Why we should need an Action for UN Renewal separate from the UNA itself
A letter from one of our members
"Dear ACTUN
I have supported you over recent years, but I cannot for the life of
me see why we should need an Action for UN Renewal separate from the UNA
itself. What is the UNA for if not for renewal as well as support?
I think you should open talks with Saw Daws rather than running your
own little show.
Any comments?
Len Roberts"
Response
Dear Len
Just some quick thoughts about ACTUN. I hope others may put forward some ideas
and a joint response sent. Perhaps that response might be adapted to make an
article for the website and newsletter as I am sure a lot of people will ask
"Why ACTUN as well as UNA?"
Our concerns do overlap with UNA and so most ACTUN members are also members of
UNA.
However, ACTUN is primarily concerned with reform (or perhaps more accurately
renewal). Our idea is that the UN should reform itself to be true to its
principles, and this means some quite radical changes. It also means from our
point of view that we have to be critical of the role of our own government.
UNA is partly funded by the government and has politicians as Vice-Presidents
(?) who, for example, flouted UN principles by engaging in three wars of
aggression. UNA cannot criticise these actions in any but the most muted way.
Whilst UNA was thoughtful in its consideration of the Iraq war as it was
looming, we were campaigning vigorously, lobbying MPs and the media.
We have organised a series of lectures on UN reform by some outstanding
authorities and figures and published these in a book. We have published a
pamphlet with bold and practical suggestions for reform. This pamphlet would
never have been published by UNA. None of this work would have happened under
UNA.
Sam Dawes himself has described our thinking as "ahead of the curve." We can
speak out where UNA must be cautious.
We need more support to be able to carry lobbying and campaigning to greater
numbers and more often.
Best wishes
David Roberts