|Ken Novak's Weblog
Purpose of this blog: to retain annotated bookmarks for my future reference, and to offer others my filter technology and other news. Note that this blog is categorized. Use the category links to find items that match your interests.
Subscribe to get this blog by e-mail.
New: Read what I'm reading on Bloglines.
Saturday, April 12, 2003
UN Reform Not in Russia's Interests: Commentary from an Russian who predicted the military strategy and victory in Iraq: "First of all, we should calm down because nothing special is happening with or around the UN at this time. Just thrice in the whole history of the organisation, has anyone bothered at all to ask for the UN Security Council's consent for military action. Each time, it was the US that asked for and was granted such consent. The UN was left out of whatever else happened. Generally speaking, the adherence of the world to International Law is a myth people remember about only when it is convenient. Strong nations have always made their decisions based on their interests or whatever they thought was in their interests. The Soviet Union never once brought its plans to the UN Security Council. Just remember Afghanistan.
As to the idea of reforming the UN, I do not think this is a good time for it. I say so because, should it happen, Russia will lose a lot. One should remember that the UN was created after WW2, when the Soviet Union, along with the US and Great Britain, was a victor At this time, Russia is not strong enough to dictate anything that's in her interests; her interests may be simply ignored. Indeed, there has been a lot of talk in the US, and not just there, about reforming the UN. Questions have been asked like "Why is Russia a permanent member of the Security Council? Is it because there are so many people there? There are more people in India, wouldn't you agree? Last year's census showed less people in Russia than in Pakistan.' Economic arguments are not in our favour either. " 10:51:20 AM
German opposition parties critical
: "Leading German oppositional politicians were critical of the summit. Friedbert Plüger, foreign policy spokesman for the Christian Democrat - Christian Socialist parliamentary group said in a an interview it was "somewhat questionable whether it was smart that the three, who were decidedly against the route the Americans and British took, met again right after the war and vociferously made demands." Instead of continuing the "ineffective, inauspicious axis of three" the German government should have begun talks with the United States and Britain, he added. .. Free Democrat parliamentary group leader Wolfgang Gerhardt said in the same paper the United States was again being confronted by a "closed anti-Atlantic front," while Schröder had become an "axis smith" and had learned nothing "from our history."" 10:11:38 AM