Wednesday, July 03, 2002

Why international organisations are a Bad Thing

Something I didn't know. From that House of Commons report on the War on Terrorism:

65. We were told during our visits to New York that UNSCR 1373 was exceptional because, although it was drawn up and passed by the fifteen-member Security Council, it obliges all member states to take action. It is, therefore, equivalent to a binding treaty which no state has had the opportunity to negotiate. For this reason, it is extremely important for the success of the UN's activities against terrorism to ensure that member states regard the CTC as legitimate, important, and serving their own interests.

This is a fairly sweeping resolution, especially in dealing with foreign dissidents and suspected money laundering. Looking at this article:

The Security Council, ... 1. Decides that all States shall: ...

(b) Criminalize the wilful provision or collection, by any means, directly or indirectly, of funds by their nationals or in their territories with the intention that the funds should be used, or in the knowledge that they are to be used, in order to carry out terrorist acts;

Of course if the United States took the special relationship as seriously as we do then NORAID would have been shut down. But they are still on line. Odd that.

However having domestic legislation mandated without even being able to vote on it is a bad thing. As this provides at least some of the rationale behind the USA Patriot act (obviously a misnomer) I'd be interested to know if any of the American militia groups are picking up on this. They're right, the UN is dictating domestic legislation.

It would be a good idea to keep Britain on the Security Council. It would be an even better idea to just leave the UN altogether.


Post a Comment

Blog Archive