Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Tough crowd | Main | The America-haters' propaganda gift »

Friday, April 30, 2004

Liberals against the UN

It's not a group yet though given yesterday's news that Liberal candidates are to ape Paul Martin I suppose we can expect a whole bunch of Liberals to agree with him.

Yesterday Paul Martin made a shocking announcement coming from a Liberal: The United Nations is broken and needs to be replaced by a new international body.

With yesterday's landmark speech, Paul Martin tacitly acknowledged what Canada's foreign policy establishment has refused to accept for decades: that the United Nations is a failure, for which there is no solution.

The Prime Minister's proposed alternative is a new international body, the G-20 summit of world leaders, representative of North and South, developed and developing, rich and poor: a working group unfettered by the UN's bureaucracy and its anachronistic Security Council.

Of course, if you're the cynical chap that I am, you'll agree that Martin's new body -- if Liberals designed it -- would likely be even more invasive in a nation's sovereignity then the UN is. Moreover, given the Liberal penchant for special interests, I can only imagine all the caucuses set up for every conceivable group of nations nursing grievances. We'd probably end up with a UN II that would be even worse than the organization we have now.

Read on

Posted by Steve Martinovich on April 30, 2004 in International Affairs | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Liberals against the UN:

» Paul Martin: U.N. is a failure from c0llision.org
Yes, there is no typo in the title; the Prime Minister of Canada, Paul Martin, thinks that the United Nations pretty much sucks (duh) and he might have an alternative for it: The Prime Minister's proposed alternative is a new... [Read More]

Tracked on 2004-04-30 1:52:40 PM


I was going to comment on this development and then decided not to bother. Martin has such a habit of saying what his audience wants to hear I just figured it's perfectly in character for him to downplay the UN while in the US and praise it to the skies while addressing the faithful at home. Just more meaningless triangulation from PM Platitudes, I figure.

Posted by: Kevin Jaeger | 2004-04-30 1:02:52 PM

Looking at the press reports it is pretty much a non-starter as a means of addressing what is wrong with the UN. Who gets to be "representative"? If such a body is to have any credibility it would have to include the current permanent members of the Security Council - even the ever obstructionalist France - plus, for sake of argument: India, Brazil, Nigeria, Pakistan, Malaysia, Japan, Germany, Egypt. But then who? There are seven slots left. Minimally you'd have to think at least one more Eastern European, one more black African, one non-Muslim Asian, another South American, a Central American leaving one slot for Canada and a third round pick to be announced.

Now I am sure I've left out someone important; but the fact is that this is yet another harebrained scheme which tries to pretend that a) somehow nations can represent other nations when, in fact, they can't, b)that there is something virtuous about multi-lateralism which is absent from alliances.

Posted by: Jay Currie | 2004-04-30 1:36:08 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.