the Security Council make to the above failed ambitions?

 

Pehaps fouded in ggod faith but then used as a tool

Adam Diver says:

01:33pm | 23/07/10

@ James1 your bias for relief is shown within about 10 comments to date. No need for the repition we can read the comments.

As pointed out earlier regional organisations would be far more efficient that the UN relief agencies. Having said that how do you think these agencies are funded? Form the members of the UN. I think its fair to say that funding for relief would still exist without a UN, and there are many charitable and religous organisations that do the same work.

Barring that, you are clearly deliberately trying to muddy the issue. We are responding directly with what the author proposes is the benefits of the UN. Eradication of poverty, climate change, nuclear disarment, and human rights were provided by the author, when clearly these are all abject failures and most progress comes from direct negotiation between nations US/Russia etc.

acotrel says:

04:39pm | 23/07/10

’ Action to mitigate climate change, the protection of human rights globally, the pursuit of total nuclear disarmament, the eradication of absolute poverty—all endeavours coordinated by the UN. How can it be said that the UN lacks purpose or relevance? ‘

Another bleeding heart leftie?  Get with programme man - greed is good!  I’m aboard, pull up the ladder.

Dan says:

06:08pm | 23/07/10

Mary Huff, the moment you stated that the UN is ‘only supported by left leaning lunatics who want to institute a worldwide socialist government’ you lost any right to be taken seriously. You’re just a paranoid neo-conservative fool who does not understand that since the UN consists of the nations of the world, it will only have as much power as they give it, and it will operate based on what the various nations with their self-interest want.

You say that it is ‘the enemy of democracy.’ Yeh, but so what? Its being non-democratic does not lessen its importance (should we cease trade with China because they aren’t democratic?)  You talk about human rights abusers joining the HR commission. Which country should decide who joins the HRC? America? Please.

The UN is important because it is the only forum where just about every nation has a platform. It is imperfect, it is flawed, but it’s the best we’ve got. If you want to remove Australia from it, then you are only proving how ignorant neocons such as yourself truly are. Thank god, you have no power!

James1 says:

10:07am | 23/07/10

No they don’t.  Neither India nor Pakistan is part of the P5.  Israel is also not represented, but they do not admit to having nuclear weapons.

If this thread is representative of Australians’ knowledge of the outside world, then we really need to reform our education system, as it is clearly seriously failing.

shabangabang says:

11:27am | 23/07/10

Yes they do
Permanent members are:
China
France
Russia
United Kingdom
United States
And their nukes
United States   2,468 / 9,600
Russia (former Soviet Union)  4,650 / 12,000
United Kingdom   <160 / 225
France   ~300 / 300
China   ~180 / 240
I never said they were the only nuclear nations, I stated all permanent members have nuclear weapons.
If your reading ability is representative of Australia’s knowledge, our education system is clearly failing

James1 says:

01:20pm | 23/07/10

So how would our possessing nuclear weapons in any way affect our status as a potential member of the P5?  If the second largest nation in the world does not get a look in despite it’s nuclear armed status, what chance does Australia have?

When I said “no they don’t”, I meant that nuclear weapons have no bearing on whether one gets to be part of the P5.  Please excuse my poor expression - so many errors in thinking in this thread, so little time to address them.

James1 says:

10:17am | 23/07/10

Okay, so because a few Islamic countries manage to hijack the agenda in one of the UN’s agencies, its food relief is instantly worthless, despite saving millions of lives every year.  We know where your priorities lie, Jon.

The UN may not be perfect, and it does have many, many faults.  But the world is better off for its existence, because while we may currently have an imperfect global body, something imperfect is 100 percent better than nothing at all.

Brad of Bentleigh says:

01:05pm | 23/07/10

James1, most of your comments are saying the same thing, and to a large extent you’re right (as I said in my post above). Having said this though, you’re trying to verbal people by asserting that if they think the UN is useless, that they are somehow supporting starvation and care not for the plight of those suffering (usually at the hands of despot regimes, supported by the UN).
Yours in this case is a non argument… you appear to accept too may flaws in the system under the fig leaf of doing “some” good “sometimes”.

