This week our Prime Minister has been in Europe on a diplomatic tour, which has included conversation on Canada seeking a seat on the United Nations Security Council. Today's poll question, do you think we should be lobbying for this spot in the rotation? I know that many of us are frustrated with the United Nations for some of their more controversial inefficiencies, but this is a prestigious international role where we would be included in international negotiations. It unquestionably gives us a louder voice on the world stage, even if some of us don't like the microphone.
I have many disagreements with the United Nations, but I don't want to see it disbanded. They can serve a useful purpose, but the current hierarchy is flawed. I would like to see the UN reformed, though I lack the specific expertise to suggest specific reformations. I am a big fan of John Bolton, and I trust his opinion on any matter to do with the United Nations. As Dennis Miller recently said to Johnny B, "I want you on that wall, I need you on that wall!" I also feel the same way about Stephen Harper.
Why should we encourage this corrupt, dictatorial pack of professional bureaucrats and social engineers. This institution has been hijacked by leftist special interest groups whose only wish is to see the western democracies brought to their knees. We should pull out of the U.N. now!
ReplyDeleteI personally think that we should have been a permanent member of the security council since day one of the UN. We certainly had more right to it than a certain member which shall remain nameless, but is spelled Foxtrot, Romeo, Alpha, November, Charlie, Echo.
ReplyDeleteThe UN is the greatest threat to human freedom that currently exists on this planet. It should be delegitimized.
ReplyDeleteCampaigning to be on the security council is exactly the wrong thing to do.
Rather than seeking a seat on the Security Counsel Canada should withdraw from the UN permanently. Start a new organization of credible countries not tinpot third world thugs and corrupt international bureaucrats.
ReplyDeleteIn keeping with the UN Security Council makeup, I offer the following advice - NYET! (Russian no), NON! (French no), CUO WU! (Chinese mistake), NO! (English no) and HELL NO! (American English). Take your pick - bad idea in 5 languages. Cheers.
ReplyDeleteI recall taking lead in a formal debate in 1956-57 with the question "Should we abolish the U.N.". Sentiment in the west was that nothing could be done for Czechoslovakia to protect them from a Soviet Union invasion. All nations were fearful of the Soviet Union and the Soviets had a veto anyway.
ReplyDeleteIt was my responsibility to defend the U.N. After having researched the question at the time I concluded that there was ONLY one reason to keep the U.N. active at the time. It is still the only reason to keep the U.N. It is a place to talk about the issues. It was the only forum where nations could speak their mind if they could. I won the debate. Here we are over fifty years later left with the same old reason to keep the U.N. It is also my opinion that it's functions ought to be reduced to that of a forum only.
No we should not.Instead we form a new UN counsel of nations who actually abide by the UN charters and agreements because its clear that dictators and tyrants run the current freakshow.I tried putting foward this idea about 2 years ago with membership restricted to stable democratic republics and parlimentary democracies.Naturally resistance came from those countries who are among the worst violations of human rights on the planet.Ironically the current crop forget they signed this charter of human rights yet completely ignore them.They deserve to be booted out of the UN and that includes a few security council members too.Hint:the US isnt one of them.
ReplyDeleteThe Roosevelt's are rolling in their graves at the state of the UN today im sure.