UN- A Meaningless Forum?

[SEVERUSMAX]

For the most part, I tend to think of the UN as a debate club and forum for Third World dictators to slam the USA for being different (more enlightened) than themselves. However, I will applaud their recent condemnation of Red China's human rights record. Maybe some sanctions are in order (duh!), but I don't see progress going THAT far.

 

[Liar]

The UN is an agreement.

It is rendered meaningless by big and powerful UN members not honoring the agreement, saying "Fuck the UN, we do as we please."

I don't specifically mean USA, although that's one of them. India and Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, Soviet Afghanistan occupation, China's consistent human right's violations, the latest wave of French nuclear testings in the pacific, US in Iraq. All examples of members not respecting the agreement, breaching resolutions, and imo the cause of the UN being so impotent today.

 

[cantdog]

Liar is completely correct. If the US wishes to withdraw from the terrible burden of attending this meaningless forum, perhaps some of the resolutions it passes would get by the US veto? If the remainder of the world were free to act without the US veto, perhaps the forum could gain some momentum.

Some sort of organization will ultimately be needed. As the US/UK axis gains hegemony over greater and greater areas of the world, it will surely become more and more obvious that unless the rest of the world wants to get 'enlightened' one by one, they will need to weld workable modalities to combat it.

The 'unenlightened' world begins with international law, respect for treaty accords, forswearing aggressive wars. We in the United States, of course, spit on treaties, pursue pre-emptive wars, shield war criminals, and laugh at international laws. As you suggest, this is due to our superior level of enlightenment, not our desire to solidify world hegemony. Why then should we continue to remain a member of the laughable and impotent forum of the rabble? Let them go their own way, we'll go ours, and if they think they can muster enough projected force to oppose our enlightened course, then at least they will have their forum to do it in.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Oh, come on, most of the UN is RUN by war criminals and genocidal maniacs like Qaddafi and Bashir Assad.

 

[cantdog]

Sure. No enlightenment whatever. Let them go it alone.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

All that I am saying is that we shouldn't pretend that these are peace-loving, liberal democracies. We shouldn't give them seats on the Security Council or other responsible bodies, until they follow the UN Declaration of Human Rights they had signed. We should NEVER have replaced Taiwan with Red China on the Security Council. And we should remember, no matter how important peace is, freedom is even more important than peace.

 

[Liar]

Oh, come on, most of the UN is RUN by war criminals and genocidal maniacs like Qaddafi and Bashir Assad.

First of all, "most" made me laugh. Second of all: This is one of the reasons why the big fishes need to pull their weight within the UN, not leave it to collapse.

We shouldn't give them seats on the Security Council or other responsible bodies, until they follow the UN Declaration of Human Rights they had signed.

If "following UN resolutions they have signed" is a requirement, then the security counsil would be empty. Just sayin'.

 

[NoJo]

If the UN is a meaningless forum, what does that make the AH forum??

 

[Guest]

If the UN is a meaningless forum, what does that make the AH forum??

Horny and happy.

 

[NoJo]

Horny and happy.

If only the UN forum were like that.

 

[Guest]

If only the UN forum were like that.

Yes.

It would also help if they would check their egos and agendas at the door.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Take alook at Unicef. They do some very good work. Take a look at disaster relief, again, the UN does good work.

They UN does very good work in certain areas, this is often overshadowed by their incompetance or inability to intervene effectively in things that are really beyond their means. The UN, can't seem to ever get it right when there are wars, territorial violations, etc.etc. etc. Usually because their membership is divided, some backing one faction, some another, while others aren't interested.

You can't call it meaningless when you look at how many childeren have been helped, how many disaster victims it has aided and how, on occasion, peacekeepers under UN auspices can cool down hot conflicts until a cese fire can be hammered out.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Agendas like preserving freedom? I shudder to think of a world where such an "agenda" is sacrificed to some vague, dubious utopian ideal.

Further, take a look at the countries who compose the UN's strategic (not the affiliates, but the UN itself) institutions (General Assembly, for instance): North Korea, Cuba, Libya, Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Angola, Mozambique, Namibia, Sudan, the "Democratic Republic" of the Congo (about as "Democratic" as the "German Democratic Republic"- East Germany), Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, Communist China, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Algeria, Yemen, Ethiopia, Seychelles, Rwanda, Burundi, and Uganda.

The Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, was complicit in the Rwanda genocide in 1994, when he was the UN official responsible there at the time.

What's Sudan and Libya doing on the governing bodies of "Human Rights" institutions? Sudan practices slavery and genocide. Libya is ruled by a hard-line Islamic fundamentalist who sponsors terrorists. Syria and Libya have occupied part or all of Lebanon and Chad, respectively, for decades. Syria is still ruled by the Baath Party, a separate wing of the same party to which the great humanitarian (note sarcasm) Saddam Hussein belonged during his career as "President" of Iraq.

These are the nations to whom the major powers should sacrifice their "agendas" and "egos"? I think not!

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

And regular resolutions are a far cry from the documents pledging member-states to respect human rights. Let's face it: these guys ARE the enemy. They are on the opposite side of the humanistic struggle for liberty, and should be understood as such. The UN coddles them and pretends that we are all in the same boat. Not me! In the same boat with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei? I think not!

 

[cantdog]

I think not, too, but probably not the way you mean it. What do you need an enemy for?

If human rights concern you, join Amnesty International. The regime of sanctions against Iraq was sheerly genocidal and contrary to the Geneva protocols about food as a weapon. By some readings, contrary to the UN's own charter. Check the record on that one. There's plenty of blame to go around. Would you rather no international body existed at all?

 

[matriarch]

I think not, too, but probably not the way you mean it. What do you need an enemy for?

