Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Mudar as Nações Unidas?
Why not insist upon a democratic constitution as a prerequisite for a nation to qualify for U.N. membership? Why should France deserve a Security Council seat and not Japan and India—especially since the creation of the European Union should equate to a single European veto? And why promote lifelong U.N. apparatchiks like the stained Kurt Waldheim or Kofi Annan, when outsiders of real accomplishment and proven integrity like Vaclav Havel or Eli Wiesel would make honorable secretary-generals? [talvez porque o lugar já está tão denegrido que só oportunistas se interessam por ele?]
Then there is the location itself of the U.N. headquarters in Turtle Bay. Diplomats live the Manhattan high life a world apart from the crises that they are supposed to be addressing in Africa and Asia. Global media coverage from nearby studios—"live from New York"—tends to provide an electronic megaphone for fashionable anti-Americanism on the cheap. Never have so many delegates wished to live in a place for which they profess such a public dislike. [Tal como frei Tomás tão claramente expôs, falar é fácil, principalmente qualdo se está confortavelmente instalado]
The U.N should move to a Bolivia, Congo or West Bank where hunger, war and strife could be monitored and addressed firsthand.
Yes, the United States should still retain its membership and pay it dues, predicated on a whole series of radical structural reforms. But in the meantime, to restore their lost symbolic capital, let these well-heeled utopians practice their craft where the world's crises—rather than its easy rhetoric—reside.Podem ler tudo no link acima. Via Barcepundit.
Links to this post: