by frog
A bit of culture jamming is what you need to show that people are, in fact, paying attention.
So it was when Scoop’s Gordon Campbell wrote up Kennedy Graham’s International Non-Aggression and Lawful Use of Force Bill, which was released last week.
I’m not sure who to credit for the photo, beyond scoop, but if sending up our very own Jedi knight brings much needed attention and transparency to how troop deployment decisions are made, so much the better.
You can watch a video with the highlights of the press conference, (Gordon Campbell’s cogent questions cut to ribbons), which we have posted to YouTube and our website. While it’s of little use on this video, this is the Green’s first crack at an HD video on YouTube. Try it on for size, even if this is not the best example of HD filming, and watch out for the little HD button on future videos…
Published in Media | Parliament by frog on Mon, July 13th, 2009
Tags: aggression, Gordon Campbell, Kennedy Graham, Parliament, scoop
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
I like it!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Dr. Graham believes that strengthening the rule of international law, through national action as provided for in the UN Charter, is the most effective way of promoting global and national security for all nations and their peoples.”
The UN is useless at preventing or managing world conflict, they haven’t even finished their first war yet.
The UN should stick to feeding poor people and barking from the sideline.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda: The reason the UN is useless in managing global conflict is because it’s power has been seriously undermined by the US military, especialy under the Bush regime attacking Baghdad under the flimsey pretext of ‘weapons of mess destruction’ against the advice and consent of the UN.
As soon as the majority of the worlds nations give the UN a real mandate then that will be complete curtains for all the tin pot military dictators.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda, so easy to dis isn’t it. The UN easiest of all perhaps. But its an important question. So what is “the most effective way of promoting global and national security for all nations and their peoples”. What’s your solution?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“So what is “the most effective way of promoting global and national security for all nations and their peoples”. What’s your solution?”
There is no solution because it is not possible, it is an idealistic pipe dream of those largely ignorant of world history and life experience.
When in history has an all powerful entity ever been good for the human race?
The UN will most certainly not work as global policeman, in fact it would probably go down as the greatest mistake of the modern era.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The UN is a club for legitimising dictators and a tool for those who believe that the answer to everything is less freedom for everyone and more government.
As a starter they should kick out every government which doesn’t uphold the people’s rights, and put a large bounty on their heads.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>the UN is useless in managing global conflict is because it’s power has been seriously undermined by the US military
Bingo! Hence the reason the UN is pointless. The guy with the biggest guns doesn’t take orders from anyone.
Accept that truth, and move on.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“So what is “the most effective way of promoting global and national security for all nations and their peoples”. What’s your solution?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory
Could do worse.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As a starter they should kick out every government which doesn’t uphold the people’s rights, and put a large bounty on their heads.
Tempting eh. McCain floated the idea of a “League of Democracies” last year:
http://atlanticreview.org/archives/1040-John-McCains-League-of-Democracies.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
well Metiria looks impressed!
As i recall, one of the first murders in Gaza was a UN worker bringing in food and Medicine – I don’t go in for dissing them – they try to walk the narrow line of peace amidst bloodthirsty animals.
Unless you’d like to Volunteer – try a little understanding and respect
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Unless you’d like to Volunteer – try a little understanding and respect
Some of the stuff they do well, other stuff not so much – check out who’s on the UN Human Rights Council: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/membership.htm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“The UN is useless at preventing or managing world conflict”
Which is surely why this bill brings the UN principles into national law?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As a starter they should kick out every government which doesn’t uphold the people’s rights, and put a large bounty on their heads.
And who do you nominate to be sherriff, wat? The USA? Or would they have one of the largest bounties on their head? By your usual standards, what countries *wouldn’t* have a bounty?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The UN is a diplomatic retirement home, its where we put our diplomats out too pasture.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There is no solution because it is not possible,
I tend to agree, but giving up and running the world entirely in a wild west fashion would not improve things either.
it is an idealistic pipe dream of those largely ignorant of world history and life experience.
Now you’re full of shit. I’d put Kennedy’s knowledge of “world history and life experience” against your’s any day. Hell, I’d put mine up for that matter.
When in history has an all powerful entity ever been good for the human race?
We certainly haven’t tried that with the UN. The closest we’ve had to world govt is the IMF/WTO/WorldBank approach, which indeed is very bad for the human race and undemocratic as well. You rail on about the UN, but never about this group that conducts a lot of its business in secret. You like conspiricies, Shunda, much better to look there.
The UN will most certainly not work as global policeman, in fact it would probably go down as the greatest mistake of the modern era.
