22Michelle · 70-79, T
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@22Michelle Is it actually the USA or just the USA's President, though?
Surely for the USA to establish a new international body like that would need very careful study by the nation's civil-service, judiciary, diplomats and politicians, and eventual agreement by Congress before it can be proposed to the world at large? Has that all been done?
Your observation led me to dig a little deeper.
With anything so contentious I try to find in its own words, but it has no information point such as a web-site. So where and how is it administered? It seems so far, only meetings between national representatives.
Under its gold-tinted badge showing only the North American continent, was authority by the UN Security Council, but that voted only to try to settle the Israel / Palestine conflict (nothing else) by an "international stabilisation force". Magically that became this open-sided BoP, rushed through in about four months.
I still found the BoP's Constitution, reported.
It makes no mention of Gaza, Israel or any other country. It states the Chairman's identity, and that he is not open for re-election as such; and his absolute authority including of membership elibility (his invitees only, at cost to their tax-payers), its executive committe members (proposed or appointed by him), his successor, any subsidiary bodies and its strange transient-existence / dissolution rules.
It hints at the possibility of physical buildings but so far uses only meetings between heads of states - not particularly nice states either, some of them - so querying what it wants so much money for, up-front. The $1 000 000 joining fee is for three years; or:
Article 2.1: Member States
Membership in the Board of Peace is limited to States invited to participate by the Chairman, and commences upon notification that the State has consented to be bound by this Charter, in accordance with Chapter XI.
Article 2.2:
(c) Each Member State shall serve a term of no more than three years from this Charter’s entry into force, subject to renewal by the Chairman. The three-year membership term shall not apply to Member States that contribute more than USD $1,000,000,000 in cash funds to the Board of Peace within the first year of the Charter’s entry into force.
I do not know the legal meaning of "cash funds" in such matters - it looks mere tautology. However there is no mention of the money's intended purposes, nor of any proper auditing and publishing of accounts - and my arithmetic, if we ignore inflation, says a thousand million US Dollars would buy >300 years' membership! Yet, the same constitution suggests a possibly short existence anyway, even only two years, as the Chairman shall decide; so would those nations be refunded the balance?
62 invitees, 19 have signed up. Minimum income so far, $19 000 000. For...?
Surely for the USA to establish a new international body like that would need very careful study by the nation's civil-service, judiciary, diplomats and politicians, and eventual agreement by Congress before it can be proposed to the world at large? Has that all been done?
Your observation led me to dig a little deeper.
With anything so contentious I try to find in its own words, but it has no information point such as a web-site. So where and how is it administered? It seems so far, only meetings between national representatives.
Under its gold-tinted badge showing only the North American continent, was authority by the UN Security Council, but that voted only to try to settle the Israel / Palestine conflict (nothing else) by an "international stabilisation force". Magically that became this open-sided BoP, rushed through in about four months.
I still found the BoP's Constitution, reported.
It makes no mention of Gaza, Israel or any other country. It states the Chairman's identity, and that he is not open for re-election as such; and his absolute authority including of membership elibility (his invitees only, at cost to their tax-payers), its executive committe members (proposed or appointed by him), his successor, any subsidiary bodies and its strange transient-existence / dissolution rules.
It hints at the possibility of physical buildings but so far uses only meetings between heads of states - not particularly nice states either, some of them - so querying what it wants so much money for, up-front. The $1 000 000 joining fee is for three years; or:
Article 2.1: Member States
Membership in the Board of Peace is limited to States invited to participate by the Chairman, and commences upon notification that the State has consented to be bound by this Charter, in accordance with Chapter XI.
Article 2.2:
(c) Each Member State shall serve a term of no more than three years from this Charter’s entry into force, subject to renewal by the Chairman. The three-year membership term shall not apply to Member States that contribute more than USD $1,000,000,000 in cash funds to the Board of Peace within the first year of the Charter’s entry into force.
I do not know the legal meaning of "cash funds" in such matters - it looks mere tautology. However there is no mention of the money's intended purposes, nor of any proper auditing and publishing of accounts - and my arithmetic, if we ignore inflation, says a thousand million US Dollars would buy >300 years' membership! Yet, the same constitution suggests a possibly short existence anyway, even only two years, as the Chairman shall decide; so would those nations be refunded the balance?
62 invitees, 19 have signed up. Minimum income so far, $19 000 000. For...?
22Michelle · 70-79, T
@ArishMell Well curently the current President and his administratio shoulf be nlocked from any such body. And given the US nation Is guilty of allowing the current President and Administration to come to power with the former already a criminal. That the Constitution has been has been sidelined, the Law is broken every day by what is suposed to part of Law Enforcement it should be several years, at least, after the return of a Law Abiding Government that it should vonsidered gor this "Peace Board" should it still be proposed.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@22Michelle I take your point but I do understand Trump and his Party were elected there.
Quite how a nation would unlock its president from an organisation he has created and operates, I don't know. Perhaps it will only happen if enough other countries simply ignore his "Board of Peace" and decline any invitations to join it. So far only about a third of the invitees have signed up.
