Un bugging

[walker 0]

Hi MLF

No Jumping the gun. Claire Short was a cabinet minister it means she voted on defence and foreign affairs issues. She was one of the people who get all the info placed on the cabinet meeting table before they make a vote. Plain fact as the Foreign Affairs Minister reponcible for rebuilding Iraq and UK/UN aid to all countries she saw all the intercepts on or to do with the UN; it is her Job. You need to read up on UK Ministers responcibilities.

You also forget that the man in charge of MI6 at the time, Robin Cook, resigned. He did so because what he saw led him to believe there was not a case for war and that there would be no second UN resolution; as was the case. He then felt he could not be part of an ilegal war and resigned.

Claire Short took what Tony Blair said about the MI6 Iraq intel' on face value and decided to stay on. Then after the war, when no WMD was found and no atempt to bring the UN in to rebuild the country, something she was promised, she too decided to resign.

Since then 13.5 billion US dollars worth of Oil has been pulled out of the Iraqi ground. Hallibuton has made 6 billion in no bid contracts to re-equip the Iraqi oil Wells. All promptly privatised and sold off to private companies. Meen while Iraqis have contaminated water supplies causing; disenty, cholera and typhoid. Itermitent or no electricity. Hospitals without basic drugs and equipment.

Do you think Claire Short is pi**ed off?

Kind Regards Walker

[MLF 0]

yes but even though she was a cabinet minister she would not have had access of that sort of material. Also robin cook is having a go at Claire Short atm for what she is saying and he would now if they were bugging the U.N.

[walker 0]

Hi MLF

Robin Cook as the former head of MI6 has a duty to protect MI6 and if he is to have any hope of returning to power he must attack somone who is rubishing Tony Blair and by association the labour party.

Earlier today the UK ambasador to the UN made an apology to Kofie Anann. Case proved and closed.

Kind Regards Walker

[walker 0]

Hi all

Quote[/b] ]weapons inspector in Iraq, Richard Butler, says his phone calls at the United Nations were bugged during his tenure from 1997 to 1999.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3492146.stm

Quote[/b] ]Meanwhile ABC reporter Andrew Fowler said he had been told by Australian intelligence contacts that Hans Blix - the UN's most recent weapons inspector in Iraq - was also tapped.

"That's what I'm told, specifically each time he entered Iraq, his phone was targeted and recorded and the transcripts were then made available to the United States, Australia, Canada, the UK and also New Zealand," he said.

Kind Regards Walker

[denoir 0]

Just another example that the UN needs to be reformed. The situation today is that as long as one of the permanent members of the security council is involved, there are no consequences for such actions. The bugging is a direct breach of the Vienna accords which regulates the protection of diplomatic representatives. But as long as the violators can veto any punishment, there won't be any consequences. What needs to be done is the follwing:

1) The security council and the general assembly should be reformed in a more republican manner (no, not politically republican, but more as a republic). It should have two houses, one where the countries have a number of representatives proportional to their population (and possibly GNP) while the other should have one representative per country. Double majority should be required for decisions.

2) The veto has to go. There was a point to it when USA and the Soviet Union held a gun to each others' head, but not today. Instead we have a blocking mechanism that prevents the UN from doing its work.

3) A common set of laws have to be defined and a way to judge and enforce them, should a country violate them. All forms of international accords, such as the Geneva conventions should be rewritten and inlcuded in a unified set. The countries can choose to ratify them or not, but if they choose not to, then they lose the right to vote in related matters.

4) The World Trade Organization (WTO) should be incorporated into the UN.

5) Shared military responsibility and a joint military command for peace keeping operations. Basically to take over what NATO is doing today while forcing large strong countries like China to contribute more to the international community.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

I must apologise if i was involved in dragging the thread OT. First i would like to point out that there is more than one way to eavesdrop or gain intelligence on what happens in the UN, 'bugging' is only one such means. I recall there is a laser device for instance which when pointed at windows picks up vibrations in the air of the room, yet clearly it does not involve physically trespassing and the question of legality in the use of less invasive more passive intelligence gathering mechanisms such as this is not so clear cut. It doesnt seem at all moral but it may not be strictly illegal.

Also whilst attention has recently been focused on those who have made war on Iraq, it seems really quite unlikely that only the US or UK would be interested in spying on the UN (in this case they may have had the most interest in spying but in the past certainly other nations have spied and no doubt still attempt to)

Denoir- 1)If double majority were required would the UN actually be able to agree on anything meaningful(considering e.g. even the EU has problems reaching concensus)?

2)This would tempt many more powerful countries (not only the US but others currently with a veto) to leave the UN behind completly when things started going against them, but i agree the veto looks a little outdated.

