“Build Human Rights Coalition from US, Australia, Israel, some of Europeans, and demand in UN to shift Human Rights issues to them.” How exactly would you set up criteria for this coalition that would be any less arbitrary than the previous – and unacceptable – Human Rights Commission? Especially considering that Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the ICRC have all criticised the US’ human rights record?

A League of Democracies that involves “Canada, Australia, India, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Britian, etc”? Presumably you won’t be including France and Germany, because despite being democracies they both opposed the war in Iraq?

Yes, i agree we should see what the new Sec Gen can do. I really hope they get rid of the 30 plus development agencies (UNDP, UNODC, WHO, UNICEF etc etc) and merge them into one streamlined “UN Development Agency”- that would result in massive cost saving i.e. 1 HQ instead of 30 separate HQs that they have at present; it would also mean a much more efficient UN at the country level (the UN has offices in 100 plus developing and middle income countries supporting development programmes).

But Jo, every democracy was, is, and will be a “flawed” democracy. The Economist wouldn’t be the membership chair anyway.

Right now, it’s worth waiting to see what the new Secretary-General can or will do. His early remarks about the “unacceptable” UN actions in Rwanda and in Darfur are mildly encouraging. On the other hand, it just may be impossible for human effort to move the over-entitled and less-than-interested UN bureaucracy. But still I say wait a while and see what the new guy can do. He had the support of the US for his nomination and still has it. Let’s watch and see.

A League of Democracies is an interesting idea- but it should be noted that such a body would not have endorsed the Iraq war either (remember it was France-a democracy- that blocked the resolution.)

Also note that Israel would not qualify as , according to the Economist magzine, it is a ‘flawed’ democracy. If you let in ‘flawed’ democracies then you also have to admit Palestine, Hong Kong and a bunch of anti-US southern american states.

http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_TABLE_2007_v3.pdf

Building a League of Democracies in which we group together with Canada, Australia, India, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Britian, etc. and use the funding to push for and promote Democratic movements world wide.

Sounds like a great idea to me, particularly because it exposes the ugliness and uselessness of the current U.N. system.

Kofi!
Kofi, Kofi bo Bofi Bonana fanna fo Fofi
Fee fy mo Kofi, Kofi!

you move the first syllable to then end of the word and add the “ay” suffix, if memory from my pig-latin days serves.

Here’s another kind of proof.

There’s a rule at UN that one cannot receive a UN staff pension if one is receiving another government pension. Annan earned a UN staff pension during his 30+ years as a UN staffer. He is also entitled to a pension from the General Assembly as a retired Secretary-General. Must he give up one or the other? What to do?

Fortunately, there is a third way, a UN way. Annan will receive the commuted value of his UN Staff pension lump-sum cash (about $1 million) and then he can accept his “one” pension from the GA.

I hope I’m wrong about this. I hope it, but I doubt it (*).

(*) Thank you, Mark Twain