CYLLON
12-03-2004, 09:46 PM
http://www.un.org/secureworld/
At first glance it appeared the report gave the ok to pre-emptive strikes but after readding more, it's plane that the UN is intent on removing nations of their sovereign right to defend themselves by requiring the Kerry Global test or ok of the Security Council for any pre-emptive military action. Simply read paragraphs 188 - 198 .It shows the panel basically took John Kerry's global test and plugged it into their report:
189. Can a State, without going to the Security Council, claim in these circumstances the right to act, in anticipatory self-defence, not just pre-emptively (against an imminent or proximate threat) but preventively (against a non-imminent or non-proximate one)? Those who say “yes” argue that the potential harm from some threats (e.g., terrorists armed with a nuclear weapon) is so great that one simply cannot risk waiting until they become imminent, and that less harm may be done (e.g., avoiding a nuclear exchange or radioactive fallout from a reactor destruction) by acting earlier.
190. The short answer is that if there are good arguments for preventive military action, with good evidence to support them, they should be put to the Security Council, which can authorize such action if it chooses to. If it does not so choose, there will be, by definition, time to pursue other strategies, including persuasion, negotiation, deterrence and containment - and to visit again the military option.
191. For those impatient with such a response, the answer must be that, in a world full of perceived potential threats, the risk to the global order and the norm of non-intervention on which it continues to be based is simply too great for the legality of unilateral preventive action, as distinct from collectively endorsed action, to be accepted. Allowing one to so act is to allow all.
So only the UNSC can lagitamize any force or drfemse of a nation.This is a declaration of the U.N. superstate and the simply attempt at crushing national will of the people.
196. It may be that some States will always feel that they have the obligation to their own citizens, and the capacity, to do whatever they feel they need to do, unburdened by the constraints of collective Security Council process. But however understandable that approach may have been in the cold war years, when the United Nations was manifestly not operating as an effective collective security system, the world has now changed and expectations about legal compliance are very much higher.
197. One of the reasons why States may want to bypass the Security Council is a lack of confidence in the quality and objectivity of its decision-making. The Council’s decisions have often been less than consistent, less than persuasive and less than fully responsive to very real State and human security needs. But the solution is not to reduce the Council to impotence and irrelevance: it is to work from within to reform it, including in the ways we propose in the present report.
So they want nations to submit to the will of a know corrupt and broken institution and leave their people open to attack while they TRY and "fix" it.
So why cant what the paragraph states work. Simply look at history.The UNSC has no history of success, only of failure, and the twelve-year quagmire in Iraq makes a pretty good example, as do Rwanda, Darfur, Srebrenica, and other recentfoul ups. The u.n. represents the governments of its members,and has no accountabilityto the people.It reeks of corruption. Americans created a representative democracy for good reasons -- so that when government failed, we could hold our leaders responsible for their actions. The UN lacks even the mechanisms for holding its officers accountable.We the people cant elect any of the u.n. reps.
At first glance it appeared the report gave the ok to pre-emptive strikes but after readding more, it's plane that the UN is intent on removing nations of their sovereign right to defend themselves by requiring the Kerry Global test or ok of the Security Council for any pre-emptive military action. Simply read paragraphs 188 - 198 .It shows the panel basically took John Kerry's global test and plugged it into their report:
189. Can a State, without going to the Security Council, claim in these circumstances the right to act, in anticipatory self-defence, not just pre-emptively (against an imminent or proximate threat) but preventively (against a non-imminent or non-proximate one)? Those who say “yes” argue that the potential harm from some threats (e.g., terrorists armed with a nuclear weapon) is so great that one simply cannot risk waiting until they become imminent, and that less harm may be done (e.g., avoiding a nuclear exchange or radioactive fallout from a reactor destruction) by acting earlier.
190. The short answer is that if there are good arguments for preventive military action, with good evidence to support them, they should be put to the Security Council, which can authorize such action if it chooses to. If it does not so choose, there will be, by definition, time to pursue other strategies, including persuasion, negotiation, deterrence and containment - and to visit again the military option.
191. For those impatient with such a response, the answer must be that, in a world full of perceived potential threats, the risk to the global order and the norm of non-intervention on which it continues to be based is simply too great for the legality of unilateral preventive action, as distinct from collectively endorsed action, to be accepted. Allowing one to so act is to allow all.
So only the UNSC can lagitamize any force or drfemse of a nation.This is a declaration of the U.N. superstate and the simply attempt at crushing national will of the people.
196. It may be that some States will always feel that they have the obligation to their own citizens, and the capacity, to do whatever they feel they need to do, unburdened by the constraints of collective Security Council process. But however understandable that approach may have been in the cold war years, when the United Nations was manifestly not operating as an effective collective security system, the world has now changed and expectations about legal compliance are very much higher.
197. One of the reasons why States may want to bypass the Security Council is a lack of confidence in the quality and objectivity of its decision-making. The Council’s decisions have often been less than consistent, less than persuasive and less than fully responsive to very real State and human security needs. But the solution is not to reduce the Council to impotence and irrelevance: it is to work from within to reform it, including in the ways we propose in the present report.
So they want nations to submit to the will of a know corrupt and broken institution and leave their people open to attack while they TRY and "fix" it.
So why cant what the paragraph states work. Simply look at history.The UNSC has no history of success, only of failure, and the twelve-year quagmire in Iraq makes a pretty good example, as do Rwanda, Darfur, Srebrenica, and other recentfoul ups. The u.n. represents the governments of its members,and has no accountabilityto the people.It reeks of corruption. Americans created a representative democracy for good reasons -- so that when government failed, we could hold our leaders responsible for their actions. The UN lacks even the mechanisms for holding its officers accountable.We the people cant elect any of the u.n. reps.