To take your point regarding food releif etc, the UN should stick to only this (which they do moderately well) and keep out of the political arena. The UN has been hijacked not only by Islamist representatives, but my the left. How many different guises has the request for all contributing countries, to contribute to the tune of 0.7% GDP per year, every year. Climate change releif being only the latest guise… read up on how many different reasons have been given by the UN for this, it makes for interesting reading.

Jon says:

04:15pm | 23/07/10

James1, yes I know universal human rights, seems to be a small priority to you. But I think the benefits to all the peoples of world, especially to woman, is immeasurable. If the UN only existed for this one purpose it would be worthwhile. As Haiti showed, there are many relief agencies, so many that they where getting in the way of each other.

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is dead, Islamic countries killed it, they are facts. This is a very big failure!

James1 says:

04:23pm | 23/07/10

I agree entirely Brad.  As you may have noticed, I take issue with these blanket assertions that the UN should be abolished.  International politics is a complex business, and is no place for people with a simple black and white view of things.

Stephen Priest says:

02:13pm | 23/07/10

Razor,

What part of the UN are you referring to? You’ll find that the United Nations Security Council can, and does, authorise armed intervention, in Iraq in the 90s for example.

Perhaps you’re talking about the General Assembly’s lack of normative power over the nations it embodies? If so, you’ll find nations today ever more compelled to comply with international law. This is evinced in nations like the US and Australia, where we have such large offices of Attorney-General to ensure our compliance with international law abroad. Even in the most recent Iraq war, Mr Bush felt obligated to create a legal justification for his invasion, based in international law. The UN today ever increasingly is not merely a toothless tiger

To your argument regarding equal votes with nations such as North Korea and Iran. This is premised on the assumption that the UN should exist, and what is the best way for the UNGA to go about its business. It presumes the UN isn’t, as you say, a ‘toothless tiger’ but operates effectively.

Lastly, that the UN enables ‘third world despots’ to ‘live the high life’ is inaccurate . With, or without the UN such despots would exist, however with the UN, at least we have a measurable standard against which we can judge such nations. The world may condemn North Korea through the lense of the ICCPR - there is no freedom of expression, no freedom of movement amongst other things. These are yardsticks allowing these despots to be judged. Without the UN such despots continue to exist, the difference being that the same framework governing international actions does not exist, and the safeguards which the UN provides, namely the illegality of the use of force, cease to exist. With, or without the UN, despots exist and the UN shouldn’t be see as the vessel enabling such regimes to exist.

The UN is an evolving organisation, and could probably once have been called a ‘toothless tiger’. Today this is not the case. It has it’s flaws, just as any governing body has. But it redeems itself through playing a vital role in the international arena. Australia must step up and show leadership in international organisations, or else states like North Korea, Iran and Syria will.

Lin says:

02:28pm | 23/07/10

Razor, I wonder then why is the writer so in favour of it… ?? hmm let’s see… Oh what a surprise, he is “the National Vice-President (Policy) of the United Nations Youth Association of Australia. He formerly served as President of the United Nations Youth Association of the ACT”. What have you contributed to the world in your UN career Anthony, apart from writing fluff and spin?

Rohan says:

02:41pm | 23/07/10

And would withdrawing from it somehow stop Sudan, North Korea and Iran from behaving in a way that makes you see them as a laughable comparison? No. The whole point of the UN is to engage nations, where possibly, peacefully. I find it interesting that we are so much more patient in waiting for violence to prove successfull (Iraq/Afghanistan) than we are for diplomacy to be effective. Perhjaps if he had this level of complaining before we launched ourselves into unilateral military offensives we would find ourselves in a better position.

If the UN is a toothless tiger it is because it is working within the powers ceded to it by member nations.

It is intellectually dishonest to claim on the one hand that the UN is a “toothless tiger” and on the other that it is secretely taking over the world for socialists and dictators. You cannot have it both ways. So pick a side, an accusation that is internally consistant, and argue that instead.

As it stands you are rebutting yourself.