Mañana means tomorrow in Spanish or an an indefinite time in the future, and mañana mañana is procrastination at it's finest. Mañana mañana implies that you are putting it off for another day, but it may, or may not get done that day, or even attempted.
The word-Manana Manana, that appears in the headline seems to suggest that the UN had been hypocritical in its decisions and actions. Its failure in this regard may however, be excusable for lack of a better way of doing it. Now, a new way is opened, a new order is birthed in the interest of truth, justice, fairness and uprightness.
As political party system is selective, defective, deceitful and discriminatory in the practice of democracy within a nation, so also the governments they produce at the global platform of the United Nations. Below is an editorial comment of The UK Guardian that exposes the culture of double standard, inequality, discrimination, prejudice and unhealthy rivalry within the United Nations' hierarchy.
Our position is that the issues involved cannot be solved by a mere reformation of the Security Council, but a total adoption of LIBERTOCRACY. A new concept in democratic reformation which gives room for representation in government to be based on professions or legitimate occupations in a country. It is perfectly suitable for each nation and the UN at large.Among numerous benefits, it eliminates double standard, cheating, discrimination and racial undertone.
Read this piece and you will be better informed.
After almost 70 years, it suffers from the twin deficits of representative-ness and legitimacy.
The growing conflagration that is Syria reveals more than just the rival, and increasingly sectarian, agendas of its regional sponsors. It highlights the paralysis at the heart of the body whose job is to keep the international peace – the UN security council. The deadlock inside it is so profound that a simple decision like appointing a special envoy had to be taken by the general assembly instead. Even when the council reaches a decision, its implementation is the cause of friction among its permanent members. After resolution 1973, which established a no-fly zone over Libya, neither Russia nor China can be persuaded that a decision taken in the name of protecting civilians is not a cover for regime change.
After almost 70 years, the security council suffers from the twin deficits of representativeness and legitimacy. In those seven decades membership of the UN has almost quadrupled, from 51 to 193 states, but the number of permanent members (the P5) is the same today as it was when it was created, and the number of non-permanent members has increased only from six to 10. Whereas the original ratio was one permanent member for 10 countries, today it is one permanent member for nearly 40 countries. Whole regions of the world are locked out of the decision-making. About 85% of the items on the council's agenda deal with Africa, and yet the continent has no voice equivalent to a permanent member.
Everyone agrees that the council must change. The unanimity starts to crumble on the reasons for change, and to fritter away altogether on the models that would fix the problem. The African group demands two permanent seats for its 54 members, with full veto rights. The G4 (Brazil, Germany, India and Japan) claim permanent seats for themselves on the grounds that authority should not stem from hard military power only but a member's status as a economic power, its commitment to peacekeeping, development, human rights. There are groups representing small island states, and what was called the coffee club. The arguments go back and forth about the numbers of permanent and non-permanent members, the need for the veto, about whether greater representation would dilute authority or enhance it. It came closest to a resolution in 2005 and since then the issue has been kicked into the long grass. It is safe to assume it will stay there. While mouthing support for change, the P5 are happy with the status quo.
What is now needed, as Brazil's foreign minister, Antonio de Aguiar Patriota, has argued, is the involvement of civil society. Without a wider debate, the exceptionalist mindset of the P5 will continue. But so will the turmoil that creates. American and British drones are just fine, until China or Russia use them too.
The Guardian, Monday 6 May 2013 22.36 BST
No comments:
Post a Comment