Addiction to War

[Mid]

New UN president chides Security Council powers
2008-09-17

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The new president of the U.N. General Assembly opened its 63rd annual session Tuesday by accusing some of the world body's most powerful members of relying on warfare.

«It is a sad but undeniable fact that serious breaches of the peace and threats to international peace and security are being perpetrated
by some members of the Security Council that seem unable to break what appears like an addiction to war,» Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann said, without specifying any countries.

During his acceptance speech in June, he criticized what he called «acts of aggression» in Iraq and Afghanistan without mentioning the United States by name.

D'Escoto, a Nicaraguan Roman Catholic priest allied with his country's leftist president, also took a swipe at the U.S. on Tuesday for what he said was its «unjust» 46-year-long trade embargo against Cuba.

His remarks before a half-filled chamber were his first as president of the 192-nation assembly. He will preside over its yearlong session, including two weeks of ministerial meetings that begin next week.

Separately, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told The Associated Press in an interview that he would use the assembly's ministerial session to hold talks with world leaders on issues ranging from climate change to the detention of Myanmar opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

He called it a top priority «to mobilize and galvanize all political wills and resources starting from now» to craft a new climate change agreement next year to succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

Speaking about Suu Kyi, Ban said Myanmar's military junta «should release her from house arrest,» to allow the 63-year-old Nobel Peace Prize winner who has been on a recent hunger strike to lead «a genuine and free life.

Much of d'Escoto's antipathy was directed at the 15-nation Security Council, the United Nations' most powerful body, which is dominated by the United States, China, Russia, Britain and France _ the five permanent members with veto power.

That configuration reflects the balance of power at the end of World War II, when the U.N. was created. It was much on d'Escoto's mind as he dedicated his presidency to seeking «the democratization of the United Nations» and to helping the «dispossessed.

Turning to Cuba, d'Escoto wondered aloud why the United Nations has been powerless to overturn the U.S. trade embargo imposed on Fidel Castro's government in February 1962.

«If the opinion of more than 95 percent of the membership of the United Nations can be so casually ignored, of what use is this General Assembly?» he said.

The General Assembly's resolutions aren't binding, unlike the Security Council, which can set international law. But the assembly controls the U.N. budget and serves as a world forum for debate.

D'Escoto has long been a supporter of Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega, who once allied himself with Fidel Castro and the Soviet Union and won re-election as Nicaragua's president in 2006. D'Escoto was foreign minister of Nicaragua when the Sandinistas ruled in the 1980s.

The assembly's presidency rotates by region and lasts for a year. The assembly elected d'Escoto, who was born in Los Angeles, to succeed Macedonian diplomat Srgjan Kerim.

Kerim closed out his year as president with a news conference, where he praised the assembly's last-minute consensus agreement Monday night to explore adding new members to the Security Council. Kerim used his prerogative to push through compromise language at the last minute.

«We have really accomplished something,» Kerim said. «The General Assembly is the only place for nations to talk on equal footing.

The top candidates, if such a change were made, would likely include World War II-defeated nations Germany and Japan, along with developing powers India and Brazil. A U.N. working group began examining the possibility of expanding the council as long as 15 years ago.

On the Net
U.N. General Assembly: General Assembly

ap.google.com


past time the power of veto is removed

imho

.

[jandajoy]

«If the opinion of more than 95 percent of the membership of the United Nations can be so casually ignored, of what use is this General Assembly?» he said.

Absolutely.

[good2bhappy]

war is the natural state of mankind!

[foreigner]

war is the natural state of mankind!

some societies are many times more likely to force their will / standards upon others.
there are select societies that have forced hegemony on sovereign societies more frequently that other less righteous societies.

violent hegemony is obviously more prevalent in some cultures than others.

IMHO, to attribute the violent dominance exhibited by select prima-dona societies on all man kind is inappropriate.

[Bugs]

past time the power of veto is removed

imho

Won't happen. Most of the big players in the security council would pull out of the UN - not just the US.

I would agree however that the UN as currently structured is a joke and some major changes need to be made - or a different body needs to be formed to help try and solve the major issues.

[Bugs]

To specifically address the Cuban embargo - all those nations that have a problem with it could restrict trade with the US if they want to show their displeasure.

If indeed 95% of the UN has a problem with it, then they need to have the balls to stand behind how they feel. Words, is just words, action gets things done - and that is the core of the problem with the UN - all talk and very little action.

Countries know the UN is all talk and therefore ignore what they say. Negotiations can only lead to positive results thru talk if everyone at the table believes that some kind of action will take place if negotiations are not successful - otherwise all talk, all the time = nothing ever getting resolved.

[jandajoy]

state

states can change, natural or not.

[ItsRobsLife]

It was much on d'Escoto's mind as he dedicated his presidency to seeking «the democratization of the United Nations» and to helping the «dispossessed.

A worthy cause.

[Rattanaburi]

Something kind of related...

Why we love 'America's Outrageous War Economy' - MarketWatch

PAUL B. FARRELL
Why we love 'America's Outrageous War Economy!'

ARROYO GRANDE, Calif. (MarketWatch) -- Yes, America's economy is a war economy. Not a "manufacturing" economy. Not an "agricultural" economy. Nor a "service" economy. Not even a "consumer" economy.

[Norton]

Yes the US spends big money on military and probably should be spending some of it in other areas. Interesting to note as a % of GDP the US ranks somewhere between 25th and 30th worldwide depending on whose figures you use. Also of note, those with mutual defense treaties (such as NATO) with the US spend very little as a % GDP.

A possible conclusion would be, countries within NATO and those under other mutual defense treaties are simply quite content to have the US taxpayer foot a big portion of their defense bill.

[Texpat]

Yes the US spends big money on military and probably should be spending some of it in other areas. Interesting to note as a % of GDP the US ranks somewhere between 25th and 30th worldwide depending on whose figures you use. Also of note, those with mutual defense treaties (such as NATO) with the US spend very little as a % GDP.

A possible conclusion would be, countries within NATO and those under other mutual defense treaties are simply quite content to have the US taxpayer foot a big portion of their defense bill.

Wow. Poignant post. Telling.

Is it any wonder so many chose to ignore it?

I think not... I wonder if the America haters will take note? I doubt it.

those with mutual defense treaties (such as NATO) with the US spend very little as a % GDP.

Cheap Charlies riding on the coattails.

[Camel Toe]

Canada get theirs for free (almost).

[panama hat]

Canada get theirs for free (almost).

I've always wondered why Canada and New Zealand have armed forces . . . no-one would ever attack them. How to get there, plus strong neighbours that would need to be traversed


But yes, the veto rights are an anachronism.

[Norton]

Canada get theirs for free.

Not sure it was free. But I'm sure whatever Canada is spending on defense is indirectly funded by the US. They are after all the worlds largest exporter of oil to the US.

[bkkandrew]

America's proposed bank bailout is larger than their defence budget. They can't afford the latter, so why they think they can afford the former is a pertinent question indeed....

[sabang]

Quote: those with mutual defense treaties (such as NATO) with the US spend very little as a % GDP. Cheap Charlies riding on the coattails.

Probably right actually. But they only 'ride on the coattails' because you let them.
Scale back Nato, and let them take more responsibility for their own defense.
I mean, what earthly purpose do all those US forces in Germany serve these days, to give just one example.