In reply to Jeff Fink's message of Wed, 30 Jan 2008 07:45:08 -0500: Hi, [snip] >Since its inception, the UNhas been relatively ineffective and harmless >because whenever they really try to do something it gets vetoed by somebody. >If the leadership could institute policies unopposed then things could start >to get dangerous for one and all. > >Nationalism has shown some really bad characteristics over the centuries, >but "world unity" scares me more. [snip] That would perhaps be a problem if the UN actually had teeth. However it relies for it's muscle upon contributions of armed forces from member states. That isn't likely to change any time soon. In the mean time, removal of the veto power would ensure that various resolutions that ought to be passed would be passed. Sometimes the major powers deserve to be embarrassed. e.g. US and Iraq, Russia and Chetchnya, China and Taiwan/Tibet. (All examples of a major power putting its own interests above those of the local inhabitants). IMO removal of the veto would lead to a more even handed result all round.
Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
