Army Guy Posted June 29, 2010 Report Posted June 29, 2010 (edited) UN watch dog accuses the UN council of not doing it's job, having double standards towards some nations. Is this another sign of the UN beoming irrelevant, or to politcalized for it's own good.... http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/peter_worthington/2010/06/25/14515926.html Edited June 29, 2010 by Army Guy Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
myata Posted June 29, 2010 Report Posted June 29, 2010 UN watch dog accuses the UN council of not doing it's job, having double standards towards some nations. Is this another sign of the UN beoming irrelevant, or to politcalized for it's own good.... On the factual side, Israel's civilian death toll in Lebanon by far exceeds all cited examples, if that's the implicit alliteration. But overall it's no secret that UN is not in position to react to all or at least most events as it should according to its own principles. It can still be used to react to some events and in some way and for that reason I do not expect it to go completely irrelevant. But a real, empowered and fully capable international body monitoring and enforcing international law is a long way away. Not in the least because the big players (all of them to some extent) view it as the arena to promote their views and policies as opposed to venue to seek and find compromise. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Machjo Posted June 29, 2010 Report Posted June 29, 2010 UN watch dog accuses the UN council of not doing it's job, having double standards towards some nations. Is this another sign of the UN beoming irrelevant, or to politcalized for it's own good.... http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/peter_worthington/2010/06/25/14515926.html Seeing that UN Watch uses the UN's own standards as a yardstick, this proves that UN Watch in fact acknowledges the UN's standards as at least reasonable, thus acknowledging its relevance. So if the UN is irrelevant, then why would UN Watch use the UN's own standards as a yardstick? That said, I applaud UN Watches efforts as I think they will help keep the UN more honest. The UU is far from perfect, but still a step forward from the League of Nations. Instead of disbanding it, how about improving it, or at least if it is to be disbanded, replaced with something better. Quote With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies? With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?
Army Guy Posted June 29, 2010 Author Report Posted June 29, 2010 Seeing that UN Watch uses the UN's own standards as a yardstick, this proves that UN Watch in fact acknowledges the UN's standards as at least reasonable, thus acknowledging its relevance. So if the UN is irrelevant, then why would UN Watch use the UN's own standards as a yardstick? Thats the piont is it not that the UN own watch dog is telling the UN council they are not following thier own standards in fact it clearly states that they seem to have a double standard when it comes to Israel....And if they are not following their own standards they are infact becoming irrelevent.... That said, I applaud UN Watches efforts as I think they will help keep the UN more honest. The UU is far from perfect, but still a step forward from the League of Nations. Instead of disbanding it, how about improving it, or at least if it is to be disbanded, replaced with something better. This has been discussed at length here before, not many nations around the world take the UN seriously for many of the reasons stated in this report. and while it looks good on paper, what real powers does the UN have...Its military adventures have really been a waste of time and effort, it can not enforce sanctions or levies it applies.....so really what does it do that makes it revelvent. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
dre Posted June 29, 2010 Report Posted June 29, 2010 Thats the piont is it not that the UN own watch dog is telling the UN council they are not following thier own standards in fact it clearly states that they seem to have a double standard when it comes to Israel....And if they are not following their own standards they are infact becoming irrelevent.... This has been discussed at length here before, not many nations around the world take the UN seriously for many of the reasons stated in this report. and while it looks good on paper, what real powers does the UN have...Its military adventures have really been a waste of time and effort, it can not enforce sanctions or levies it applies.....so really what does it do that makes it revelvent. Actually it does all kinds of stuff. 30 million refugees have recieved aid since 1951, was instrumental in the irradication of smallpox, helped improved access to safe fresh water for more than a billion people, and has helped negotiate an end to literally dozens of regional conflicts. not many nations around the world take the UN seriously Horseshit. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Army Guy Posted June 29, 2010 Author Report Posted June 29, 2010 Actually it does all kinds of stuff. 30 million refugees have recieved aid since 1951, was instrumental in the irradication of smallpox, helped improved access to safe fresh water for more than a billion people, and has helped negotiate an end to literally dozens of regional conflicts. But what has it done lately.... not many nations around the world take the UN seriouslyHorseshit. Really you should ask that very same question to those that live in say Yugo, Bosina, serbia, Croatia , hey lets ask any one in Rwanda, or the other dozen or so african countries still bioling over in conflict....shit somolia comes to mind as well.... Lets talk about our nation, how many of our soldiers are on UN missions.....we may use the UN when it serves us, but can you honetly as we and all our people take it seriously... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
