Rice urges Revolution of Reform at UN

[jimmie]

Rice urges "Revolution of Reform" at UN

Saturday, September 17, 2005

"The time to reform the United Nations is now," she said. "And we must seize this opportunity together."

Sounds just lovely. So, how can that be accomplished?

With empowerment. And the UN, the whole that is the sum of its parts, is not empowered. It is only the particular nations that are empowered. Only the particular nations are able to empower the UN because only the particular nations have the power.

Only the part can empower the whole and only an empowered whole can preserve the part. Any part cannot preserve any part.

The council, Rice said, "must have the moral authority to condemn all violators of human rights - even those that sit among us in this hall."

She said the new council that is being established should have more credibility. And that, she said, means it should "never, never empower brutal dictatorships to sit in judgment of responsible democracies."

By choosing to not empower the UN, the particular nations choose to empower brutal dictatorships.

If the parts, the particular nations including the US, truly want to seize the opportunity to together to reform the UN, then EMPOWER the UN.

Until the UN gets empowered by the nations with power; until a true world government is established by the particular nations, brutal dictatorships that sit in judgement shall always have license to do what they want, and there is always absence of order.

 

[edward]

Our secretary of state does this because now we need the UN to help us get out of Iraq.

"The time to reform the United Nations is now," she said. "And we must seize this opportunity together."

Actually the best time to reform the UN would have been before we invaded Iraq.

 

[loseyourname]

You're agreeing with her, Ed. She cannot ask us to retroactively reform the UN. The soonest we can do it is now. Nowhere in the above statement does it say that she thinks it is a good thing that the UN was not reformed earlier.

 

[edward]

Nowhere in the above statement does it say that she thinks it is a good thing that the UN was not reformed earlier.

Of course not. A stronger UN earlier would have prevented us from invading Iraq. Which is something that I would have favored.

The UN needs to be reformed, but it has needed reform for many years now. The need for reform is not a recent thing.

 

[jimmie]

Actually the best time to reform the UN would have been before we invaded Iraq.

Perhaps, the U.S. invading Iraq provided us with another example of why any particular nation should not have any power.

The particular nation always does what is in the best interest of that particular nation, regardless of the effects its actions are on the whole.

Opening up the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling appears to be in the best interest of the U.S., but in the big picture, it will not do any particular nation any good including the U.S. The effects of damaging that environment will be felt by all individuals everywhere, yet any individual that is not a resident of the geographic region known as the U.S. does not have a say in what the U.S. should or should not do.

I think that the lines have become blurred in many peoples heads about exactly what the U.S., or any particular nation, is. The U.S. is ONLY a particular geographical area.

So, when the president says "I will never relent in defending America - whatever it takes."; is he speaking about the geographic region known as the U.S., or the mental idea of what 'America' represents?

And if he is speaking about the mental idea, does that mean that 'America' represents all individuals on the whole planet that seek to live in a free and safe and secure and peaceful environment, and that he, as president of 'America' has the "right" to "defend" the whole planet from any entity that threatens 'America'?

First Bush-Kerry debate, Sept. 30, 2004 in Miami, Florida BUSH: "My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure."

So what we have here is an individual empowered to attack any geographic region that he perceives is a threat to the American people. And who protects the American people from the American President?

The council, Rice said, "must have the moral authority to condemn all violators of human rights - even those that sit among us in this hall."

Clearly, The particular nations' methods (lets not forget communism/China/Tiananmen Square) of government are redundant. For the sake of growth of individuals in all aspects including spiritual, mental, emotional, and physical, a true revolution of reform is needed.

And only the particular nations can make it happen

 

[loseyourname]

Of course not. A stronger UN earlier would have prevented us from invading Iraq. Which is something that I would have favored.

The UN needs to be reformed, but it has needed reform for many years now. The need for reform is not a recent thing.

What I'm saying is that you are not necessarily disagreeing with her. She never said that the UN didn't need reform back when you say it did. In fact, I would be willing to bet that, if pressed, Condi would agree with you that it should have been reformed a long time ago. From what I can tell, this administration has never been a particularly big fan of the current structure of the UN.

You're misinterpreting her statement if you think she is implying that the UN has only now begun to need reform and that is why we should act now. It seems clear to me that she is saying we should act now because now is the soonest we could possibly act. We cannot go back in time to act yesterday and so it would be rather silly of her to advocate that we do so.

 

[SOS2008]

The UN would not exist if the U.S. did not play a large role in it's existence. Yet, to our dismay the UN is no longer as supportive as we would like it to be. The Oil for Food scandal has created support to segue toward reform, certainly for the neocons who have wanted more power to do as they deem (Rice C/O Bolton?). Though reform is needed in view of the scandal, it occurred with the knowledge of the U.S. -- and is not unlike mismanagement currently in Iraq.

Will reform give the U.S. more support--for example in regard to Iraq? No. Therefore the true desire of the neocons is to dismantle the UN all together. Silly neocons. This would only encourage a more adversarial world order, with the EU and other coalitions no longer our allies. Let's hope we can move away from neocon policies as quickly as possible and reestablish important relationships in the world.

