TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Is the UN doing its job?

Is the UN doing its job?

To all you Political enthusists... Do you think the United nations is filling its roll properly as a governing board of nations for peace?


THIS BY NO MEANS IS A MIDDLE-EAST ONLY TOPIC... IT APPLIES TO ANYONE AND ANY COUNTRY!

HERE'S MY BEEF...

After the world watched and experienced the horrors of the second World War, it exclaimed "never again" on October 24, 1945 by establishing a United Nations, "to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security." However, the message of the UN today seems diluted by the voices of Syria and China on the Security Council and the prospect of Libya heading up the Human Rights Commission. This is further amplified by the actions (or rather inactions) of the UN to prevent terror attacks throughout the world.

Just this week in an Israeli goverment report, it was confirmed that the UN facilities under the auspicious of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), have been aiding terrorists in their attack on innocent Israeli men, women and children. According to the report, A number of Palestinians who have been arrested by the IDF say that they have used UNRWA facilities and vehicles to plan and carry out attacks.

For instance, the report stated that Muhammad Ali Hassan, who was arrested by the IDF, used an UNRWA school near Nablus for target practice and to store ammunition. The report also documented the use of a UNRWA club in the Jabalya refugee camp and a social club in the El Aroub refugee camp as meeting points for Tanzim members. In addition, the report stated that numerous UNRWA schools were used to hide suspected terrorists. According to the report, Nidal Nazal, an UNRWA ambulance driver arrested in July, admitted that his ambulance was used to transport ammunition between terror cells. Other detainees admitted that UNRWA vehicles were used by terrorists on their way to attacks

In the investigation of the accidental death of UN worker Iain Hook, a voicemail from Mr. Hook to IDF Cpt. Peter Lerner revealed that the UN facility was turned into a sniper hideout. While the UN mysteriously denied the claim (similar to other denials regarding Israeli soldiers), the voicemail automatically dated the call at 12:53 P.M. on Friday, less than an hour before Mr. Hook was accidentally shot. In the words of Hook, "Hi Peter, it's Iain here. I'm just making a progress report, really. We're pinned down in the compound. The shabab [Palestinian militants] have knocked a hole in the wall, which I'm not happy about at all."

It is imperative that every enlightened nation which funds the activities of UNRWA must question such progress reports. In a world in which no country is safe from terrorists, it is imperative that the UN live up to its founding principals to cooperate with those fighting terror instead of inflicting it. It is not enough for the UN to condemn terror, it must recognize that in order to bring true "peace and security" to the world, it must also support those countries that are unified in the ideals of justice and freedom.

3 days goes by and nobody critisizes the UN for this ridiculousness. I wonder how long the US would have survived .... Probably not very long before being called a state sponsoring terrorism. Personally I hate the UN. I believe it is a complete failor. It doesn't have enough action to back up its words and it doesn't have words to back up its purpose.

I'd like to thank you for being the first to respond and speak your peace against the inaction of the UN!
If only more people would state their thoughts and opinions on this matter, we could perhaps get a little discussion going....

The UN is not only a failure, but also a body that contridicts its mission statement!!

quote:

Originally posted by occrider 3 days goes by and nobody critisizes the UN for this ridiculousness. I wonder how long the US would have survived .... Probably not very long before being called a state sponsoring terrorism. Personally I hate the UN. I believe it is a complete failor. It doesn't have enough action to back up its words and it doesn't have words to back up its purpose.

