Canadian PM wants out of UN!!!

[leftyandproud]

This could be it folks...The US gladly follows and Britain can't be far behind. The only ones left in the UN will be France/Germany, along with Russia, China, and about 90 3rd world countries...



PM hopes to extricate Canada from UN box

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040430/IBBIT30/TPComment/Columnists

By JOHN IBBITSON
Friday, April 30, 2004 - Page A4

WASHINGTON -- 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.

It is a bold, though perhaps unworkable plan. But however it is ultimately greeted by the world community, Mr. Martin's proposal at least recognizes and sets out to correct a fundamental flaw in Canadian foreign policy, one that has left us hostage to a dysfunctional world body whose interests are often irrelevant to Canada's.

In his address to the Woodrow Wilson Center, Mr. Martin formally proposed an initial meeting of heads of government that would most likely include the G-8 plus Australia and the major developing nations -- such as China, Brazil, India and Indonesia.

The first summit would take on one specific issue, most likely global security in the face of terrorist threats. The goal would be to find a common voice to speak on the larger questions of goals and priorities, and to examine specific measures -- say, implementing anti-terrorism measures at major sea ports in the developing world similar to those under way in Europe and North America.

If the summit worked, it might become a regular gathering, looking at issues of global reach.

The biggest problem with the proposal is that the major nations are already experiencing what is called summit fatigue: Between the G-8, the Commonwealth, the Francophonie and regional organizations such as the European Union and the Organization of American States, a prime minister or president already spends a lot of time in foreign hotels.

Nonetheless, sources report that the Americans have responded favourably, if cautiously, to the Canadian proposal. It will be up to us to see if we can make a G-20 summit work, and we should try hard. For whatever the rest of the world thinks about it, such an organization is very much in Canada's interest as a way of extricating this country from its current foreign-policy cage.

After decades of working closely with our major allies to confront the global threats of fascism and communism, Canada began to drift away, increasingly investing diplomatic capital in the United Nations, even as we undermined our traditional commitments by slashing the defence budget.

[achtung_circus]

1. Take John Ibbitson with a large grain of salt

He is the voice of the right on the Globe and Mail. Martin monkies with the UN at his peril, the vast majority of Canadian voters support the UN and Martin isn't going to screw with his razor thin lead in the polls, although he has moved into majority government country in the last few days.

[0007]

7. Glad to hear real sanity

'Tis a misleading headline.

[bpilgrim]

2. this probably isn't quite the NEW WORLD ORDER the neoCONs envisioned

power will most likely be even more shared in any new configuration between nation states bringing even more bureaucracy but ultimately LESS control/influence from the U.S.

* you're FIRED!

peace

[liberalhistorian]

3. WTF????

No WAY, there is no way that Canada would ever do that or that the PM would be dumb enough to even try. If that's true, then this really is Orwellian Bizarroworld!!!!!

[mobuto]

5. That's not what the article states

It says that Martin's come to the conclusion that the UN is ineffective - he's not proposing that Canada withdraw from the UN, he's calling for the creation of a parallel organization that he feels would be more effective. Many criticisms of the UN focus around the fact that the Security Council is too small and too powerful, whereas the General Assembly is far too large and too weak. Martin's plan attempts to bridge the gap with a single body of intermediate size.

[leftyandproud]

8. I think that would be a disaster

We should only give more power to actual democracies...I really don't think the dictatorships in the UN deserve more power, or a greater sya in world events. Until they have a free citezenry, they don't deserve it.

[mobuto]

9. That logic doesn't work

I would argue that the major purpose of the UN has never been to promote democracy or human rights or even to prevent bloodshed. Its been to prevent wars between small countries and between small countries and powerful countries from escalating into wars between powerful countries. That's why the UN really wasn't equipped to do much of anything in Rwanda - because it didn't involve any of the Great Powers. If you exclude dictatorships, then you exclude important countries like China, Pakistan and, arguably, Malaysia and Russia. And if you exclude them, then you have an organization with an entirely different focus, one that can't obviously be used to prevent other countries from going to war with them. The UN isn't an alliance, the way NATO is, its a forum.

On edit: I should add, by the way, that excluding major powers from a deliberative international body makes no sense at all. That's maybe the greatest single lesson we've learned from the League of Nations.

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. If you read the article you find this is NOT about leaving the UN

at all. That's a misleading headline from Ibbitson, further hyped by the original post here.

What Martin proposed was another summit meeting - a 'G-20'. That no more replaces the UN than the G-8 has.

Martin's actual speech, rather than ridiculous spin:
How do we get there? An approach I believe to be worthwhile would be to look at the lessons learned from the Group of 20 Finance Ministers that was formed in the wake of the Asian financial crisis that began in 1997. We foresaw an informal gathering of Finance Ministers, representing established and emerging centres of influence and coming from very different political, economic, cultural and religious traditions. We wanted to bridge the “us” versus “them” mentality that bedevils so many international meetings, and it has worked remarkably well – because peer pressure is often a very effective way to force decisions.

We believe a similar approach among leaders could help crack some of the toughest issues facing the world. We need to get the right mix of countries in the same room, talking without a set script. We are not proposing a new bricks and mortar institution, but we do believe a new approach directly involving political leaders could help break a lot of logjams. I would suggest we should convene a select group of countries from North and South tackling just one issue, and see where that takes us – it could be global terrorism or global public health. For instance, the United States, Canada and other G8 countries, working with the UN, have done much to develop a humane response to the AIDS crisis in Africa.

http://www.news.gc.ca/cfmx/CCP/view/en/index.cfm?articleid=83929&

[ShaneGR]

6. Read the article

He's right. I like the idea of replacing the UN with a FUNCTIONING alternative.

[MercutioATC]

10. One small issue with your assessment of the strength of the non-U.S. U.N..

"The only ones left in the UN will be France/Germany, along with Russia, China, and about 90 3rd world countries..."

...and the entirety of the EU minus Great Britain. Hardly a weak coalition...