Should Canada leave the UN?

[Rifleman62]

Perhaps that group would be the Anglosphere.  It would be a neo-English Empire (of sorts),

Quebec would undoubtedly whine about that.

The UN has been useless for decades. The US should stop paying the bills. We have a bunch of fifth world, no consequence "diplomats" living in Manhattan luxury apartments, riding in limos who would be barefoot living in their own dictatorship country.

The appointments of countries to the various positions in the UN is a joke.

Does Canada have the guts to leave the UN?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Sir Winston Churchill famously said (1954) that: "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war." The UN is the world's top level "jaw jaw" place.

The problems, and here are many, that exist in he UN are minor compared to what it does.

First: don't forget hat the UN is much, much more than the gang in New York. Many of the UN"s member agencies, some over 100 years old, do excellent work on our collective behalf: think of the International Telecommunications Union, the World Health Organization, the International Maritime Organization and the World Intellectual Property Organization. All these agencies would exist even if there was no UN - some existed over 100 years ago before the UN, or even the League of Nations, was born. They, not the gang in New York do the real, day-b-day, essential work of he UN. Consider, just for example, radio frequencies: radio waves do not recognize international boundaries so we need some mechanism to coordinate their use so that e.g. channels used for TV studio to transmitter links in Canada do not interfere with channels, in the same frequency band, used by public safety/first responders in the USA; equally, when you travel to Europe or Asia you want your mobile phone to work seamlessly - someone has to do the highly technical coordination work that ensures that will happen. The ITU does both: one of its output document, the ITU's Radio Regulaions, for example, are under constant review and revision by dozens then hundreds and, every few years, thousands of technical experts from many of the ITU's 193 members and the document is a treaty with the same weight in law as e.g. the Canad/US Free Trade Agreement, the Maastricht Treaty (which created the Euro (€) and the North Atlantic Treaty which binds us to NATO. You don't hear much about the ITU or WHO (unless there are fears of a global pandemic) but they ARE the UN in action and the long term consequences of their work actually matter more than the UNSC Resolution that authorized our Afghanistan mission or the one that asked us to intervene, militarily, in Libya in 2011.

If the UN, imperfect as it is, didn't exist we would be busily inventing it. The Security Council is an anachronism, as was demonstrated nearly 65 years ago (3 Nov 50) when United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution 377 A, the Uniting for Peace resolution, was adopted as a means of circumventing further Soviet vetoes during the course of the Korean War. Eventually it, the SC, will wither and die. The staffing of the UN, and many of its members agencies is wasteful, at best, often corrupt - but only a small handful of the UN's 193 member states are, themselves, anything other than inept and corrupt so we ought not to be surprised or even overly concerned when countries like Gabon, Russia and Saudi Arabia are 'elected' to e.g. the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and when UN agencies are staffed with highly paid nincompoops just because they 'represent' a region.

Doing away with the UN is a silly idea - it is far from ideal, but it is better than any alternative.

 

[aesop081]

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..

Same "ink spot" strategy employed in Afghanistan.

As for R2P, IMHO, we are incapable of considering 2nd, 3rd, and further order effects and we do not have the will and the attention span to follow up for decades.

 

[Rifleman62]

I stand by my silly opinion.

The genocide that has taken place in many states in Africa, in the FRY out weights management of radio waves.

Let the CRTC take over from the UN.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I stand by my silly opinion.

The genocide that has taken place in many states in Africa, in the FRY out weights management of radio waves.

Let the CRTC take over from the UN.

Actually, I disagree ~ while the pain and suffering in Africa, and many, many other places are sad, they are part of the natural order of things. It is true that the UN has done precious little to help and, in some cases, has actually made things worse for some people, but no other organization or grouping or coalition of he willing was able to do anything because, simply: no on was willing.

Managing radio waves, on the other hand,  has promoted the exchange of ideas and information and, arguably, has helped people and countries resolve, even prevent problems that could have become crises and wars; managing the radio waves has promoted economic productivity and prosperity, helping to lift millions out of poverty and into, at least, the ranks of the lower middle class; managing the radio waves and similar activities like establishing safety of life at sea standards, international labour standards and flu vaccines (all things that UN member agencies do) has probably saved more lives than international failures to peacemake or peacekeep have cost.

 

[a_majoor]

Many international organizations (especially ones that set standards) predate the UN by decades, such as the International Postal Union. I think what some people are trying to say here is we can and should continue to support these sorts of organizations (even if they now operate more or less under the ambit of the UN), while relying far less on the UN bureaucracy for anything approaching day to day governance.

I certainly care little about what the UN says about anything anymore, get annoyed when their busybodies come here and try to lay down some sort of guilt trip on how badly we do things in Canada and shake my head when we are expected to take seriously an organization that elects criminal regimes to head bodies on human rights or disarmament. The only thing that seems to be worse than the UN sitting aside and doing nothing when conflicts and civil wars break out is when they actually do get involved (see former Yugoslavia, for example).

Since the usual thing in international relations is to make the least worst choice, I suppose we have to agree with Edward that the marginal utility the UN provides on some issues is still worth the expense of maintaining membership, since there are few other alternatives out there.

 

[Rifleman62]

while the pain and suffering in Africa, and many, many other places are sad, they are part of the natural order of things

Agree. Tribalism.

 

[Rifleman62]

Russia has reportedly shipped Attack helicopters to Syria. There were photos/video of the helicopters firing at ground targets.The UN refuses to (and Russia also) institute an arms embargo against Syria.

P.S. It would be ignored anyway.

 

[57Chevy]

Russia has reportedly shipped Attack helicopters to Syria. There were photos/video of the helicopters firing at ground targets.The UN refuses to (and Russia also) institute an arms embargo against Syria.

P.S. It would be ignored anyway.

Shouldn't your post be in the Syrian thread ?

They can't institute an arms embargo because somehow,
international law allows them to comply to contracts
that were made prior to the Syrian crises.

New demands may be treated differently.

 

[Sythen]

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/world/archives/2012/06/20120618-161342.html

OTTAWA - As Canada comes under UN criticism once again - this time for Quebec's new law on demonstrations - some legal experts here are wondering whether it's time Canada reconsiders its membership to the 193-nation international body.

The UN's top human rights official, Navi Pillay, included Canada in a list of the world's worst on human rights, and criticized Quebec's Bill 78 for restricting freedom of assembly. The emergency legislation requires protesters to notify police eight hours ahead of assembly, restricts education employees' ability to strike and gives the Minister of Education the right to change the act.

"This law regulates how we can do our job," said a spokesman for Quebec student organization FEUQ. "This is about our rights in the charter."

Matthew Harrington, law professor at the Universite de Montreal, calls Canada's inclusion in Pillay's speech "absurd" and said much of the opposition to Bill 78 is based on misconception.

More on link. These are the announcements you get when places like Iran are on the Human Rights committees. I wonder if these recent attacks on Canada by the UN have anything to do with our refusal to send funds to bail out the EU, or our support of Israel?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

In response to the original question and based on the latest, my answer is ...........................
...


Yes!