Changes needed to make a more effective UN

I can see that it makes sense. Probably more often than not. Would the United States send diplomates to foreign countries, if they would be subject to prosecution? I doubt it.

OE--

I'm not chomping at the bit for US to try them--but as it is now, they seem completely above the law. It's like the UN is a no man's land where any crime can be committed with no worry of recourse.

I wouldn't mind their own countries trying them.

JUST SOMEBODY HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE.

If our employees in embassies break the law, send them home, and don't allow them to go back. Publicize their crimes (or charges to be answered) internationally. Don't just let them get away with whatever they choose to do for as long as they please.

Oh well, I totally agree with you there. But this is not really a problem of diplomatic immunity or of the UN.

Just take any institution - would have to be a political institution - and have somebody committing a, well, violation of the code of conduct. How long would it take until something happens, really?

I guess this is true for every institution and I believe it has little to do with diplomatic immunity, really.

Well, Lash, let's take peace treaties: without diplomatic immunity, it would be quite easy to stop them from the first minute.

Let's take espionage: not only the USA would loose a very easy way to transport their secret materials.

Let's take etc etc etc etc.

The UN can do little more than reflect the standards and behaviors of the sovereign nations that make it up - from Sweden to Zimbabwe. When these nations agree on something and - even briefly - find themselves united by a common purpose, then they, and the UN, can be very effective. In the absence of such agreement there is little the UN can do, and even perfecting its administration and organization won't make up for that fundamental disunity.

It might help though to have a Secretary General who recognized that his job is to be the chief Administrative officer of the UN Secretariat, and not some kind of World President. Like all organizations everywhere, the UN has, over its 55 year life accumulated some bureaucratic inertia and corruption. It is time for a housecleaning.

Another problem that limits the UN is the tendency of nations and people to apply different standards to different nations and part of the world. This is a complex matter and I know of no simple explanation for it. However the world pays little attention to threats from the Government of China to use military force of needed to secure the eventual submission of Taiwan, and a great deal of attention to others. Brutal treatment of entire populations in Zimbabwe and previously in Iraq get less attention than the bad behavior of a few U.S. prision guards during a war. While this may be perfectly understandable in terms of human nature, it seriously damages the stature of the institution which engages in it, at least in the eyes of those injured by the phenomenon.

Could you explain the peace treaty problem, Walter?

And, every one else would lose their ability to spy on us from their Get Out of Jail Free vantage point in NY. They'd lose a better spy gig than we would.

Really. Do you think there is anything to be gained from diplo immunity? Possibly you have something in mind I haven't thought of yet.

Actually, Lash, the complete idea of (diplomacy and) diplomatic immunity arose from war and peace:
The heralds and ambassadors of times past were, by necessity, required to travel through unfriendly territories, and often to the enemy army itself.

It would have been fun, if they had been imprisoned or killed at the very moment, when they started talks, wouldn't it? :wink:

I agree that the spy business would be a bit more difficult without diplomatic immunity - especially for the USA (and Russia), I think, when looking at their big embassies.

Btw: you certainly remember, Lash, that diplomatic immunity (illegally) saved the lifes of some thousands of refugees all over the world.

I just think you're composing a different definition of diplomatic immunity that what I understand it to be, Walter, and I think what Lash understands it to be.

Even in New Mexico, there is a form of 'immunity' afforded legislators. It is illegal here for law enforcement officers to detain a legislator on the way to a legislative session. The purpose is to prevent any hanky panky that would prevent a legislator from making a key vote. (The immunity would not apply if a legislator was driving erratically or otherwise endangering the public of course.)

I think diplomatic immunity is intended to prevent harrassment of visiting dignitaries by any country who might find it useful to harrass them. I am sure it was not intended to give people ability to murder, steal, or commit other serious crime with no fear of prosecution, but at times it has been used for just that purpose. I think if we return diplo immunity to its original purpose, there is no problem with it.

In the case of Volker, however, he appears to be using diplomatic immunity to avoid having to provide a full and complete report of his OFF investigation. That is just wrong.

Actually, I am referring to 'Diplomatic Immunity' as used all over the world.

I didn't know that your legislators got that (here, in Europe, we clearly divide between these immunities).

Of course, it wasn't invented to give people the possibilties to commit crimes, but such just happens (or isn't espionage a crime in the US?).



As far as I understand you now, this means just for the UN, other international institutions (if not of purpose of the US), foreign embassies in the USA - but of course not for the USA.

Please clarify Walter. I'm not understanding your intent here.

Not sure what this issue is all about, but if it is the Voelker matter, I believe there is indeed a case for his claim of immunity. His investigation was done as a service to the UN and the product of it is the UN's property. If Voelker was, instead, a citizen of another country doing the same job, he would not be subject to the subpoena. The fact that he is an American citizen does not itself give the Congress access to the UN's property.

The concerns of the Congress are perfectly valid and understandable, but they should be directed at the UN itself, and not those who serve it as consultants.

But George, would that not make the whole investigation a sham? If the UN leadership commissions an independent investigation of its own alleged wrong doing and does not allow its members to see the results, how much credibility could that investigation have?

I have little doubt that the UN Secretariat is covering things up and that there is a real need for a housecleaning there. However, this should be done by the UN itself and the Member states acting through their delegations, and not by the U.S. Congress acting independently and directly through compulsory testimony from some consultants to the UN.

Well you may very well be right, George, and I will bow to your greater wisdom. But given the U.N.'s track record for the last couples of decades, I think there isn't a chance of a snowball in hell that it will clean up its own act. And thus, those who see it as the corrupt and ineffective institution that it has become will continue to resent our continued participation and those who urge our departure from the U.N. may well gain in stature. That could be a very bad thing indeed.

But other than subpoena, what recourse does Congress have for oversight as it is Congress who must vote the substantial contribution the U.S. makes for support of the U.N.?