3)Apart from the immense problems of defining a common set of laws and the even bigger problems of enforcing them (and the question of what you mean by 'judging and enforcing') would this not serve to make the UN a more exclusive organisation (In a way Kofi Annan for example might see as counter productive)? Could it not serve to further polarise the world between the rich west able and willing to ratify (especially europeans and 'progressive' liberal minded countries) and the developing (or not) world unable or unwilling to ratify the new laws? We are still left with the kind of regimes the US would see as part of the 'axis of evil' either inside a UN neutralised by their unwillingness to enact or abide by laws that would deem their actions unlawful, OR outside and so immune to UN laws (or as now officially complaint but hypocritically & obviously involved in numerous and wild breaches)- If the aim is to exclude 'rogue' nations from the UN and so convince them to change the way they behave in order to be included, surely the 'rogue' nations will themselves object (ie people currently in the UN will object to legislature that would exclude them)

4) The WTO is seen in many developing countries as a prop for the continuing hegemony of the western economies. Without major structural changes, making it part of the UN might be widely objected to (and even totally inappropriate).

5) I agree, though China (and others) would certainly object to being 'forced' to do anything.

[bn880 5]

2) The veto has to go. There was a point to it when USA and the Soviet Union held a gun to each others' head, but not today. Instead we have a blocking mechanism that prevents the UN from doing its work.

Maybe we should make a petition?

But seriously, maybe firing off some letters to the proper UN officials can at least spark some discussion on this... I would like to see the veto gone as well.

[denoir 0]

Denoir- 1)If double majority were required would the UN actually be able to agree on anything meaningful(considering e.g. even the EU has problems reaching concensus)?

"Able to agree" is kind of missing the point. You'll get results that are supported or rejected by a majority. An "average" veto is certainly better than the security council veto that we have now where a few countries constantly block decisions.

Quote[/b] ]2)This would tempt many more powerful countries (not only the US but others currently with a veto) to leave the UN behind completly when things started going against them, but i agree the veto looks a little outdated.

Indeed, that is why it's important that they are included in the reformation progress. The trouble it is that it requires for nations to think of the global good, rather than their current self interest. Getting China and USA to sit at the same table is an achievement today - you can imagine how difficult it would be for them to agree on a common framework...

Quote[/b] ]3)Apart from the immense problems of defining a common set of laws and the even bigger problems of enforcing them (and the question of what you mean by 'judging and enforcing') would this not serve to make the UN a more exclusive organisation (In a way Kofi Annan for example might see as counter productive)? Could it not serve to further polarise the world between the rich west able and willing to ratify (especially europeans and 'progressive' liberal minded countries) and the developing (or not) world unable or unwilling to ratify the new laws? We are still left with the kind of regimes the US would see as part of the 'axis of evil' either inside a UN neutralised by their unwillingness to enact or abide by laws that would deem their actions unlawful, OR outside and so immune to UN laws (or as now officially complaint but hypocritically & obviously involved in numerous and wild breaches)- If the aim is to exclude 'rogue' nations from the UN and so convince them to change the way they behave in order to be included, surely the 'rogue' nations will themselves object (ie people currently in the UN will object to legislature that would exclude them)

My idea is quite simple: you can choose to which extent you wish to participate but if you don't participate you don't get to have a say on things. This could be regulated with money as well. Basically, if you do things the same way the world on average wants, then you get a big bonus. If you don't that's equally fine, but you don't get any bonus. By that way you can get various dictatorships to evolve to more modern forms but without threatening them.

Quote[/b] ]4) The WTO is seen in many developing countries as a prop for the continuing hegemony of the western economies. Without major structural changes, making it part of the UN might be widely objected to (and even totally inappropriate).

It is indeed, but let's face facts: it isn't going away. The western economies are responsible for more than 90% of the world's GDP. The best thing to do is to let the non-western economies join the circle. More free trade (big plus for western economies) and a more fair trade ( big plus for non-western economies)

Quote[/b] ]5) I agree, though China (and others) would certainly object to being 'forced' to do anything.

Indeed. I don't see my list as something achievable or even remotely realistic. While the EU is mostly pro-UN, it makes them very alone in the world. USA doesn't like the UN. Most of the Arab world thinks that the UN is just a front for Pax Americana. China doesn't care. Russia pretends to care etc

The biggest obstacles are actually IMO USA and China.

[Bernadotte 0]

3) A common set of laws have to be defined and a way to judge and enforce them, should a country violate them. All forms of international accords, such as the Geneva conventions should be rewritten and inlcuded in a unified set. The countries can choose to ratify them or not, but if they choose not to, then they lose the right to vote in related matters.

...

5) Shared military responsibility and a joint military command for peace keeping operations. Basically to take over what NATO is doing today while forcing large strong countries like China to contribute more to the international community.

I agree with your entire post and I'd just like to take points 3 and 5 a bit further regarding the new UN's military:

- Very strong and even have nuclear capabilities.

- Stationed strategically across the globe.

- Capable of responding instantly to violations of certain laws set forth in point 3 without authorisation from UN executive or judiciary.

For example, if a cop sees a bank robbery in progress he doesn't need to have a meeting with the town council before being able to respond.  The cop can have the bank surrounded within minutes.  Otherwise there would be bank heists all the time.  Similarly, the UN needs to increase its effectiveness at deterring aggression by being able to respond much more quickly and strongly.

