To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » David Peterson's Blog » "In Larger Freedom" I

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

50

David Peterson's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/davidpeterson
Bio: I am an independent writer and researcher based in Chicago. (More)

All Peterson Blogs

Recent Peterson Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts

"In Larger Freedom" I

By David Peterson at Mar 20, 2005

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
According to the Report delivered last December by the UN Secretary-General's High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, any changes in the composition of the Security Council, the one organ with the "primary responsibility...for the maintenance of international peace and security," must embody the following principles (Par. 249):
(a) They should, in honouring Article 23 of the Charter of the United Nations, increase the involvement in decision-making of those who contribute most to the United Nations financially, militarily and diplomatically — specifically in terms of contributions to United Nations assessed budgets, participation in mandated peace operations, contributions to voluntary activities of the United Nations in the areas of security and development, and diplomatic activities in support of United Nations objectives and mandates...; (b) They should bring into the decision-making process countries more representative of the broader membership, especially of the developing world; (c) They should not impair the effectiveness of the Security Council; (d) They should increase the democratic and accountable nature of the body.
The Panel's Report then laid out two options: Model A and Model B. Although both models would increase the number of Security Council members from 15 to 24 (along with other changes---see pars. 251-258), neither model would alter the current veto system enjoyed by the old Permanent Five (Britain, China, France, Russia, and the United States), rendering whatever changes are instituted on the basis of each model cosmetic at best. Like tossing a few bones to the "developing world." The Panel's recommendation that "under any reform proposal, there should be no expansion of the veto" (Par. 256) therefore rings hollow. The expansion of the veto was never the issue. But its contraction ought to have been. As in its elimination. Yet there is no hint that the Panel, whatever its deliberations in private might have countenanced, could have mentioned this topic among its options. There is no Model C. And if you think I sound overly impressed about Model A and Model B, try this. Unable or unwilling to broach the topic of eliminating the veto from the parliamentary rules of the Council, the Panel proposed instead a "system of 'indicative voting'," which the Panel defines in such a way that the 24 members of a newly expanded Council "could call for a public indication of positions on a proposed action. Under this indicative vote," the Panel continued, "'no' votes would not have a veto effect, nor would the final tally of the vote have any legal force. The second formal vote on any resolution would take place under the current procedures of the Council. This would, we believe, increase the accountability of the veto function," the Panel concluded (Par. 257). In fact, no "increase in the accountability of the veto function" (Huh?) would follow from this method at all. And in real-world terms, what would the envisioned "indicative voting" really mean, anyway, given the continued reign of the veto over the Council's affairs? The Panel's recommendations on Council enlargement and reform were thoroughly timid.---And this is the flimsy kind of hook upon which the Secretary-General proposes to hang one of the key reforms he's advocating "for a new consensus on which to base collective action" going into the next General Assembly, the 60th overall, beginning next September? With friends like these.... What does it mean to assert that under the UN Charter, "The five permanent members were given veto rights but were also expected to shoulder an extra burden in promoting global security" (Par. 245), when one or more of these Permanent Five are threats to global security on a daily basis? Or to acknowledge that, "Since the end of the cold war, the effectiveness of the Council has improved, as has its willingness to act; but it has not always been equitable in its actions, nor has it acted consistently or effectively in the face of genocide or other atrocities" (Par. 246)? I seem to recall case after case since the end of the Cold War (so called---we are really scraping the bottom of the ideological barrel, when we start using rhetoric like this) when one or more of the Permanent Five engaged in acts of aggression against other countries, not only without recourse to the Security Council, but with its parliamentary veto at the Council freezing the Council dead in its tracks.---Can anyone still remember how the Council responded to the American invasion of Panama shortly before Christmas, 1989? And is it even necessary for me to list another case? In case he's listening, what the Secretary-General ought to propose this coming September is that the General Assembly work to establish an entirely new organ of the United Nations, similar to the current Security Council, but entirely new. Call it whatever you like---Security Council II, let us say. Security Council II would be composed of 24 Members. (Maybe more.) There may or may not be Permanent Members on Security Council II, depending on what is determined to work best. Of course, due regard is to be paid to the contribution of Members to the maintenance of international peace and security and to the other purposes of the UN, and also to equitable geographical distribution---the latter being the one and only strong point of the High-Level Panel's recommendations. The rest of the rules of composition and parliamentary procedure for Security Council II---whether membership is renewable or non-renewable; for two or four years or longer; and so on---can be figured out with an eye towards what really does enhance international peace and security, rather than provides a cover for global lawlessness, as is the case in the current Security Council. Like the current Security Council, Security Council II's functions and powers would include the maintenance of international peace and security. Basically, everything that is covered by Articles 23-32 of the UN Charter. With one fundamental exception: No member of Security Council II would enjoy a parliamentary veto. As a matter of fact, no such veto would exist. For Security Council II to come into existence, a two-thirds vote by the General Assembly's 191 members would be required. Of course, the Permanent Members of the current Security Council might not like another UN organ encroaching on their functions and powers. But the last time I checked, they didn't control two-thirds of the vote within the General Assembly. Nor did their vetoes mean anything there. The point of all this would be for the General Assembly's members to begin to invest their hopes, interests, and needs in the functions and powers of Security Council II, and to let Security Council I wither away. Unlike the current Security Council, if a member of Security Council II were to violate the UN Charter (e.g., if a member launched a wars of aggression against another member, or militarily occupy a another member without the Council's prior approval), then its membership would be rescinded, and it could not serve again until its violations were rectified.
United Nations Millennium Declaration (A/55/L.2), UN General Assembly, September 8, 2000 "We the Peoples": The Role of the United Nations in the 21st Century, Kofi A. Annan et al., United Nation, 2000 UN Millennium Development Goals (Overview with links) UN Millennium Project (Homepage) Investing in Development: A Practical Plan To Achieve the Millennium Development Goals, Jeffrey D. Sachs et al., 2005 (For the complete PDF version of the same.---Also see the accompanying Media Release.) A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility, Report of the Secretary-General's High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, Anand Panyarachun et al., 2004 (For the complete PDF version of the same.) In Larger Freedom: Towards Security, Development and Human Rights for All, Report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations for decisions by Heads of State and Government in September 2005 (A/59/2005), Kofi A. Annan et al., United Nations, 2005 (For the PDF version of the report.) "Annan to present on Monday new report on building better and safer world," UN News Center, March 18, 2005 "Annan calls for deal by world leaders on poverty, security and human rights," UN News Center, March 20, 2005 "Annan's proposed deal for better world is 'bold and achievable' – UN officials," UN News Center, March 20, 2005 "The Unfixable UN," Jed Babbin, Boston Globe, March 15, 2005 "Annan Has a Plan to Revitalize U.N.," Maggie Farley, Los Angeles Times, March 19, 2005 "UN plans revamp to win America back," Charles Laurence, Sunday Telegraph, March 20, 2005 "UN in dramatic climbdown after American pressure," Charles Laurence, unday Telegraph, March 20, 2005 "Annan Drafts Changes For U.N.," Colum Lynch, Washington Post, March 20, 2005 "Report: Annan drafts reform package for U.N.," Associated Press, March 20, 2005 "Annan Wants Big Reforms on Force, Poverty, Rights," Evelyn Leopold, Reuters, March 20, 2005 "Annan unveils sweeping UN reforms," Marc Carnegie, The Australian, March 21, 2005

