Proposal #24: United CISV Nations.
I propose that all CISV camps and activities include an activity to develop understanding of United Nations.
Rationale
UN with all its limit, is so far the only entity with the power of saving what is left of the peace in the world today. Everybody should know its mechanism and respect it, working to make its
action more effective.
The inclusion in CISV camps (seminar, interchange, iym, village and summer) could be done using the framework of Model UN as "learning by doing" tool of CISV.
Respectfully submitted, Teo (ITA)
8 Comments:
I am not sure I like the idea. Although CISV can be thought of as closely bonded to the UN (especially to the Declaration of Human Rights), it’s participation in conflict situations has sometimes been questionable. Therefore, promoting UN related activities could, unwillingly, compromise the image of CISV.
Furthermore, and perhaps more important, CISV encourages ways of multinational cooperation and understanding that are both different and innovative, so perhaps it is better to see it as a source of new techniques to enhance current organizations or to create new ones.
I do agree with the proposal. Even though CISV should not be directly associated to the UN, it is VERY important that CISV teaches its participants and members about it. Because even though the power and function of the UN is absurdly limited in many ways, it is so far our only hope.
I just had a very interesting discussion with a man of www.worldcitizen.org. He managed to convinced me that the UN, sadly, is a very undemocratc institution. While the principle idea of a world organisation for peace is right, the way this institution is structured and functions is deeply contra-productive to reach this goal - peace.
I agree that CISV should educate about how UN functions, but CISV should not be uncritical towards the UN and it's structure.
Well, of course the Security Council is anti-democratic - tt needs indeed urgent changes. However, any body that would have the "goals" that one has would have to be somehow not fully democratic on all decisions, since it's an executive power.
However, the UN is quite a bit more than this and the general assembly. The relevant work actually made by the UN is done by its secondary agencies and comissions, such as UNDP, UNICEF, Human Rights Comission and so on.
This makes me agree with this proposal. It is fundamental to understand the relevance of supranational institutions and how very often NGOs are not the only way(or simply a bad way).
Cheers
The thoughts behind the multiple bodies of the UN are very similar to the grand ideas behind CISV. Getting participants familiar with this organisation and also letting participants think critically about this organisation in my opinion is just another part of teaching the participants something about what is going on in this world, only this time not on a national level other than our own (by means of meeting people from other countries) but on a more global level.
Indeed let's not forget that the UN is more than the security council and also has body touching upon other parts of the CISV Educational Circle through bodies such as the WMO - World Meteorological Organisation.
CISV is a place to think freely, and I think it's good to be aware of the existance and influence of organisations such as the UN, whether we agree with it or not.
IN 2005, THE COUNTRIES MAKING UP THE UNITED NATIONS were unable to agree on an organizational reform.
Among the principal issues taken up in the reforms project were the distribution and functioning of the Security Council. Despite numerous attempts to reach an agreement in voting, existing opposing coalitions stopped the reforms dead in their tracks.
The reforms process was not included on the agenda of the UN in any of its 61 sessions and will undoubtedly remain static for sometime; moreover, having been eliminated from the UN’s agenda, the question of reforming the principal organism of the United Nations continues to be an issue of great importance.
THE HIGH LEVEL GROUP
In March of 2005, the Secretary General of the UN, Kofi Annan, presented a report called In Greater Liberty: Development, Security, and Human Rights for All. In it, he explained his ambitious plan to transform the organism, bringing up various conclusions of the High Level Group that had previously convened to discuss reforms in December of 2004.
The novelty was that this document offered a definition of security that transcends the classic sphere of disputes between states.
With a new definition, threats can be recognized within all fields of international politics: transnational, international, and intranational.
THE MAIN OBSTACLE
Nobody doubts the necessity of transforming the international organism to meet the challenges presented by new global threats. Classical, international conflicts – like the War in Iraq of 2003 and the escalation of the American-Iranian conflict over Iran’s nuclear program –have only recently laid bare the geopolitical forces that have paralyzed reform in the UN for so long.
Under this framework, it is clear that an ample administrative reform of its organisms – the General Assembly, the Secretary and the Security Council – is vital; however, the inability of the Security Council to adapt to the current international reality has made reform so impossible up until this point.
AN EXCLUSIVE CIRCLE
The structure of the United Nations is based upon two components: democracy, represented by the General Assembly; and realpolitik, represented by the Security Council.
The General Assembly is the main deliberative organism of the organization. In it, all Member States are equally represented, each counting for one vote. At least in the Assembly, the principle of sovereign equality holds true for all of its members.
The Security Council, on the other hand, is an exclusionary organism, which has held onto its discriminatory status in order to perpetuate the powers that were strengthened by the Yalta Agreement of 1945: US, France, Great Britain, the Russian Federation (a seat previously occupied by the Soviet Union) and the People’s Republic of China (a seat previously occupied by Taiwan).
WHERE IS THE REPRESENTATION?
This hierarchy of the five permanent members has the unique power of veto established by the unanimity rule of the larger powers. What this means is that if one of the five countries disagrees with a decision of the Council (let us not forget that the Council has a total of 15 members) it can issue a negative vote and paralyze all action.
In this manner, the composition of the Security Council shows evidence of a flagrant disregard for the international reality. The lack of representation of the majority of UN member states in the Security Council has generated intense debate about possible models of reform.
