Does the US have the right to act on behalf of the UN?

[sudan]

Of course the answer is no despite the visible influence of Washington on the UN, and its endeavors to dominate the world, adopt the idea of the League of Nations and to host the permanent headquarters of the UN in New York since 1945.

The answer is also no despite the fact that the US is the major financial contributor. And because capitalism is deeply rooted in the US mentality, The US seems as if it has bought the UN, and therefore, whatsoever it says will be the absolute right.]

Despite all these facts, the legal rights of the representatives of the UN member states to attend the activities of the UN are something different.

According to the UN charter, one of the most important rights of the member states is the right of representatives of these countries to attend the meetings of the UN General assembly that take place as important gathering to consolidate ties among member countries.

The importance of the meeting of the UN General assembly emanate from the fact that it is the highest authority in the UN that poses the vital atmosphere for the countries to discuss their issues that include the reform of the UN itself.

For sure, the developments that happened during the past 60 years since the establishment of the UN require conducting a reform in the UN organs and mechanisms.

That was necessary when we see the US acts as if it is the UN. It was also a surprise the stance of the US State Department hinting that the entry visa for the Sudanese President Omer Al-Bashir to attend the UN general assembly meetings might be denied.

The US stance is strange because President Al-Bashir is invited by the UN Secretary General to attend the UN General Assembly meetings in the UN headquarters in New York, which according to the international laws in this particular case, is not a US soil.

And even if we assumed that Washington is trying to play a role in the ICC issue against Sudan, this assumption will not be appropriate as the US is neither a member state to the ICC nor legally obliged to pursue those who have been indicted by the ICC.

 

[Billo_Really]

Of course the answer is no despite the visible influence of Washington on the UN, and its endeavors to dominate the world, adopt the idea of the League of Nations and to host the permanent headquarters of the UN in New York since 1945.

The answer is also no despite the fact that the US is the major financial contributor. And because capitalism is deeply rooted in the US mentality, The US seems as if it has bought the UN, and therefore, whatsoever it says will be the absolute right.]

Despite all these facts, the legal rights of the representatives of the UN member states to attend the activities of the UN are something different.

According to the UN charter, one of the most important rights of the member states is the right of representatives of these countries to attend the meetings of the UN General assembly that take place as important gathering to consolidate ties among member countries.

The importance of the meeting of the UN General assembly emanate from the fact that it is the highest authority in the UN that poses the vital atmosphere for the countries to discuss their issues that include the reform of the UN itself.

For sure, the developments that happened during the past 60 years since the establishment of the UN require conducting a reform in the UN organs and mechanisms.

That was necessary when we see the US acts as if it is the UN. It was also a surprise the stance of the US State Department hinting that the entry visa for the Sudanese President Omer Al-Bashir to attend the UN general assembly meetings might be denied.

The US stance is strange because President Al-Bashir is invited by the UN Secretary General to attend the UN General Assembly meetings in the UN headquarters in New York, which according to the international laws in this particular case, is not a US soil.

And even if we assumed that Washington is trying to play a role in the ICC issue against Sudan, this assumption will not be appropriate as the US is neither a member state to the ICC nor legally obliged to pursue those who have been indicted by the ICC.

The General Assembly is not the "highest authority" in the UN, the "Security Council" is. General Assembly resolutions are "non-binding"; UNSC resolutions, are.

Between the two, the GA is less politically corrupted, than the UNSC. The GA is closer to the pulse of world opinion. But you are right about member states acting on behalf of the UN. We can act when done in concert with a UNSC resolution; we cannot unilaterally act on behalf of that, like we did in Iraq.

 

[Peterf]

The UN is founded on a fallacy: that all states are somehow equal. They are not. Is a cruel dictatorship like, say, North Korea somehow the same as Denmark? Is an authoritarian theocracy, Saudi Arabia say, the equivalent of ultra democratic Canada?

And then there is size Nauru, population 4000 is manifestly different than India, pop. 1 billion.

For my part I think that the US, the largest contributor, should have even more influence than it has now. And don't taken the 'United' Nations too seriously; they are anything but. And UN officials are as grasping, idle and incompetent as those in the EU.

(I was once part of the UK Mission to the UN in Europe, based in Geneva, and know whereof I speak).

 

[JakeStarkey]

Almost every politician is venal and grasping.

That does not empower the USA to act for the UN absence of permission.

 

[Billo_Really]

The UN is founded on a fallacy: that all states are somehow equal. They are not. Is a cruel dictatorship like, say, North Korea somehow the same as Denmark? Is an authoritarian theocracy, Saudi Arabia say, the equivalent of ultra democratic Canada?

And then there is size Nauru, population 4000 is manifestly different than India, pop. 1 billion.

For my part I think that the US, the largest contributor, should have even more influence than it has now. And don't taken the 'United' Nations too seriously; they are anything but. And UN officials are as grasping, idle and incompetent as those in the EU.

(I was once part of the UK Mission to the UN in Europe, based in Geneva, and know whereof I speak).

One of the core values this country is based on, is the notion that "all men are created equal".

So to speak out against "equality", is quite the un-American thing to do.

 

[Peterf]

The UN is founded on a fallacy: that all states are somehow equal. They are not. Is a cruel dictatorship like, say, North Korea somehow the same as Denmark? Is an authoritarian theocracy, Saudi Arabia say, the equivalent of ultra democratic Canada?

And then there is size Nauru, population 4000 is manifestly different than India, pop. 1 billion.

For my part I think that the US, the largest contributor, should have even more influence than it has now. And don't taken the 'United' Nations too seriously; they are anything but. And UN officials are as grasping, idle and incompetent as those in the EU.

(I was once part of the UK Mission to the UN in Europe, based in Geneva, and know whereof I speak).

One of the core values this country is based on, is the notion that "all men are created equal".

So to speak out against "equality", is quite the un-American thing to do.

Men may be equal but nations most certainly are not. Pretending that they are leads to confusion and trouble.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Silly OP.

The UN is what it is, that won't change, and the US is not inherently empowered to act on the UN's behalf.

That is a neo-con's what dream come true.