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (5)

50

Re: "In Larger Freedom" I

By Peterson, David at Mar 22, 2005 03:40 AM
Fraser: Great cite. Thanks. (For everyone else, please see Article 108, Chapter XVIII, "Amendments.") My reading of 108 differs. Though if the literature interpreting 108 reads as you say, let's stick with yours: That any constitutional amendment to the UN Charter "depends upon consent of the permanent members of the SC." Crucial, then, is your follow-up: That "all the non-permanent members should consider leaving the UN and creating their own alternative (with no veto)." (Or something along these lines.) This is very much in the spirit of what I was suggesting. Because it is obvious that the UN Security Council can not live up to its constitutional functions and powers under circumstances in which one or more of its permanent members is able to launch wars of aggression against other sovereign states, while using its (or their) constitutionally secured veto to prevent the Security Council from taking action in defense of international peace and security. That is quite some contradictory system the world's preeminent Super Power has at its disposal.--- But it doesn't need to be reformed. It needs to be superseded. Poor Kofi.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "In Larger Freedom" I

By Fws2, Fraser at Mar 21, 2005 20:22 PM
So I agree there is a difference between power distribution in the SC and GA, but I still think the GA is hamstrung. In fact, in something I wrote a while ago, I argued that all the non-permanent members should consider leaving the UN and creating their own alternative (with no veto).

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "In Larger Freedom" I

By Fws2, Fraser at Mar 21, 2005 20:20 PM
David, I may be misunderstanding you. I know that certainly there is much more distribution of power within the GA than the SC. And they do pass decent resolutions (on Palestine, Space and so on, since there is no veto power) albeit with no serious consequences if they are not upheld. However, the GA has no, repeat no, power to actualise change without the consent of the permanent members of the SC. Here is the relevant paragraph: "108 Amendments to the present Charter shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations when they have been adopted by a vote of two thirds of the members of the General Assembly and ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the Security Council." (Article 108, chapter 18). Thus even change depends upon consent of the permanent members of the SC.

Reply this comment

50

Re: "In Larger Freedom" I

By Peterson, David at Mar 21, 2005 18:06 PM
Fraser: You may be right about the current Security Council itself. But I'm interested in the General Assembly's creating a new and alternative UN organ whose functions and powers would cover the maintenance of international peace and security, but be democratically constituted from Day One forward, and free of American domination, the way the current Security Council is. Remember: On March 19, 2003, not only did the Americans rub the world's collective nose in the fact that the Security Council is incapable of preserving international peace and security---where questions of war and peace and American Power are concered. But when the Security Council passed Resolution 1546 on June 8, 2004, retroactively this resolution was the legal equivalent of having had given the Americans the okay to invade Iraq in the first place. So it is clear that the current Security Council is not in the business of preserving international peace and security. Other alternatives have become necessary. (For a great commentary, see “The Normalization of Torture, Death Squads and Contempt for the Rule of Law,” Edward S. Herman, ZNet, March 18, 2005.) Within the current Security Council, the Permanent Five reign. But not within the General Assembly. It is to the General Assembly---and beyond---that we now must turn.

Reply this comment

Person

By Fws2, Fraser at Mar 21, 2005 17:16 PM
David, Interesting comments on potential UN reform. I have one point to add: for any change to come into force it has to be ratified by all the permanent members of the SC (if I remember correctly). Thus real change cannot be obtained without the permanent members of SC's say so. The permanent members are of course just the dictators of the UN, in general.

Reply this comment

Loading_border