The most discussed suggestion is to expand the number of seats. But the crucial problem with this proposal is how many members to add to the Council, and in what capacity?
TWO PROPOSALS
Two different postures have been taken regarding this question. One of them comes from the High Level Group convened by the General Secretary, proposing the incorporation of 9 more seats, distributed following two alternative models.
1) The first would provide for six new permanent seats, and three non-permanent seats, none of them with the right to veto.
2) And the second would not incorporate any more permanent members, but would rather lengthen the renewable mandate of non-permanent members from two years to four.
Of these formulas suggested by the High Level Group, the second allows for the most efficient adaptation to the challenges confronting the United Nations today.
GUARANTEEING PEACE AND SECURITY
When the United Nations was formed, its mission was to guarantee international peace and security, for which the expansion of democracy within the organization is an indispensable requirement.
The world tendency, since the process of decolonization after the world war until modern day, has shifted towards a general democratization. Why, then, would there be a proposition to strengthen the oligarchy of the Security Council by adding more permanent members?
The proposal to add new permanent members is not only anti-democratic in its desire to maintain and extend the privileges associated with the right to veto of the most powerful but it also presents a potentially hazardous situation of destabilization within the various regions of the world that would vie for a permanent status.
The best solution to this dilemma would be for the countries with seats on the Council to hold their position of power with the endorsement of their neighbors.
In this way, it would be possible to limit the oligarchy of the Security Council, and begin to make progress towards fixing the belittled and undermined process of democratization of the United Nations.
i forgot the link:
http://english.safe-democracy.org/2006/10/09/how-to-democratize-the-united-nations
http://english.safe-democracy.org/2006/10/05/hugo-chavez-and-the-security-council
HOW IMPORTANT IS THE SECURITY COUNCIL OF THE UNITED NATIONS? Apart from being the most powerful organ of the United Nations it is also the most influential instrument of international law in the world. And although the Council is comprised of 15 members, the real power is held by those countries that have the right to veto: the United States, Russia, Great Britain, France, and China. The importance of the other ten members is only secondary.
Why, then, are the United States and Venezuela joined in a struggle of such magnitude that Hugo Chavez made one of the least diplomatic statements in the history of the organization, and the United States retained the Venezuelan Minister of Foreign Affairs at the airport?
COMPETITION WITH GUATEMALA
From Washington’s perspective, the unilateral cowboy approach to diplomacy has gotten bogged down in the mess of Iraq. The United States seems to have learned their lesson, and will abandon unilateralism for future contentions. Washing will turn to the Security Council to handle the issue of nuclear armament in North Korea and Iran. Chavez, a known ally of both North Korea and Iran, would undoubtedly use his position in the Security Council to vote against the United States on issues that are central to US national security. And even though Guatemala is the challenging country, from Chavez’ point of view, the real contender is the United States. Guatemala has collaborated with UN missions, but has never once served on the Security Council.
THE ANTI-IMPERIALIST STRUGGLE
Chavez’s objective is not so much to get onto the Security Council --Venezuela has already held the position four times-- as it is to prove to the world, through nomination, that he and his Bolivarian revolution are the leaders of a worldwide struggle against imperialism. That is what has made him famous throughout the world: his photo appearing in public protests throughout Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.
From a distance, the figure of Chavez is reminiscent of Fidel Castro in his earlier years, or of Colonel Kadaffy in the seventies; who, with his vast oil reserves, wanted not only to buy power, but to carve out a place for himself in history.
THE SOLUTION OF THE THIRD COUNTRY
The Latin American block is at a stalemate, divided down the middle between the two contenders. The issue will therefore go to the General Assembly of the UN on October 16th. The winner will require the approval of more than two thirds the votes.
The situation is very similar to what happened with Cuba in its rivalry with Colombia for a seat on the Security Council in 1968. Cuba won dozens of rounds of voting, but never gained the two thirds of the votes necessary to clinch the seat. And as the General Assembly began to grow weary, a third country emerged that had good relations with both Cuba and Colombia. That country in 1968 was Mexico.
COSTA RICA, URUGUAY, AND THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
Mexico, however, could never win now. Venezuela and Mexico have very distant relations, aggravated even more by the victory of Felipe Calderon.
Possible third parties to emerge could be Costa Rica, Uruguay, and the Dominican Republic. Yet, none of them can be confirmed. They would only step forward in a scenario in which Venezuela wins, but is unable to gain two thirds of the votes.
It is habitual, in the United Nations, for countries to remain firm in their resolve and vote as they had declared that they would for the first few rounds of voting. Afterwards, however, many feel free to change their opinions through a secret vote.
THE DIVISION IN LATIN AMERICA
Despite the fact that holding a secondary seat in the Security Council is of minimal importance, the election has divided the world in half. Chavez has traveled widely, visiting countries around the globe, like Belarus, that are still undecided.
It is difficult to find, anywhere in the world, two campaigns so different: the stridency of Chavez against the low profile of Guatemala. Guatemala has hardly said a word about its candidacy, letting the United States speak for it.
Yet, Venezuela has been so confrontational over the issue that the mere effect of its nomination has all of Latin America divided.
Under these conditions, the question remains: would Venezuela be a worthy representative for the entire continent?
Post a Comment
<< Home