• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

sudan

Active member
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
267
Reaction score
20
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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.
 
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.

Of course the US can only act on behalf of the UN if the UN mandates such action. That does not mean that action in the absence of a mandate is illegitimate.
 
Back
Top Bottom