Re: [FT]United Nations?

> Date: 	 Sun, 02 May 1999 07:14:15 -0400
> From: 	 Laserlight <laserlight@cwix.com>
> Subject:	 Re: [FT]United Nations?
> To:		 gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> Reply-to:	 gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU

> >Not to argue the usefulness of the UN or the way the US is paying (or
not)
> >it's dues, but the following quote struck me as being , well, odd.
> >
> >>"Speaking for the European Union and associated States, Germany's
> >representative
> >>said that non-payment, particularly by the major debtor, caused
> difficulties
> >>in achieving efficiency and reform.
> >
> >Hmm, so efficency and reform can only be introduced with an infusion
of
> >cash?? I thought
> >efficiency was making the best use of what was available. Seems
bizarre,
> no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite a few things the UN does are bizarre.
> 

I'm tempted to change that last comment from UN to US but that would 
be just another can of worms..
 
Whatever the problems with the UN it seems to be the only 
organisation which is accepted worldwide for things such as 
humanitarian aid and human rights which seems to be areas most 
governments aren't very interested in.	Its also one of the few which 
isn't entirely focussed on one or two member states goals. 

Although I'm biased since I fly one of the UN's black helicopters.  
(Oops..Nobody tell the secretary general!)

Joking aside, with regard to how the UN survived in the FT universe I 
suspect it didn't survive the collapse of the US and general madness 
which would have ensued.  Its more likely it was reformed later as a 
new body just like what happened to the old League of Nations.	Its 
possible they may have some UN colonies which support it too.  
Possibly admin centres which grew up into colonies. 
----------------------
Niall Gilsenan,
DIT, Cathal Brugha St,
Dublin, Ireland.