• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Should Canada leave the UN?

Sythen

Full Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Maybe time for a UN dedicated thread?

Either way, this article on Yahoo:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/conservative-mp-larry-miller-suggestion-canada-consider-leaving-174054604.html

Conservative MP Larry Miller -- yes the same Larry Miller who, in February, compared the long-gun registry to Hitler and Nazis --has stumbled into another controversy.

The Tory backbencher from Ontario is demanding Canada reconsider its membership in the United Nations after the world body criticized the government for its treatment of alleged war criminals, for its food security and for changes to the refugee system.

"The United Nations is an organization that was designed to work collectively to solve the major problems facing the world," Miller said in a statement, according to the National Post.

"If this is the type of action that the UN will be taking then I think that it is high time that we review our participation in the United Nations."

I know its been sort of touched on a few times in other threads, but I would love to see either MAJOR reform at the UN, or for Canada and its allies to form a new body. Whether its ABCANZ or whatever.. countries with similar policies and ways of doing things. Everyone is a fan of saying NATO is becoming useless as well.. Maybe its time we scrapped alliances that no longer matter and make a group that can and will get things done?
 

Maxadia

Sr. Member
Reaction score
3
Points
230
I think it's time something new is formed.  The UN is becoming the League of Nations of the 21st century - a neutered entity.

The worst thing will be when one of the large nations finally figures this out, and realizes that it can do whatever it wants by creating a political mess of redtape that the UN will be dealing with while they take action.
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
1,716
Points
1,060
The UN needs to modernize if its going to have any relevance going forward. Its a self-licking ice cream cone that gives dictators a forum to spout hate (Iran), and the beaurucracy its created is just mind blowing... I don't think we need to leave the UN, but we need to take a harder stand and tell them where to go if they are going to make statements like they recently did ref food/war crimes.
 
F

fraserdw

Guest
RDJP said:
I think it's time something new is formed.  The UN is becoming the League of Nations of the 21st century - a neutered entity.

The worst thing will be when one of the large nations finally figures this out, and realizes that it can do whatever it wants by creating a political mess of redtape that the UN will be dealing with while they take action.

It has always been neutered, the only time it did something useful is when a Veto Vote member was absent or when all the big players wanted to do something.  The Korean Police Action was passed because the Soviet Union stayed away, the Arab-Isreali Wars only ended when the US and USSR agreed that they should end. 
 

Kalatzi

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Canadian Historian, a first class one at that ,  Gwynne Dyer,  maintaines the UN's main purpose - attained  so far,  preventing an all  out nuclear war.

Some might not consider all that relevant these days, but I'm sure appreciative  :salute: :salute: :salute:

Another organization????  I have feeling the horse is out of the barn ...
 

teabag

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
10
The United Nations charter states that its purpose is:

Code:
1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

It is not a body for unilateral or arbitrary decision making.  It is a reminder that the world does not revolve around us or our allies and that yes, even representatives who have nothing good to say may have a voice on the international stage.  Nations who advocate reform are unable to reach a consensus because they understand that any powers granted to the body could in fact be used against them.  It is hard to be a hypocrite when you have to look everyone in the eye. 

Nations and their allies still get things done.  Just that they would prefer to be able to wipe themselves clean by going through the United Nations first.  If we are implying that things should get done without consideration for international law then we are just a step away from a terrorist organization. 

What sorts of things would you like Canada and its allies to do?  And, can you think of any reason why they would be reluctant to do so?
 

Nemo888

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
160
The UN poorly serves a needed purpose. Just like the League did.

NATO is great. Just doesn't have much to do currently. Both of these entities look useless when things are quiet.  If the shite hits the fan they will come in very handy. NATO's "uselessness" is a supreme  testament to how effective it has been.
 

Sythen

Full Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Urmimu said:
The United Nations charter states that its purpose is:

Code:
1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

It is not a body for unilateral or arbitrary decision making.  It is a reminder that the world does not revolve around us or our allies and that yes, even representatives who have nothing good to say may have a voice on the international stage.  Nations who advocate reform are unable to reach a consensus because they understand that any powers granted to the body could in fact be used against them.  It is hard to be a hypocrite when you have to look everyone in the eye. 

Nations and their allies still get things done.  Just that they would prefer to be able to wipe themselves clean by going through the United Nations first.  If we are implying that things should get done without consideration for international law then we are just a step away from a terrorist organization. 

What sorts of things would you like Canada and its allies to do?  And, can you think of any reason why they would be reluctant to do so?

Things like Afghanistan? It wasn't a UN mission, regardless of whether the UN sanctioned it. It was a NATO mission. The UN has countries like Libya and Syria on their Human Rights watch groups, and North Korea heads the Disarmament section. You mention giving a voice to other nations? Like how Iranian and Venezuelan leaders use it to give religious sermons or just talk trash about the USA?

In the last 20 years, what "peace and security" has the UN provided anyone? What threats to peace have been removed by UN action? What "international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character" has the UN solved? In what way has the UN been a "centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends"?

All of these things are done better by other organizations (IMF, G8, G20, etc) so the UN is essentially redundant and a money sink, in my eyes. I'd actually like someone to show me something the UN actually does today that would not be better accomplished by a different organization?
 

Sythen

Full Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Nemo888 said:
NATO is great. Just doesn't have much to do currently. Both of these entities look useless when things are quiet.  If the shite hits the fan they will come in very handy. NATO's "uselessness" is a supreme  testament to how effective it has been.