 

[russ_watters]

The main problem with the UN isn't the structure, its with the lack of a willingnees of the member nations to take action when action is required by the UN's own laws. I'm speaking specifically about Rwanda and the Sudan.

When the genocide happened in Rwanda, no one, the US included, was willing to use the word because use of the word requires action. For the genocide in the Sudan, only the US used the word and we were called irresponsible and imperialistic for using it and the UN refused to act. Bush made a big, big mistake not acting unilaterally to stop the genocide in the Sudan after using the g-word.

Unfortunately, there is nothing that can really be done about the UN's belligerant isolationism except continuing to act outside the UN. And I think it is worth pointing out that Bush isn't alone in going over the UN's head: Clinton did the same thing when he invoked NATO to go after Milosevich in Yugoslavia. And that was the right thing to do as well. Eventually, the member nations will have to choose to act according to the purpose of the UN or the UN will end up a meaningless organization.

 

[edward]

What I'm saying is that you are not necessarily disagreeing with her. She never said that the UN didn't need reform back when you say it did. In fact, I would be willing to bet that, if pressed, Condi would agree with you that it should have been reformed a long time ago. From what I can tell, this administration has never been a particularly big fan of the current structure of the UN.

You're misinterpreting her statement if you think she is implying that the UN has only now begun to need reform and that is why we should act now. It seems clear to me that she is saying we should act now because now is the soonest we could possibly act. We cannot go back in time to act yesterday and so it would be rather silly of her to advocate that we do so.

Man talk about misinterpretation, I was only mentioning the fact that if we had pressed for reform of the UN 5 years ago we would not be in Alone (except for England) in Iraq now.

We also would not have had an opportunity to "try" to take over the Iraqi oil fields. :grumpy: And that is what this whole Charade is all about.

I don't care what Condi Rice might or might not have thought 5 years ago. And what is this going back in time thing? I didn't advocate that and Condi Rice is not about to mention the past because that is in the time frame when we went into Iraq Illegally.

 

[loseyourname]

Man talk about misinterpretation, I was only mentioning the fact that if we had pressed for reform of the UN 5 years ago we would not be in Alone (except for England) in Iraq now.

We also would not have had an opportunity to "try" to take over the Iraqi oil fields. :grumpy: And that is what this whole Charade is all about.

I don't care what Condi Rice might or might not have thought 5 years ago. And what is this going back in time thing? I didn't advocate that and Condi Rice is not about to mention the past because that is in the time frame when we went into Iraq Illegally.

Excuse me then. If you're just going to go into semi-random rants in every thread I guess I'll leave you alone. I got the impression that you were somehow disappointed with what she said or that you think she should have said something different.

All these things you are bringing up are tangential to Condi's statement and she likely doesn't even disagree with you, yet you bring them up in a combative manner. Why?

 

[edward]

Excuse me then. If you're just going to go into semi-random rants in every thread I guess I'll leave you alone. I got the impression that you were somehow disappointed with what she said or that you think she should have said something different.

All these things you are bringing up are tangential to Condi's statement and she likely doesn't even disagree with you, yet you bring them up in a combative manner. Why?

That is only your perception, but whatever.....

 

[TRCSF]

The council, Rice said, "must have the moral authority to condemn all violators of human rights - even those that sit among us in this hall."

Now there's a whopper.

 

[jimmie]

That is only your perception, but whatever.....

Ah yes, perception.

And in the world of duality, nation vs. nation, not any nation has right perception because they act only to what they perceive benefits themselves. Acting for the part and not the whole precludes the possiblity of right perception.

Eventually, the member nations will have to choose to act according to the purpose of the UN or the UN will end up a meaningless organization.

I agree with that statement. You decide which takes precedent; the whole or the part. If the part takes precedent, then the attention is put to anything but the whole, including and not limited to debates in any forum about any particular thing.

Lets not be fooled by what he said/she said.

He or she may or may not have said that, but so long as the attention is placed on what he said/she said and then what you said about what he said/she said, and then his rebuttal to what you said about what he said/she said, and then your rebuttal about his rebuttal about what you said about what he said/she said, not to mention what he said about what he said/she said and then your rebuttal about what he said about what he said/she said, and then his rebuttal about your rebuttal about what he said about what he said/she said, and so on, and so on, and so on, (confused yet? I'm gettin dizzy), the part has won your attention at the expense of the whole/UN, and inevitably, you.

Lets keep out collective eye on the ball.

Either the global situation will stay the same, every man/nation for himself where chaos/confusion/dizziness rules, or, every man/nation agrees that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts and forms a true world government, that provides cohesion to every part where every part is coordinated with each other and acts with order for the same purpose without competition or fear.

And the result of a true world government is that every man/nation shall have the SAME one right perception, and oh yeah, PEACE.

Its time for the human race to let go of its training wheels, grow-up and MOVE FORWARD.