Published: 3/10/06, 10:36 PM EDT by the AP

 

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The five veto-holding members of the Security Council considered proposals on Friday to pressure Iran to resolve questions about its nuclear program, including demands that it abandon uranium enrichment and stop construction on a reactor, diplomats said.

 

Full story

Security Council Considers Iran ProposalsPublished: 3/10/06, 10:36 PM EDT by the AP

What an article. I'm saddened to read it as it shows to me the entire lack of resolve that not only the UN General Assembly has in executing the UN statutes but the inability of the security council to take any action whatsoever.

 

Russia, for example, has made clear it opposes the council taking any substantive action, because it fears that Iran could then make good on veiled threats to expel IAEA inspectors entirely.

 

Hmm, call me a callous American but taking some substantive action to see if the inspectors get thrown out would be a good indication me where Iran stands once we get past the political showboating.

 

I don't even want to think about a member state of the UN (Iran) being allowed to remain in the UN when calling for the destruction of another UN state (Israel). Is there no backbone at all in the UN? If it were my organization, Iran would be booted out and not given good references or a severence package!

 

Take a look back to the years between Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom. Over and over again the Saddam Hussein regime handicapped and in some cases (no fly zones) outright ignored the resolutions undertaken by the UN. Was any action taken, not really. The UN said thru lack of action that UN resolutions have no teeth. If I were president Bush and had September 11th not happened, perhaps I would have looked at the situation and said, if the UN won't act, the US will go in militarily and make sure the UN resolutions are upheld, anybody who joins us, fantastic.

 

Well, after this rant I feel more connected with Teddy Roosevelt than ever. I'm all for an international body such as the UN, but countries must take up the charter and put teeth and meaning into the UN. Without that, globalization passes the UN by and we have a global economic framework on very unstable footings thanks to the UN not being able to effect political globalization.

 

In conclusion, the world community in my humble opionion must yield with nearly one voice: a political framework producing resolutions (this the UN does succed at to a large extent), money (a world wellfare system of sorts, already partially fulfilled by the UN and organizations like the Red Cross)(also as a body to enact economic sanctions), and guns to enforce the political resolutions and to make sure the money policy works. Interesting how this triad (structure, money, guns) matches up with the idea of a 1,000 ship Navy global maritime force http://www.military.com/forums/0,15240,81652,00.html. The Naval Institute Proceedings magazine just had replies to that article by various admirals in the world's Navies. Most were in support of the idea and already see it happening, wouldn't it be great if the UN could get some gumption and lead such a force? Some of the more superb replies touched upon the triad of policy in using and distributing the force, finding the money to make it work, and the easy part for the admirals, providing the ships and men.

Great post, Tony. Personally, I think the UN is a great premise, and does a lot of good through its various agencies, but on the really important stuff, like stomping on the crazies, it comes up short. Unfortunately, its not terribly surprising nor is it easily fixed.