Quiet, except the 10 year shooting war that's just ending, right? Definitely NATO worked out well there, with 3 NATO countries doing all the heavy lifting is definitely a testament to its usefulness.
 

Nemo888

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
160
Compared to WWI, WWII, Korea and the threat of global nuclear annhilation when battling the Soviets,...

It's a police action when put in that context. Our enemy is a negligible threat to most of NATO(probably why they weren't interested) and even to us outside their own borders. No navy, airforce or armour. No comparison really.
 

vonGarvin

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
20
Points
430
Interesting.

I'm not sure that the UN, in its present form, is doing what its intended purpose was in the post-war world.  In spite of everthing, however, by giving any member states a "veto" only suggests that some member states are "more equal" than others, as opposed to being a group of equals.

So, if people don't mind admitting that what we (the West) have as a culture is superior to what they (the Others) have, and this is paid tribute to the fact that They migrate to Us, not the other way around, then perhaps it's time for a new international body.  Perhaps that group would be the Anglosphere.  It would be a neo-English Empire (of sorts), but if the US, the UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada got together and left the UN (even booting its HQ from New York), then what?  Would the UK leave the EU completely?  Would NATO dissolve, or form around a new Europa?

Thoughts?
 

Sythen

Full Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Technoviking said:
perhaps it's time for a new international body.

Something that has extremely strict rules for joining/remaining in as a member. If nations want a seat at the table, they must prove they can handle the responsibility by ensuring their own countries are reasonably free, and that they are willing to help and enforce R2P. Things like are happening in Syria, and all over Africa should not be allowed. I don't care much if people call me a war monger or whatever, something needs to be done and the UN is powerless and NATO is useless. I'm not saying that every time something happens that every nation must mobilize, but there should be a reasonably easy way to ensure an equal distribution of the work load. And someone far more intelligent than me could write it up in a way that doesn't allow countries to weasel out of their turn type of thing.
 

GAP

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
20
Points
380
The easiest way to instill change in the UN is to let it go broke. Stop paying dues like all those other "participating" clowns.


Then again, the UN provides useful, convenient diplomatic cover sometimes....
 
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Technoviking:

You're bang-on in saying that that folk immigrate west and not the other way round. This includes people from the developed and developing countries in Europe.

I too am an immigrant, so please bear with me if I'm wrong in saying that as far as culture and governance is concerned - the US, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the UK have a lot of similarities.

As for the UN, in my opinion and as pointed out by RJDP, it is going the same way as the League of Nations - an organization with no teeth or the conviction to carry out its mandate. The slaughter that is going on in Syria is a fine example. That being said, for Canada to leave the UN might alienate us from a number of trading countries.

I second your thought about Canada, US, UK, New Zealand and Australia forming an organization limited to themselves only. Apart from better civilian ties, this organization could focus on making our armed forces even more inter-operable.
 

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
430
Kalatzi said:
Canadian Historian, a first class one at that ,  Gwynne Dyer,  maintaines the UN's main purpose - attained  so far,  preventing an all  out nuclear war.




HUH?

The UN has had little to do with saving the world from "all out nuclear war" since Korea, and possibly not even then.  The US has been the main deterrent to nuclear war, and the US led SEATO and NATO.  SEATO is no more.  Until "the Wall" came down, it was NATO, and Five Eyes that keep the 'Balance of Power' and nuclear threat at bay.  The UN has been a neutered organization, all talk and no real action.  UN Missions have met very little success in any of their world deployments to bring peaceful resolutions to regional disputes. 

Warsaw Pact and NATO brinkmanship maintained the "peace", not the UN and all its ineffective postulations. 
 

Sythen

Full Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
0
Points
210
CDN Aviator said:
You say that like R2P is a good idea.

Guess you and I differ on this point. I hate sounding like a hippy but if we're not willing to use our strength to help others, then what's the point? It sounds sort of like a Socialist ideal, I know.. But I don't see it that way.. I see it more like Habitat for Humanity.. A hand up, not a hand out. Remove the militias and dictators, and allow the people to forge forward. It didn't work in Afghanistan, because we weren't fully committed. We can do better, and we must do better. We can't advance as a species while some of us live a nightmare every day.
 
A

aesop081

Guest
Sythen said:
then what's the point?

The problem lies in the rush to help. Take Libya for example. Who did we really support ? We don't know.

R2P is a convenient name for ill-considered interventionism.
 

Sythen

Full Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
0
Points
210
CDN Aviator said:
The problem lies in the rush to help. Take Libya for example. Who did we really support ? We don't know.

R2P is a convenient name for ill-considered interventionism.

While you're probably right, I really hate that we sit idle. I agree that action for the sake of action is rarely a good idea, but I remember reading something one time.. It was someone's strategy for winning Vietnam back in the day.. Basically make a safe zone, and administer it.. And expand it slowly.. And the people within the zone would slowly become more educated and learn what peace and stability really were.. Soon they would crave it and not want war at all.. And though I can see a million and one holes in this plan, I can see it working with a few adjustments. How does that old saying go? A good plan now rather than a perfect plan next week?

I realize I am sort of derailing my own thread here, but I see a discussion on the UN also focusing on things like the purpose of such a group. Responsibility To Protect I think should be one of the main aims, as I really don't see us going to war with a major power. Not that we wouldn't prepare for that as well, just need to do something..
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
3,658
Points
1,060
Canadians identify with being in the UN.

We'll sooner see a national white English male appreciation month than we will see even the slightest flicker of movement towards moving away from being in the UN.
 
Top