4/11/2011
Some can speak more and some can speak less
The United Nation is an organization where every country, big or small, is treated as an equal member and treated with the same protocol. Of course still a few big powers are accorded some special privileges to sit in the Security Council as permanent members and with veto rights. Other than this, every country is equal and can speak as much as they like or for as long as they like in the UN.
What if the big powers decide to adopt a system whereby the big powers who contributed more in membership fees are given time to speak proportional to their strength in financial or military clout? I know, some of you are still blur like sotong as to what I am saying. Ok, let’s say in the UNGA, the USA and China will be given 3 hours and 2 hours to speak respectively, and the G8 members be given 1 hour while the rest of the third world countries be given only 15 minutes each to address the assembly, would that be fair? And when there is a forum, meet the press or whatever, the same allocation of time will apply also.
At the same time the UN Charter can still be written that all countries big or small shall be treated as equal in the UN. Is this acceptable? Is there any hypocrisy?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Speaking for three hours, two hours or one hour or even 15 minutes is not the issue.
The issue is who or rather which country is speaking.
When Singapore or the Maldives speak, I noticed that the assembly is almost empty and whoever is left is catching up with their siesta after the noon day break of a heavy "business" lunch.
When China, the US or members of the G8 speaks, every country from Afghanistan to Timbuktu is listening with rapt attention. Why? Because the bullshitting emanating is well, more bullshitting.
The analogy to an arm wrestling match is enticing.
When "giants" arm wrestle, the match is keenly watched and cheered or jeered depending on who you're punting on.
When midgets wrestle, even the referee is catching up with his afternoon nap.
Hehe.
same thing applies to singapore hor
In a one party rule state, everything the ruling party said is right. Big party has more say. GRC good. Foreigners good. More foreigners better. New citizens can run for election. GST to help the poor. Housing must wait 3-4 years. CBF good at worker's level. High and higher salary at minister and president's level. Your CPF money, govt decides when and how you can use it. Compulsory Medisave, compulsory CPF Life, all compulsory in taking your savings away from you....
And one party rule is good, belly good. Multi party system bad. Trust the one party and not the opposition parties....
When someone from, or a fan of mentions the word 'equality' when referring to the UN, I immediately leave the conversation and commence another more productive activity -- like searching for new internet pornography.
The United Nations is one big coterie of useless idiots all hell-bent on dictating edicts to the peoples of the world -- as if they have some claim over humanity in its entirety.
Remember -- none of these over paid, spoilt motherfuckers was voted into their positions by any of us. All of them are in APPOINTED (or some see it as 'anointed') positions.
Further more, none of us are ever consulted when the UN passes one of its many idiotic 'resolutions'.
They are a self appointed group of people who presume 'governance' over everyone's lives.
So much for 'democratic principles', and 'elected representation'.
Matilah, you talking about UN or SIN? : )
Hahaha
Funny thing is the UN appoints an Asian as Sec General to fool the midgets. The power rest with the puppet masters behind the screen.
When the 'giants' need someone to wield real power in world bodies, they always let a white man sit at the top.
Asians can sit as mere figureheads on such world bodies, but they are very happy with that and shout and dance with delight.
The master will always be the master. Fetch!
Great article. I am going through a few of these issues as well.
.
Have a look at my page GFI Norte
Post a Comment