We all know (or at least we should) what happened in 1990, when Saddam Hussein informed US ambassador April Glaspie about Iraq's intentions regarding Kuwait.  She responded with, "We have no opinion on your border disputes with Kuwait."  Weeks later Iraq invaded.  Sure, it's arguable whether an opposing US opinion would have prevented the attack, but a strong UN military able to enforce international law against such aggression might have deterred it.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

The further you take such ideas the more they become only dreams almost incapable of being realised and start to look like the classic US redneck fear of a 'UN army of occupation' or some such thing ,the fact being that without US support setting up such an international military response force would at present be very difficult (if not totally impractical).

Who the heck would provide nukes that might one day be used against them (if only as a threat)? Where would these nukes be based, and what about the profound conflicts of interest that could arise if contributing countries troops thought that they may be used against their own country of origin?

I think reform of the UN is very desirable but very hard to get momentum for (and would be harder for countries to agree on the more profound the changes).

I still question what purpose would be served by including the IMF into the UN. It has been known to stamp quickly on protectionism in poorer countries whilst being very slow to deliberate on whether to do the same in stronger economies such as the US. Im not sure if it would be good to further reinforce the IMF as an official part of the international superstructure when it seems to me that the IMF itself needs revision (and the whole rather patronising atmosphere to 'developing' countries that it seems to propagate).

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Still, it would make a good OFP mod though

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Similarly, the UN needs to increase its effectiveness at deterring aggression by being able to respond much more quickly and strongly.

There are already radpid response teams of the UN all over the planet

Problem is they are dependant on UN members material and transport capacities as the UN has no military fleet for RD missions.

It takes more time to get a chopper from a UN member than you can think of.

Quote[/b] ]Very strong and even have nuclear capabilities.

No. Nuclear is not the way for UN forces. Remember basically the UN forces are peacekeepers, not deathbringers or gunslinging Texans. We have sufficient of them already.

Quote[/b] ]Who the heck would provide nukes that might one day be used against them

I´d go for the universal source Pakistan. They equipped Iran, Lybia and North Korea. They shouldn´t have a problem with the UN

[Bernadotte 0]

Quote[/b] ]Very strong and even have nuclear capabilities.

No. Nuclear is not the way for UN forces. Remember basically the UN forces are peacekeepers, not deathbringers or gunslinging Texans. We have sufficient of them already.

A world that is already full of gunslingers needs a good sheriff, armed with similar weapons.  Gunslingers might be deathbringers but sheriffs are life savers.  I think we'd all be a lot better off if the world's nukes were in the hands of an entity without any territorial ambitions.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]I think we'd all be a lot better off if the world's nukes were in the hands of an entity without any territorial ambitions.

Sure but this would make nuclear weapons useless for everyone.

Nukes are there. They have/had their role. Until someone uses them again like the USA did there is no big risk. If allies of the US spread them worldwide I´d say it´s a responsibility of the US to stop this. Pakistan is THE place for nuclear knowledge and still the US failed to intervene.

I personally don´t want nukes in the UN. It´s not our role to play the dirty game other nations play. It´s our role to control and direct them.

We are not the ones to be blamed for nukes out of control.

We only can make sure that the programs are controlled like I did in White russia where such goods were sold in large amounts after breakdown of the USSR.

Israel for example has nukes in unknown amount as they have not signed the nuclear control treaties. That´s what I´m worried about.

[bn880 5]

I agree with Bals, and I too am most worried by Israel's current sockpile than anyone others. Why? I am 100% sure Israel will use any/all weapons they have if something drastic happens, even if it would mean wiping out everyone else. It is a no brainer to deduce this from past/current behaviour.

[Bernadotte 0]

Quote[/b] ]I think we'd all be a lot better off if the world's nukes were in the hands of an entity without any territorial ambitions.

Sure but this would make nuclear weapons useless for everyone.

Exactly.  

I agree with Bals, and I too am most worried by Israel's current sockpile than anyone others.  Why?  I am 100% sure Israel will use any/all weapons they have if something drastic happens, even if it would mean wiping out everyone else.

And why shouldn't they?

And why shouldn't France?  ...Britain?  ...Russia?  ...the USA?  etc.

The more the world believes that a nation is prepared to use them the less likely it is that they ever will be used.

Let's not forget that the only time they were ever actually used was when the world didn't know they existed.

[bn880 5]

They should not because... I won't get into this, maybe in another 50 years.

[DKM Jaguar 0]

Let's change the word UK for "Blair". It's not like the british public wanted to go to war in the first place, we didn't have a say in it. We voted, but that ALL  got ignored. It's not fair to blame the entire UK for 1 man and his follower's actions. AND no one voted to get the UN bugged. That was purely the government. Just for the record: I'm glad we went to war in Iraq, but no one said anything about UN bugging.

I hope Bush and blair both get kicked out of government at the next elections. Both deserve jail.

I know blair beleived what he was doing was right, but those WMD were not there, and the equivilant of that is killing someone becuase they MIGHT have killed someone in later life.