& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

How to make the UN more functional
In response to the letter by Mahmood Elahi, July 4 th.
Unfortunately Arab/Mu-slim countries are not taking this important issue, as with every other issue, seriously. They are least bothered with the fact that, whenever big decisions are taken by the UN, all they do is occupy their chairs and obey the orders given to them. I agree with Mr Elahi that, those countries, whose human rights records are not good, should be corrected, so that they will think twice before repeating it. But
this will not solve the problem entirely because then we will have countries fighting with each other saying none of them violated any human rights, after resolving all the disputes among themselves, only then we can decide about what exactly constitutes a "violation". And when that happens, all the big countries will come up with all sorts of fancy terms to hide their violation of human rights, for example, the illegal Iraqi occupation as "liberation"!
Therefore, to have a "just" and "fair" UN and to make it more effective, we need to remove the idea of the permanent membership. Then it will give the same rights and power to everyone. And when everyone has the same power, they can use their voting - while passing any UN resolution. After all, the name "United Nation" is supposed to provide "unity". How can we achieve unity and justice when some countries are more powerful than others?
It is a waste of time to try
uniting all the countries together, trying to do what is best for the world and then suddenly one permanentmember comes along and vetoes the whole plan simply because that selfish country can't make money out of it! It is pitiable. Removal of permanent-membership from the UN would also prevent countries from abusing their powers by doing a favour to its friends and bullying its rivals.
For example, we know George Bush is now desperately trying to get the Indian troops in Iraq, and to influence the Indian government, he recently suggested that, there may be a possibility of India becoming a permanent member of UN. Why? What did India do all of a sudden, that it should be granted a permanent membership in the UN? I don't think permanent membership has anything to do with a country's size or its economy.
However, if we look closely at all the permanent members, they have only one thing in common: Nukes! Yes, UK, France, USA, China and Russia all have lots of nuclear and other war weapons.
If anyone is even remotely interested in bringing peace and to create a proper "United Nations", then lets start by treating everyone equally. Is it too much to ask for?
Azad Miah
Oldham, UK