I dont hate the U.N because even though it doesnt do as much as it should, it still makes some contributations, that wouldnt have happened otherwise. And besides a small gain, is better than no gain.

hmm

I like how everybody regards any statement by the UN as the word of God yet nobody really sticks up for the UN. For example ... the UN doesn't officially support the No fly zone policies in Iraq so it MUST be a corrupt and illegal practice. However, the fact that the UN doesn't condemn that policy is an interesting issue as well. Here's my ultra basic take on the UN. People are typically for or against NATO. Those for NATO believe that what the US and allies are doing is just and warranted. Those against it believe that the US and allies are violating national sovereignty and are basically uppity assholes. Meanwhile ... the UN is sitting on the fence like a godamned pussy. They aren't taking any actions against Iraq for treaty violations nor are they condemning the US for its supposed illegal aggressiveness. There is one side that is right and there is one side that is wrong! The issue being as it is is a simple as that! Yet this governing body is too inept, weak, or un-ableminded to make a discision one way or another. The UN is the ultimate in politician like characteristics and politically correctness to be an effective institution.

The UN is utterly useless. The UN isnt allowed to work just like the League of Nations. It only works if the USA lets it work. Which is almost never. If it had an independant military force it could achieve something but it never will.

Did the UN do anything to stop Rwanda massacres?
Did the UN do anything to stop East Timor massacres?
Did the UN do anything about US invasion of Panama?
Did the UN do anything about US bombing of Cambodia?
Did the UN do anything about Russian atrocities in Chechnya?
Did the UN do anything about US bombing of Libya?
Did the UN do anything about US sanctions against Cuba?
Did the UN do anything about CIA backed atrocities in Latin America?
Did the UN do anything about Israels(backed by the US) utter contempt for the UN. One of the UNs first resolutions called for Israel to allow for the right of return of the palestinians driven out of their homes. Do you think Israel complied with it. Why should it? The UN has no teeth.

The lesson that the UN shows the poor and dispossessed of this world is there is no point trying diplomacy, even if you get a resolution at the UN nothing happens.

The only way that anyone can get their message across in this world is to blow things up and kill people.

quote:

Did the UN do anything about US sanctions against Cuba?

what does that have to do with the UN? sanctions are a sovergnty issue each country can decide on its own

quote:

Originally posted by rupert Did the UN do anything about US invasion of Panama? Did the UN do anything about US bombing of Cambodia? Did the UN do anything about Russian atrocities in Chechnya? Did the UN do anything about US bombing of Libya? Did the UN do anything about US sanctions against Cuba? Did the UN do anything about CIA backed atrocities in Latin America? Did the UN do anything about Israels(backed by the US) utter contempt for the UN.

Did the UN do anything about General Manuel Noriega invasion over panama?
Did the UN do anything about North Vietnemese Army invasion of Cambodia?
Did the UN do anything about Chechnyian terrorist atrocities committed agianst Russia?
Did the UN do anything about the terrorist military camps in Libya?
Did the UN do anything about oppressing, inhumane rebel focres in Latin America?
Did the UN do anything about iraq's(backed by the EU) utter contempt for the UN.

glad to see we agree the UN sucks, to bad its for opposing reasons.

let me also add here a post specificly about why the UN sucks from an israeli point of view, this is taken from one of my earlier posts, so sorry for those who have already read it

*i'll be ther first to say there are many many many 'Security Council' resolutions condeming Israel, but not once have they adopted a resolution critical of the PLO or of arab attacks agianst israel.

*the security council has set up Emergency Special Sessions of the General Assembly to deal with israel on varied occasions, but never have they been convened with respect to the Chinese occupation of Tibet, the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, the slaughters of Rwanda, the disappearances in Zaire or the horrors of Bosnia. agian i dare you to prove me wrong.

* In order to be on the UN security council you have to be a member of a regional group. Arab countries have barred israel from joining the asian group. and although in may 2000 israel accepted an invitation to be a temporary member of the Western Europe and Others (WEOG) reginal group, it still has no access to have any say on the security council.

* in 1974 resolution 3379 slandered Zionism (the jewish nationalist movement) by branding it as a form of rasicm. it was only repealed in 1991 and I think it was about two years ago in a UN summit in south africe that the word zionism was almost equated to racism agian, luckly that didnt pass because of strong US pressure. and it was only in Nov 1998, 50 years after the founding of the UN that the word anti-semetism appeared in a UN resolution.