Quite how a nation would unlock its president from an organisation he has created and operates, I don't know. Perhaps it will only happen if enough other countries simply ignore his "Board of Peace" and decline any invitations to join it. So far only about a third of the invitees have signed up.
peterlee · M
I have severe reservation. In the UK, it should be discussed by the House of Lords, the more reflective chamber, and gain all Party support in the Commons..
The United Nations, with all its faults, has served the world well since its inauguration.
There is a lot of work still to be done in Gaza, especially by the Aid Agencies, now blocked by the Israelis. And that is where the New Organisation reared its head.
The United Nations, with all its faults, has served the world well since its inauguration.
There is a lot of work still to be done in Gaza, especially by the Aid Agencies, now blocked by the Israelis. And that is where the New Organisation reared its head.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@peterlee With the Israeli government showing its utter contempt for the UN by destroying the UNWRA building, it's perhaps not surprising this so-called "Board of Peace" notion might arise; but I can't help thinking we should at least reserve judgement for a while.
Perhaps for the next three years, at least.
The UN might not be perfect. No human-made system ever is. The right way on is to identify its weknesses and try to put them right. Not subscribe at huge cost to the invention of one very unpredictable man with poor diplomatic ability and very unclear motives.
Perhaps for the next three years, at least.
The UN might not be perfect. No human-made system ever is. The right way on is to identify its weknesses and try to put them right. Not subscribe at huge cost to the invention of one very unpredictable man with poor diplomatic ability and very unclear motives.
FreddieUK · 70-79, M
So far I've only heard about the leadership of Trump, with Orban the only EU leader on board and Putin invited. With the Middle East reps giving their own interpretation of what they are joining for, there is no clarity at all of its purpose. What's not to be concerned about if you are liberal of thought and well educated?
DownTheStreet · 56-60, M
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@DownTheStreet I agree the UN is far from perfect and not very effective; but no humanly-created system ever is.
This so-called Board of Peace though... I have very serious but very simple questions about:
- its real purposes, for whom and how;
- its political attractiveness to whom and why;
- its funding and financial accountability;
- its managerial and structural accountability, and
- its political accountability.
This so-called Board of Peace though... I have very serious but very simple questions about:
- its real purposes, for whom and how;
- its political attractiveness to whom and why;
- its funding and financial accountability;
- its managerial and structural accountability, and
- its political accountability.
Mamapolo2016 · F
ArishMell · 70-79, M
Since it has not explained it purpose, aims, leadership and intended international relationships, nor where all that demanded cash is going.. I would not trust it as far as I could throw it.
I wonder if its purpose is to undermine, even destroy the UN. It's the brain-child of President Trump, who has long shown only contempt for the UN and the USA's part in it; and it is notable his first invitees are tyrants like Putin and Lukashenko.
I wonder if its purpose is to undermine, even destroy the UN. It's the brain-child of President Trump, who has long shown only contempt for the UN and the USA's part in it; and it is notable his first invitees are tyrants like Putin and Lukashenko.
zonavar68 · 56-60, M
Sounds like Jumanji
ExperienceDLT · M
ExperienceDLT · M
@ArishMell thinking that peaceful governments exsist is also another dillusion
ElwoodBlues · M
What does the United Nations actually do other than talk? It seems like they're mostly a joke for the big important issues if they just talk and that's it.
The Board of Peace seems to be a Trump fundraiser disguised as something else, where Trump will collect money and use it for whatever the hell he wants to use it for... while pretending he deserves a peace prize.
The Board of Peace seems to be a Trump fundraiser disguised as something else, where Trump will collect money and use it for whatever the hell he wants to use it for... while pretending he deserves a peace prize.
ThirstenHowl · M
yet another moment of Trump trying to take other people's existing ideas / organizations and make a Trump-branded (even implicitly) version that no one needs, either to feed his ego, possibly embezzle, or both
and in this particular instance, maybe his subconscious is reminding him that the Nobel Machado gave him is still not really his and didn't earn it ... or maybe this new entity is about the escalator denying him at the UN
you could even perhaps one day soon expect to see a Trump-branded version of the Nobel prizes, which be bigly Bbetter and more Beautifuller than the Failing Nasty Nobels🤦🏻♂
the Board of Peace is yet one more desperate attempt by the epic man-child in chief to somehow be relevant in the world, in spite of his historic stupidity and incompetence ... he's too stupid to realize he is stupid, which is the worse possible kind of stupid to be
and in this particular instance, maybe his subconscious is reminding him that the Nobel Machado gave him is still not really his and didn't earn it ... or maybe this new entity is about the escalator denying him at the UN
you could even perhaps one day soon expect to see a Trump-branded version of the Nobel prizes, which be bigly Bbetter and more Beautifuller than the Failing Nasty Nobels🤦🏻♂
the Board of Peace is yet one more desperate attempt by the epic man-child in chief to somehow be relevant in the world, in spite of his historic stupidity and incompetence ... he's too stupid to realize he is stupid, which is the worse possible kind of stupid to be
Ohplease47 · F
