<h3>Is there unity within the United Nations Organisation? Is the body still relevant in this 21st century?</h3>
I wonder why world leaders will avoid themselves in the General Assembly currently going on in NYC. If there is unity within the UNO then shouldn't our disagreeing leaders, like children, seek to embrace one another and ask for understanding? Someone may ask, "Can Tom and Jerry ever agree?" "Can a peace loving leader embrace a terror loving leader"?
Then, is the UNO still relevant in this day? Former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Burundi, Ethiopia, Somalia, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Siere Leone, Dafur, Hezbollah and Israel, East Timor, Chechnia, etc, etc. All these and other places have been scenes of carnage, yet they all belong to the UNO with the body not able to stop the masacres.
Is the UNO a toothless dog? Or , perhaps, should it disengage itself from anything military and combat and just be involved in humanitarian programs?
Koffi Anan is a father and a fine gentleman. As his tenure ends, I wonder if there have been leaders too powerful for him to control in his duties?
<strong>East Timor best answer:</strong>
<p><i>Answer by Rammohan</i><br/>It is relavant even though not effective all the time.
If UN is not there where we can at least debate various issues.</p>
<p><strong>Maubisse, East Timor</strong>
<img alt="East Timor" src="http://farm1.staticflickr.com/102/312652861_3ab7461544.jpg" width="400"/><br/>
<i>Image by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/46274125@N00/312652861">yeowatzup</a></i>
</p>
Orignal From: Is there unity within the United Nations Organisation? Is the body still relevant in this 21st century?
0 Comments