* Of all of the condemnations that The Commission on Human Rights has put forth, 26% refer to israel alone (!!!) and yet rouge states like syria and libya have never been critized.

* both the madrid (1991) and oslo peace accords (1992) call for direct and bilateral negotations, but the UN constantly undercuts this principle. the general assembly routinely adopts resolutions that attempt to impose solutions to critical issues. Ironically, security council reolutions 242 and 338 that everyone refers (the ones after 1967) to call for bilateral negotiations as well but are still undermined by UN general assembly resolutions.

*The hizbollah routinely fires rocket rounds into israel proper from within lebanon and the UN does abosolutley nothing about it, not even a single condemnation of violence.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy what does that have to do with the UN? sanctions are a sovergnty issue each country can decide on its own

well put

quote:

Did the UN do anything about General Manuel Noriega invasion over panama? Did the UN do anything about North Vietnemese Army invasion of Cambodia? Did the UN do anything about Chechnyian terrorist atrocities committed agianst Russia? Did the UN do anything about the terrorist military camps in Libya? Did the UN do anything about oppressing, inhumane rebel focres in Latin America? Did the UN do anything about iraq's(backed by the EU) utter contempt for the UN.

and well put again, everyone is so quick to blame the U.S..... *sigh*

Well, the UN is not a world police. The distribution of power in the UN is more or less the same as it is in the real world. Therefore, US are more powerful than Albania. UN can't do much against the decisions of the US because it has no army of its own (I wouldn't consider the UN peacekeepers as an army), and also because US has many of its people in high positions inside. As long as we live in a world with all the countries having their full national sovereignity, the UN can't be more successful than it is now. It is true that it is not a decision making factor, but it still is an influence, and a positive one. So it's better to have it than not to have it, although its success is not always guaranteed.

The only way UN can be more successful is that it becomes more powerful, but there's a problem. Most major countries don't want the UN to get stronger, because of influencing their own decisions.

Anyway, it's not very useful or efficient, but better that than nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Well, the UN is not a world police. The distribution of power in the UN is more or less the same as it is in the real world. Therefore, US are more powerful than Albania. UN can't do much against the decisions of the US because it has no army of its own (I wouldn't consider the UN peacekeepers as an army), and also because US has many of its people in high positions inside. As long as we live in a world with all the countries having their full national sovereignity, the UN can't be more successful than it is now. It is true that it is not a decision making factor, but it still is an influence, and a positive one. So it's better to have it than not to have it, although its success is not always guaranteed. The only way UN can be more successful is that it becomes more powerful, but there's a problem. Most major countries don't want the UN to get stronger, because of influencing their own decisions. Anyway, it's not very useful or efficient, but better that than nothing.

But it's not the same as it is in the real world. The US has only one seat on the security council. It shares that with 4 others. Other than the security council each nation shares a vote in the general assembly. Correct me if I'm wrong (and I might be) but if the US complains so much about the inaction of the UN in general how is the UN a US puppet?

what a naive comment... it has only one chair... come on, they have veto, they can block what ever they want. One or two hundreds chairs, one veto is enough.

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek what a naive comment... it has only one chair... come on, they have veto, they can block what ever they want. One or two hundreds chairs, one veto is enough.

Your comment is as naive, if not more! ONE CHAIR. The US only has one. Therefore ANY kind of resolution the US puts forward has 3/4 of a chance of being blocked by whichever member of the security council wishes! ARE you saying the US veto is worth 4 TIMES any other veto????????

quote:

Therefore ANY kind of resolution the US puts forward has 3/4 of a chance of being blocked by whichever member of the security council wishes!

So using your math, any other country has 4/4 or 100% chance of being blocked?

Anyway, US can influence all the members of security council by other means (like getting Russians to their side by promising financial loans).

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 So using your math, any other country has 4/4 or 100% chance of being blocked? Anyway, US can influence all the members of security council by other means (like getting Russians to their side by promising financial loans).

