posted
I don't know how much all of you know about the old United Nations Trusteeship Council. (Those who paid extra attention to FJ's Federation Charter � ripped off from the UN Charter � are probably at least familiar with the concept.) Basically, it's the same system as the old League of Nations mandates, as a way for Western nations to keep control of their colonies without them "really" being colonies. Sort of a half-way step towards independence. The UN Trusteeships were used for former African and Pacific colonies, but under the UN auspices rather than a specific Western nation.
But I was very surprised to read this morning that some groups are seriously considering reviving the Trusteeship system as a way of rebuilding Liberia. Would this be a good thing? I know a lot of people here have argued that the UN is very ineffectual (to varying degrees). The trusteeship system was basically eliminated in the 70's when the last trusteeship became an independent nation.
Is this idea of reviving the trusteeships a good thing? Is it something that should perhaps be put into use elsewhere? (Dare I mention Iraq?) Or is this just another can of worms that's going to drain resources in the wrong way?
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
One way or another, it's back to the UN. Bush and Blair can't even stabilize Iraq on their own. They lack both the necessary brigades and the legitimacy to do it. About the only positive thing to have come out of the war so far is the formation of a more or less representative governing council... which was established under the auspices of *UN* human rights commissioner de Mello. That is a telltale sign that neither the US nor the UK can walk a unilateral path ANYWHERE.
Also consider that the financial burden of the war in Iraq and its occupation has already become MUCH heavier than anticipated. Internationalizing the country under the UN flag is the ONLY solution to spread the bill... Liberia idem ditto. Wether you call it a trusteeship or a colony is fairly irrelevant.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Hmmm, can't get to the link. Dang registration. I'm just wondering though, how politically feasible is this? If it comes down to a vote, wouldn't this sort of thing bring back bad memories for those African and south Asian countries? Hmmm, googling a bit: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/after/2003/0511trusteeshipcouncil.htm
quote: I should make it clear here that I do not regard the resuscitation of this somewhat archaic body as the perfect fix. A skilled international lawyer or a practiced diplomat could easily point out its weaknesses, especially its lack of power. Countries such as China and India, always sensitive to any proposal that might threaten the internal affairs of sovereign member states, could block the Trusteeship Council's revival. Veteran diplomat Charles Hill, who was advisor to former U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali in the early to mid-1990s, recalled that there was serious discussion of using the council in response to the frightening number of "failed states" (Rwanda, Cambodia, Somalia) at that time. But the idea could not get off the ground, says Hill, because of bureaucratic infighting and political objections
Could be interesting.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Oh, for the good old days of the Pax Britania when all you had to do was mow down a few dozen natives armed with sharpened fruits and then the rest would just fall in to line....
But seriously though I believe it is necessecary to internationalise the situations in Iraq and Liberia. Why? Resources; the load will be spread thinner over many nations so everyone ends up paying less. More nations can bring more resources to bear on the problem therefore the situation for those in the country affected will (hopefully) improve. To be quite frank though we should never have given most of the African colonies their independance when we did; we should have waited a generation at least, to get the population used to the ideas of democratic government and public service. Most of the colonies were in fairly good shape when we left them. Yes, they were still very poor but they had been provided with a good base to work from. Look at most of them now. Look at the list of tyrannical and corrupt rulers. Look at the wars.
Of course, you do have to deal with the 20-30-40 years of 'all westerners are white imperialists' propaganda put out by many of those leaders.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