dre Posted June 29, 2010 Report Posted June 29, 2010 But what has it done lately.... Really you should ask that very same question to those that live in say Yugo, Bosina, serbia, Croatia , hey lets ask any one in Rwanda, or the other dozen or so african countries still bioling over in conflict....shit somolia comes to mind as well.... Lets talk about our nation, how many of our soldiers are on UN missions.....we may use the UN when it serves us, but can you honetly as we and all our people take it seriously... Canada has been a fairly active participant in UN missions from 1947 right up to now. Heres a few of them... 1947 - South Korea. United Nations Temporary Commission in Korea (UNTCOK). 2 soldiers acted as observer during elections. 1947-1948. UNTCOK was meant as a show of good faith toward democracy in the country, and to show that the UN was willing to lend aid to Korea when it was most needed. The mission failed when the USSR refused to allow the observers entry into North Korea.1949 - Kashmir. United Nations Military Observer Group in Indian and Pakistan. (UNMOGIP) Up to 39 observers served here until 1979. Canada also supplied an aircraft to headquarters until 1996. 1950 - Korea. United Nations Command Korea. 6,146 troops. By the end of the war in 1953 over 26,000 troops served. From 1953 to 1978 Canada participated with the United Nations Command Military Armistice Commission with a very small number of personnel. After 1978 the military attaché in the South Korean embassy assumed this responsibility. 1954 - Middle East. United Nations Truce Supervision Organization. (UNTSO). 11 personnel. One of Canada's longest peacekeeping missions helped enforce the ceasefire between Israel and its new neighbours. This mission continues with 8 personnel. 1954 - Indochina. International Commission for Supervision and Control (ICSC). 133 military observers in Vietnam to supervise the French withdrawal and monitor border incursions. In 1973 the number of personnel was reduced to 20. 1956 - Sinai. United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF I). 1,007 troops helped stop hostilities after Israel, France and Great Britain attacked Egypt over the Suez Canal. The mission lasted from November 1956 to June 1967. 1958 - Lebanon. United Nations Observation Group in Lebanon. (UNOGIL). 77 Observers to monitor arms smuggling across the Lebanese border. The mission lasted from June to December 1958. 1960 - Congo. Organisation des nation unies au Congo (ONUC). 421 troops helped maintain law and order in this African country from July 1960 until June 1964. 1962 - West New Guinea. United Nations Security Force in West New Guinea (UNSF). 13 RCAF personnel served from October 1962 to April 1963 to help maintain peace in this Indonesian island. 1963 - Yemen. United Nations Yemen Observation Mission. (UNYOM). 36 troops and observers monitored disengagement between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates from July 1963 to September 1964. 1964 - Cyprus. United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP). 1150 troops. Canada maintained a strong presence in Cyprus until 1993 when troops were withdrawn for other uses. There is currently one staff officer still with the mission. Over 25,000 personnel served in Cyprus during our twenty-nine year mission. 1965 - Dominican Republic. Mission Of The Representative Of The Secretary-General in the Dominican Republic. (DOMREP). 1 observer served with the mission from May 1965 to October 1966. 1965 - India and Pakistan. United Nations India-Pakistan Observer Mission (UNIPOM) 112 troops served at any given time from September 1965 to March 1966 to monitor a ceasefire. 1968 - Nigeria. Observer Team Nigeria (OTN). 2 personnel monitored a ceasefire between the Nigeria government and Biafran rebels. 1973 - Middle East. United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF II). 1,145 troops served from October 1973 to July 1979, again to supervise a ceasefire between Israel and Egypt and control the buffer zone between the countries. 1973 - Vietnam. International Commission for Control and Supervision (ICCS). 248 personnel helped monitor the ceasefire and return of prisoners to Vietnam. Completed in 1974. 1974 - Middle East. United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF). 190 personnel withdrew on March 24, 2006 ending three decades of peacekeeping on the Israel-Syrian border involving 12,000 troops stationed near the Golan Heights. 1978 - Lebanon. United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon. (UNIFIL) 117 troops served between March and October 1978 to assist with Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon. 1986 - Middle East. Multinational Force and Observers. (MFO) This mission was created after the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt in 1979. Canada began contributing personnel to this non-UN mission in 1986, when 1,800 troops were sent. Twenty years later we still have 31 personnel stationed in Egypt. 