Sunday, January 11, 2009

Shift the UN to a neutral ground?

During an interview with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi on 18 Jan 1987 - a few months after the US bombarded the cities of Tripoli and Benghazi - the Colonel suggested for the United Nations be shifted to a 'neutral' zone.

(The US attacked Libya over what was said to be Libyan agents' involvement in Lockerbie's bombing of a Pan-Am Boeing 747 jetliner 5 years earlier which killed about 400 people. In 2006, the agents were put to trial which saw President Bush re-established US diplomatic relations with the Mediterranean state).

The interview in Tripoli (approved after I shuttled between the capital city and Algiers three times), evolved international issues, mainly the Middle East conflict.

"It will be good if the UN shifts to a neutral zone. It was runned by the Americans and its allies. No way that small countries like us would be heard.

"The UN cannot survive without the US dolar and British pound. However, if member countries contribute constantly to the world body... I prefer the rich members, only then can we see the UN finds its balance."

His opinion gained support from leaders like Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Lech Walesa of Poland, Kim Young-sam of South Korea, India's Rajiv Gandhi, Nicaraguan Daniel Ortega, Fidel Castro of Cuba and others.

"We can never find justice at the UN. The Palestinian problems which underscore the weaknesses of the world body, the Arab League, the OIC and other world bodies, will go on without any solution.

"The US is very good at orchestrating its peace initiative for the Palestine-Israel conflict but Israel will remain as winner. There is no such thing as diplomatic initiative to resolve the issue as the US listens to nobody," Gaddafi said.

The name 'United Nations', coined by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt, was first used in the Declaration by United Nationsc of 1 January 1942, during the Second World War, when representatives of 26 nations pledged their governments to continue fighting together against the Axis Powers.

States first established international organisations to cooperate on specific matters. The International Telecommunication Union was founded in 1865 as the International Telegraph Union, and the Universal Postal Union was established in 1874. Both are now United Nations specialised agencies.

In 1899, the first International Peace Conference was held in The Hague to elaborate instruments for settling crises peacefully, preventing wars and codifying rules of warfare. It adopted the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes and established the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which began work in 1902.

The forerunner of the United Nations was the League of Nations, an organisation conceived in similar circumstances during the First World War, and established in 1919 under the Treaty of Versailles 'to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security'.

The United Nations officially came into existence on 24 October 1945, when the Charter had been ratified by China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, the United States and a majority of other signatories.

Gaddafi used to lambast the Security Council for its ineffectiveness in attending to international conflicts.

14 comments:

NAZAR, PJ said...

bro,
i have heard similar calls by some leaders.

the questions here, will the US allow the UN to be relocated to another place and will they contuinue to finance the world body?

however, i think if mst of the arabs and developing countries help the UN financially, we can limit the US intervention in US decision-making.

Anonymous said...

bujai,
gaddafi was right. move the UN HQ to a neutral place and the world will be in order.

peguam tua, KL said...

kebanyakan isu yang dibawa ke PBB ialah mengenai krisis timur tengah membabitkan palestin dan israel. amerika hanya menjadi kuasa yang menentukan halatuju badan dunia itu kerana sumbangan besarnya terhadap kewangan dan bajet PBB. jika PBB dipindahkan ke negara lain, amerika mungkin mengurangkan peruntukannya tetapi masih ada kuasa ekonomi lain yang mampu menaja perjalanan dan pentadbiran PBB, misalnya jepun, arab saudi, russia, kuwait dan sebagainya. sumbangan berterusan negara lain juga mampu mengekang penguasaan amerika.walauppun apa yang dikatakan oleh gaddafi itu bukanlah perkara baru kerana saya pernah membaca hal yang sama diutarakan oleh bekas menteri luar russia, eduard shevardnadze. tidak ada salahnya memindahkan PBB ke tempat yang didapati sesuai dan neutral kerana ia akan menjadi lebih adil terhadap semua

YAU, melaka said...

THE WORLD NEEDS THE UN AS AN ARBITRATOR FOR INTERNATIONAL ISSUE. HWOEVER, IT COMES UNDER US SUPERVISION. I SUPPORT ANY MOVE TO RELOCATE THE UN TO A NEUTRAL LAND

Anonymous said...

NAK PINDAH MACAM MANA BRO?

AMERIKA PENYUMBANG UTAMA, DIA YANG BAYAR GAJI SEMUA STAF PBB TERMASUK BAN KIM-MOON.

JIKA AMERIKA MENGHENTIKAN SUMBANGANNYA KEPADA PBB, SATU DUNIA BOLEH LINGKUP

KULUP, kampar said...

good idea but quite impossible. most of its members will oppose the plan as they are US allies

Anonymous said...

bujai,
bukan senang nak pindahkan PBB ke tempat lain. jika boleh pun, amerika tetap akan cuba menguasainya.

apa yang perlu ialah meminda perlembagaan PBB agar ia betul2 menjadi sebuah pertubuhan bebas dan berkhidmat demi kepentingan semua negara anggota

tin kosong said...

NONSENSE! IT WONT WORK EVEN IF WE RELOCATE THE UN TO A MUCH NEUTRAL GROUND. ITS NOT EASY ANYWAY

bujai said...

peguam tua,
PBB memerlukan kira-kira US$1 bilion setahun untuk segala kos. ia mungkin kecil tetapi masih banyak negara yang berhutang dengan PBB dalam bentuk yuran sebegini.

negara penghutang pula ada di kalangan yang miskin dan yang kepentingan mereka sering diperlekehkan oleh amerika dan sekutunya

Anonymous said...

this is not an issue of shifting the UN but to re-engineer its administration.

moving it to other place will take a lot of effort, money and crisis

adik, UM said...

TUTUP JE PBB TU BANG! SENANG

bujai said...

adik,
banyak cantik muka kau nak tutup bangsa-bangsa bersatu!

Anonymous said...

Jai,

Actually, even the ordinary American, New Yorkers to be precise, don't like the UN headquarters located there on the banks of the East River in Manhattan. When I was there, New Yorkers protested like mad everytime the UN hold its general assembly because during the UNGA almost all heads of nations will be in New York City and they travel in motorcade all the time. These motorcades cause traffic jams. Furthermore everytime during UNGA, the security level in Manhattan is increased, especially when the American President is present. Roads will be closed and frontage of buildings especially hotels will be blocked. Most people in Manhattan walk and when the NYPD closes roads, they have to walk further. Even the city authorities in New York dont like the UN diplomats, for many reasons, including their constant refusal to pay all sorts of fines including those for parking indiscriminately. Although the UN diplomats enjoy immunity, in New York city nobody gives a damn about immunity. As for funding, I believe the US is one of the largest debtor of the UN. It does not really matter where the UN headquarters is. It can be in Geneva even, but if its structure is not amended, it will serve little purpose for the small nations.

Mus

dukun_tua said...

hai,

bagus gak ada blog ni...