REGARDLESS of which mathematical method you use the US has an equal chance of being blocked as ANY other country. With regards to influence ... I hardly think that EVERY country on the security council can be influenced to side with the US. OTHERWISE THE UN WOULD BE THE US. OTHERWISE THERE WOULDNT BE THIS WHOLE IRAQ ISSUE. PLEASE illustrate an example where the US clear cut and FORCIBLY INTIMIDATED, INFLUENCED, or FORCED the security council to accept a an issue.

Let's look at the security council members:
US
Britain - a traditional ally of the US, blair does what Bush says
Russia - in financial troubles, can be bribed very easily with loans, or by promises that the US will not mind what goes on in Chechenya
France - more or less neutral
China - not very favorable towards the US, but growing more favorable because of the improving trade relations.

Of 5 council votes, two are immediately on the US side, while one is very easily converted. France is not so powerful to go against the rest of the council, but is usually playing hard to get so that it gains image of a decision maker. China might have been an opposing factor earlier, but now is also willing to agree with the US for a price. And US has enough money to offer them all they want.

No other country has a so favorable situation in the UN, because they all have to talk 5 security council members into supporting them, while US has to do it with only 3, and has enough power and money to buy their oppinions. Therefore US has not forced or pressured any of those countries into voting for the US, but has rather bought their support instead.

Everyone's oppinion can be bought, it's only the price that matters. And the US has enough resources to pay that price.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Everyone's oppinion can be bought, it's only the price that matters. And the US has enough resources to pay that price.

true, but the US does not have a monopoly over wealth and resource. it has gotten there through hard work and investment. the four other members are very strong on their own as is, and there is nothing stopping them from gaining the same power the US has, especially china and russia who have a tremandous territories and a vast wealth of resources and human power.

quote:

it has gotten there through hard work and investment.

I would also add the USA got where it is as a result of the slave trade, the genocide of the indigenous population, and the brutal exploitation of its colonies. The USA is an imperialist power just like the European powers in the 19th century.


On Cuba

quote:

what does that have to do with the UN? sanctions are a sovergnty issue each country can decide on its own

Fine, forget the crippling sanctions regime, what about the attempted invasion, the attempts to assassinate Castro?

quote:

Did the UN do anything about Chechnyian terrorist atrocities committed agianst Russia?

That is outrageous. That the same as saying the allies were wrong in carpet bombing the German and Japanese cities in World War 2. To that I say the axis powers started the war, the people in those countries supported their leaders when the going was good, they had no problem when it was their side doing the bombing. Those people got what they deserved. The person who starts a war cant be compared to the person who defends themselves.

The Chechens are entitled under international law to self determination. If that requires terrorism or killing soldiers so be it. The Chechens like every other persecuted minority group in the world are just playing the game with the cards they get dealt with. If one group, race, country uses its power to persecute a minority then they should expect and deserve retaliation.

quote:

true, but the US does not have a monopoly over wealth and resource. it has gotten there through hard work and investment. the four other members are very strong on their own as is, and there is nothing stopping them from gaining the same power the US has, especially china and russia who have a tremandous territories and a vast wealth of resources and human power.

Well, part of it was hard work, but additionally to what rupert said, part of it is also WW1 and WW2. Before WW1, most european major countries were way above the US. But the first war exhausted them enough to become about equal with the US, and the second pushed them below the US standards.

And the US doesn't have a monopoly over wealth and resources, but it's not far from it as it does control more than any other country.
The other countries can gain the same power only if they have rapidly higher economic growth than America does. Although, with Bush's economic skills, that just may happen.

quote:

Originally posted by rupert I would also add the USA got where it is as a result of the slave trade, the genocide of the indigenous population, and the brutal exploitation of its colonies. The USA is an imperialist power just like the European powers in the 19th century.

i disagree, i more agree with drug_tito's reason as to why america became so powerful. what you just said could apply to many nations, UK comes to mind but they didnt achieve the same power as the US.

quote:

Fine, forget the crippling sanctions regime, what about the attempted invasion, the attempts to assassinate Castro?

fine, but lets not forget to look at the other side of the mirror. the invasion of the bay of pigs was a result of US aggression agianst communism, and at the heavy russian influence on that country, remember the missle crisis. dont forget US and Russia were at war agianst each other, be it a cold one, and cuba was just a proxy battle ground.

quote:

The Chechens are entitled under international law to self determination.

say what? where does it say that? never heard of such a resolution or law of that kind! got any proof?

do the native americans have a right to self determination? do the french quebecians have a right to self determination? do the omish people of pennsilvania have a right to self determination? does any and every ethnical group on earth have a right to self determination?

fact is that in 1722 Russian Czar Peter the Great annexed Dagestan (the area ecompassing Chechnya). Chechnya broke away from Russia in 1991. But the declaration went unrecognized by Moscow and the world community. thats like saying all of a sudden rhode island wants to become independent, of course the US and the world would not recognize that. furthuremore with the use of blatant intentional use of force by rebel chechnyians agianst innocent russian civilians, such political movements should not even be worth negotiating with until such actions stop.
the cessacion of terrorism, i think, should be a pre-cursor to any diplomatic relations.

quote:

If that requires terrorism or killing soldiers so be it

excuse me, but i think you're just plain wrong

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Let's look at the security council members: US Britain - a traditional ally of the US, blair does what Bush says Russia - in financial troubles, can be bribed very easily with loans, or by promises that the US will not mind what goes on in Chechenya France - more or less neutral China - not very favorable towards the US, but growing more favorable because of the improving trade relations. Of 5 council votes, two are immediately on the US side, while one is very easily converted. France is not so powerful to go against the rest of the council, but is usually playing hard to get so that it gains image of a decision maker. China might have been an opposing factor earlier, but now is also willing to agree with the US for a price. And US has enough money to offer them all they want. No other country has a so favorable situation in the UN, because they all have to talk 5 security council members into supporting them, while US has to do it with only 3, and has enough power and money to buy their oppinions. Therefore US has not forced or pressured any of those countries into voting for the US, but has rather bought their support instead. Everyone's oppinion can be bought, it's only the price that matters. And the US has enough resources to pay that price.

I'm not quite sure which of what you're saying is worse. That the US forces every important country in the UN to agree with them, or that all the countries on the security council are willing to bend over backwards and take it up the ass for some hand me downs. Say what you will, but International politics is all about alliances and tit for tat relationships. If you think that what the US is doing now differs from 3000 years of organized government, than you're sadly mistaken. How about this crazy theory ... maybe, just maybe, the reason why a resolution passes through the security council is because of the merits of the resolution. I know ... who am I fooling?

quote:

say what? where does it say that? never heard of such a resolution or law of that kind! got any proof?

Self Determination is implied in the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Taken from the UN webpage..

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations on 10 December 1948, represents a common statement of the goals and aspirations regarding human rights and other fundamental freedoms. It recognizes among other things: the fundamental rights of all people to life, liberty and the security of person; the right to an adequate standard of living; the right to own property; the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the right to education, freedom of thought, conscience and religion; and the right to freedom from torture and degrading treatment.


The UN Charter also imposes obligations on those who govern non-self governing territories, to assist them towards obtaining self-determination.

quote:

do the native americans have a right to self determination? do the french quebecians have a right to self determination? do the omish people of pennsilvania have a right to self determination? does any and every ethnical group on earth have a right to self determination?

Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. If it is the will of the people that they obtain self-determination then they have an inalienable right to obtain it. A person who cannot live their lives according to their beliefs and traditions and who cannot decide how they will be governed is nothing more than a slave.

quote:

I'm not quite sure which of what you're saying is worse. That the US forces every important country in the UN to agree with them, or that all the countries on the security council are willing to bend over backwards and take it up the ass for some hand me downs. Say what you will, but International politics is all about alliances and tit for tat relationships. If you think that what the US is doing now differs from 3000 years of organized government, than you're sadly mistaken.