If human rights concern you, join Amnesty International. The regime of sanctions against Iraq was sheerly genocidal and contrary to the Geneva protocols about food as a weapon. By some readings, contrary to the UN's own charter. Check the record on that one. There's plenty of blame to go around. Would you rather no international body existed at all?

Methinks Amicus has been cloning again.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

The Saxons didn't need the Normans as an enemy, either, but they got them anyway. Unless we wish to end up like the Saxons, crushed under an iron boot, we might want to consider recognizing enemies as such. "Peace" isn't going to solve the world's problems. The world isn't Woodstock. Robert Mugabe, given half a chance, would take YOUR farm or garden too, at gunpoint.

Unlike the "evil" USA/UK forces of liberal democracy, the Third World doesn't give a fig about your rights to counsel, fair trials, free speech, etc. They prefer gulags, show trials, and death squads.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I think not, too, but probably not the way you mean it. What do you need an enemy for?

If human rights concern you, join Amnesty International. The regime of sanctions against Iraq was sheerly genocidal and contrary to the Geneva protocols about food as a weapon. By some readings, contrary to the UN's own charter. Check the record on that one. There's plenty of blame to go around. Would you rather no international body existed at all?

What, never heard of the Oil For Food program? The sanctions were a part of the price that Saddam Hussein paid for invading Kuwait, or does the Gulf War not ring a bell? Would you rather he got encouraged to invade Kuwait again in the 1990s? "Plenty of blame to go around?" Multi-lateral sanctions against a nation that committed UNPROVOKED aggression against its neighbor is NOT the same as lining up grandmothers against a wall and having them shot as "public enemies". I'd rather set up an alternative forum for the nations that believe in freedom, humanism, and the rule of law.

 

[amicus]

For the most part, I tend to think of the UN as a debate club and forum for Third World dictators to slam the USA for being different (more enlightened) than themselves. However, I will applaud their recent condemnation of Red China's human rights record. Maybe some sanctions are in order (duh!), but I don't see progress going THAT far.

The United Nations, like the Preceding League of Nations and the fiction 'Federation' in Star Trek, are, I think, examples of man's desire to facilitate understanding and avoid war, as humans are a quarrelsome lot.

However, and there are a couple examples expressed on this thread, there are those individuals and nations whose basic political structures do not encompass individual human rights and liberties.

Whether it is reflected in theological terms of obedience to god or in the socialist dream of absolute mediocrity and allegiance to the greater good, both at the expense of the individual, these nations and individuals will never be a part of the human quest for reason and rationality.

It seems to me that a 'one world government' is the goal of many who applaud the existence of the UN.

There is, by definition, I think, a need for an international body, with representatives from all nations, that can meet on a regular basis and discuss issues that are global in nature.

A reading of the UN Charter and even the founding documents of the League of Nations, indicates that those who conceived and formed those organizations had some of those things in mind.

But when it comes to enforcing edicts or sanctions, a 'police action' mentality is not a workable attribute in such an organization.

Perhaps it is too early in human history for such a global organization to function with more than moderate efficiency.

amicus...

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

An interesting view. However, I still think that a body with countries like Red China on its Security Council is like the Trojans bringing that damned horse into their city.

 

[SummerMorning]

An interesting view. However, I still think that a body with countries like Red China on its Security Council is like the Trojans bringing that damned horse into their city.

Friend, you have no idea of the composition, the history or the function of the UN.

Yours is a voice crying "Shame!" from the depths of a forest of ignorance.

I would "enlighten" you on all these topics, but I have a feeling it would be futile. It's not that your conclusions are flawed - that's a matter of opinion and to each his own - it's your facts.

Get your facts straight first, then start lambasting something.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I know a lot more about the UN that you can possibly fathom.

 

[SummerMorning]

Oh, come on, most of the UN is RUN by war criminals and genocidal maniacs like Qaddafi and Bashir Assad.

You said this.

And you expect me to believe you "know a lot more ... than I could possibly fathom?"

Don't give me that bullshit.

And before you start bandying genocide around look up the damned definition. While you're at it, look up the definition of war criminal as well. Look up the membership of the UN. Look up who proposes resolutions and look up the voting records. They're all available online. Also, look up the UN sanctions *against* Qaddafi, while you're studying.

Once you've done that, you might realise why you're capable of disqualifying yourself from any debate on the UN with a single sentence.

 

[SummerMorning]

...

What's Sudan and Libya doing on the governing bodies of "Human Rights" institutions? Sudan practices slavery and genocide. Libya is ruled by a hard-line Islamic fundamentalist who sponsors terrorists.

...

Here's another example of you not having rather basic facts straight.

The UN is not a government and does not govern and does not have "governing bodies" as such. If you are talking about the Secretariat, which oversees the bureaucratic apparatus of keeping the UN running as an international organization, that is staffed by so-called "international bureaucrats," who are selected primarily on merit and secondarily on representation quotas. Sudan and Libya do not "have a seat" on the Secretariat, no country does.

On Sudan practicing slavery and genocide you are correct. Incredibly.

On Libya you are also wrong. Qaddafi is not an "Islamic fundamentalist" (whatever that is), but an (arguably) socialist secularist dictator. Although Libya has sponsored terrorism (Lockerby), it is questionable whether it still does and in any case has almost no bearing on the UN, where Libya is still a pariah state.

 

[SummerMorning]

An interesting view. However, I still think that a body with countries like Red China on its Security Council is like the Trojans bringing that damned horse into their city.

You're trying to sound "worldly wise" when you say Red China, aren't you? Well, no matter.

What you really have no perspective on is the fact that the UN doesn't belong to the USA. You also have no perspective on the function of the Security Council. Or on the question of who has the highest number of vetoes in the Security Council (i.e. who blocks this august body, the UN, the most often).