That last bit is ridiculous.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bingo! Hence the reason the UN is pointless. The guy with the biggest guns doesn’t take orders from anyone.
Accept that truth, and move on.
Move on to what, BP? Just let the guy with the biggest guns do whatever without a murmur from the plebs?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And the choice is…..?
America will call the shots so long as they have the biggest guns. They’ll choose to listen to anyone else, if they want, on their terms.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Other than giving up, you haven’t really answered the question. The UN is a means of putting collective pressure on the US. Until Bush II, while there were some terrible manipulations of the UN, it wasn’t completely ignored, so Desert Storm required a real coalition be built by Bush I. Bush II’s adventures have not been deemed entirely successful, so there is hope the US won’t be so blatant in the future. At an rate, its no reason to just roll over.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As well as the biggest guns, they seem to have pretty big wallets too: US pays 82% of the UN Regular Budget and 28% of the peacekeeping budget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_United_Nations#The_U.S._arrears_issue
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Interesting the arrears went down for a time under Bush II.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# StephenR Says:
July 14th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
> As well as the biggest guns, they seem to have pretty big wallets too: US pays 82% of the UN Regular Budget and 28% of the peacekeeping budget
I’m not sure if you’re right about that, because I’m not sure if you’re reading the chart correctly. It’s not clear, but I guessed that those percentages were the percentage the US arrear made up of the amount the US was expected to pay.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So the UN is really the US? Reckon. Time to fix that – balls anyone?
sorry courage I mean.
The US has gone sliding down the pipes. Lets not get Oedipical about it – they’ll gather themselves together – meanwhile – the whole world waits kiwi
If it’s broke – lets fix it – not chuck the whole experiment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
fourty years ago who would ever have thought that Europe would be a united power house? who would have thought that the soviet block would have collapsed?
When BP states power to he who has the biggest guns, then I say correct: Then let the UN have the biggest guns, it may not be the perfect solution but it be the only pragmatic solution the world can afford without repeating the constant threat of nuclear holocaust so endemic in the cold war.
OK there may be a risk involved in putting all power into one organisation it may result in a global dictator which is understandably the fear af all liberals and penticostals alike, but if structured in a way that the UN is governed by a democratically elected council of nine (or nearest odd number) and their spokesman with no more power than the nine then that risk is managed.
There needs to be a world social authority to deal not just with dictators or pirates, but environmental vandals who are busy stuffing up our sea beds in international waters. Its all very well looking back in hindsight of the past and saying ” there is no solution” a different ball game in trying to bring about a world vision that is sustainable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There is a flaw in this line of thinking from the Greens. You assume that a decision made by the UN could be clasified as either legal or illegal.
If a US government became so powerful and usurped the US constitution in such a way that enough citizens of the US joined together and tried to remove that government. The UN then issued a resolution calling for its member nations to enter the US and restore order. Would the Greens consider that a legal use of force, even though the UN itself by its actions is in violation of the US constitution.
If NZ sent troops under the above scenario any NZ solider captured on American soil could and should be shot or hung as they have committed treason against the US constitution. In fact the resulting US government asuming the revolutionaries won could turn around and demand that the NZ people handed over its government to face crimes against humanity it would also have a moral authority to invade NZ to see those people brought to justice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Avast, i have been deceived. It’s more like 22% of the ‘regular budget’. Which is still a fair bit to be coming from one country, but perhaps not as decisive as the earlier numbers.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-12-22-un-budget_N.htm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>When BP states power to he who has the biggest guns, then I say correct: Then let the UN have the biggest guns,
Naive.
Power is never given. It is taken. Why on earth would the US give up power?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You assume that a decision made by the UN could be clasified as either legal or illegal.
By definition this is true insofar as international law is concerned.
But also note that while an action deemed illegal would proscribe NZ taking part, an action deemed legal would not do the reverse, i.e. force us to act. The decision on whether to join an action would still be ours and we could decide not to. In other words, Kennedy’s bill would not change the status quo in that regard.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
When BP states power to he who has the biggest guns, then I say correct: Then let the UN have the biggest guns,
Stuff THAT. See the Human Rights Council. That’s way too much power.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP; you say ‘power is never given, it is taken’ absolute rubbish what do you think happens every election? People give power to a certain party to become government.
The only time power is taken is with wars, coups and revolutions and that my friend is an immutable fact of history.
That is why the UN came into existence which is why I am going to read Kennedy’s next post.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
We’re talking guns here, not democracy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)