I know it's been happening before, and I surely don't think the US is the first one to do it. It is a thing that can't be avoided. By this I'm just saying that the US does have more influence in the UN than other countries.

quote:

Originally posted by rupert Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. If it is the will of the people that they obtain self-determination then they have an inalienable right to obtain it. A person who cannot live their lives according to their beliefs and traditions and who cannot decide how they will be governed is nothing more than a slave.

Fundamentally speaking, I want to agree with this principle. But it's very complicated when two peoples' rights to self-determination are directly opposed to one another (i.e. Israel/Palestine). To some extent, also, a limitation must be placed on what constitutes self-determination. I mean, if I feel that the U.S. doesn't allow myself to live according to my beliefs and traditions, can I claim control of the state of Virginia and declare independence? Obviously this would only lead to chaos. In the same way, Russia by international law own the land the Chechnyans are living on. They don't have any right to take that land. They certainly ought to be given more rights, but a unilateral declaration such as the one you're citing doesn't really help solve real-world scenarios.

quote:

Originally posted by rupert Self Determination is implied in the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Taken from the UN webpage.. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations on 10 December 1948, represents a common statement of the goals and aspirations regarding human rights and other fundamental freedoms. It recognizes among other things: the fundamental rights of all people to life, liberty and the security of person; the right to an adequate standard of living; the right to own property; the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the right to education, freedom of thought, conscience and religion; and the right to freedom from torture and degrading treatment.

Everything you've said up to this point are undisputable, individual rights.

quote:

The UN Charter also imposes obligations on those who govern non-self governing territories, to assist them towards obtaining self-determination. Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. If it is the will of the people that they obtain self-determination then they have an inalienable right to obtain it. A person who cannot live their lives according to their beliefs and traditions and who cannot decide how they will be governed is nothing more than a slave.

What's the magical legal disclaimer here? NON-SELF GOVERNING TERRITORIES!!!!! TERRITORIES!!!! This UN "mandate" is a bunch of idealistic bullshit that fails to fully address the issue. This is why I hate the UN, they make a statement, then they castrate themselves so they're not expected to have the balls to stand up for what they're trying to say. This statement can be interpreted into meaning that Chechnya, Idaho, or the bowling alley down the street has a right to secession. A bunch of IDIOTS!!!!

quote:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm..._in_their_heads IRAQS IN THEIR HEADS Sun Feb 2, 4:25 AM ET Add Op/Ed - New York Post to My Yahoo! By LINDA STASI OK, that's it. Time to shut down the U.N. once and for all before we all come UN-done. Two weeks ago, Libya - which is not only known for abducting and torturing opponents of its, er, government, but is held responsible for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, and is ruled by violent, strongman Moammar Khadafy - was elected by an overwhelming majority of U.N. half-wits to chair the Commission on Human Rights. And now, it's announced that Iraq (yes, Iraq!) is in line to take over the U.N. Conference on Disarmament. Dear God! Can't we disarm the U.N.? Yes, the country that has supposedly stashed enough weapons of mass destruction to blow up the planet will be charged with overseeing every other country's disarmament. Time to kiss your gas, your lass, your weapons of mass and your - well, finish the rhyme - goodbye! Iraq gets the gig in May because - get this - according to U.N. rules, the disarmament chairmanship goes in alphabetical order. India's got the gig now, Indonesia gets it next, and then it's Iraq's turn. Hopefully they will not have detonated all their nuclear weapons by then, and will still have some to disarm - just to keep the job on the up and up. In defense of the disarmament debacle, Fred Eckhard, a spokesman for U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) said, "I think you could expect that from time to time a 'letter' would come up that might raise questions in certain quarters, but it has no political significance, I would say." You would? I wouldn't.

Libya to chair the Commission on Human Rights? Iraq to have chairmanship on disarmament because of alphabetical order? what has the UN come to?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.