1988 - Iran and Iraq. United Nations Iran-Iraq Military Observer Group. (UNIIMOG). Up to 525 personnel supervised the disengagement of the two sides from August 1988 to February 1991. 1988 - Afghanistan and Pakistan. United Nations Good Offices Mission in Afghanistan and Pakistan (UNGOMAP). 5 observers monitored the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan from May 1988 to March 1990. 1989 - Central America. United Nations Observer Group in Central America (ONUCA) 174 personnel helped verify compliance with the Esquipulas Agreement signed between Nicaragua and its neighbours to end conflict in the region. Canada participated from November 1989 to January 1992. 1989 - Namibia. United Nations Transition Assistance Group Namibia (UNTAG). 301 personnel served between April 1989 and March 1990. 1990 - Kuwait. (The Persian Gulf War) 2,700 personnel including three ships and a squadron of CF-18s and a medical unit helped a UN force push Iraq out of Kuwait. Ended 1991. 1990 - Haiti. United Nations Mission for the Verification of the Elections in Haiti. (ONUVEH). 11 election observers served from November 1990 to February 1991. 1990 - Afghanistan and Pakistan. Office of the Secretary-General in Afghanistan and Pakistan (OSGAP). 1 military observer from March 1990 to 1995 1991 - Iraq. United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM). This organization was created to disarm Iraq, especially weapons of mass destruction in 1991. Over the course of the mission from April 1991 to December 1999, 100 personnel participated. After American air strikes against Iraq in late 1998 a new UN agency was created to hunt for illegal weapons. Two Canadian Forces personnel were posted to the New York headquarters for this mission from 1999 to the spring of 2000 when they were replaced with civilians. 1991 - El Salvador. United Nations Observer Mission in El Salvador (ONUSAL). Up to 55 personnel investigated human rights complaints and assisted military reforms and elections. The mission lasted from July 1991 to April 1995 1991 - Angola. United Nations Angola Verification Mission II (UNAVEM II). 15 observers monitored a ceasefire from July 1991 to April 1993. 1991 - Cambodia. United Nations Advance Mission in Cambodia (UNAMIC) that became United Nations Transition Authority in Cambodia. (UNTAC) . 7 military observers served from November 1991 to February 1992 with UNAMIC, then another 240 with UNTAC from February 1992 to September 1993. Part of the latter mission was de-mining and disarmament. 1991 - Western Sahara. United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara. (MINURSO). A maximum of 35 personnel helped monitor the ceasefire and supervise a referendum from May 1991 to June 1994. 1991 - Kuwait. United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observer Mission (UNIKON) 5 observers monitored the demilitarized zone between Iraq and Kuwait from 1991 until September 2001. 1991 - Red Sea/Arabian Gulf/Persian Gulf. Maritime Interdiction Force (MIF). Canada contributed one vessel to this international force frequently from 1991 to September 2001. The purpose is to enforce a United Nations embargo against Iraq. 1992 - Yugoslavia. European Community Monitoring Mission in the Former Yugoslavia (ECMMY). 48 personnel monitored a ceasefire between January 1992 and August 1995 under the auspices of the European Community and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. 1992 - Somalia. Canada contributed to three separate United Nations missions in this country from October 1992 and January 1994. United Nations Operation in Somalia I and II (UNOSOM I and UNOSOM II) and the Unified Task Force (UNITAF). Approximately 1,300 personnel participated, most between December 1992 and March 1993. 1992 - Balkans. United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) followed by United Nations Peace Forces Headquarters (UNPF). Close to 2000 personnel served in a variety of missions in the former Yugoslavia from the February 1992 until December 1995. They secured the Sarajevo airport, provided humanitarian relief, and protected demilitarized zones around Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. 13 personnel were also involved in monitoring "no fly zones' over Bosnia-Herzegovina (1993 -1995). From 1993 to 1996 one frigate with 210 personnel were used for the enforcement of maritime sanctions against the Former Republic of Yugoslavia. In 1995 some staff participated in the United Nations Confidence Restoration Organization mission (UNCRO) as well. Several personnel and aircraft were also involved the Sarajevo Airlift from 1992 to 1996. In 1995 NATO replaced the United Nations as the sponsor of this mission. 1992 - Former Yugoslavia. United Nations Committee of Experts (UNCOE) (1992-1994). At any given time, Canada was providing up to seven legal and military police officers to UNCOE in Operation Justice, to report on the evidence of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and other violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. 1993 - Uganda and Rwanda. United Nations Observer Mission Uganda-Rwanda (UNOMUR) followed by United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR) 115 personnel from June to October 1993 then December 1993 to February 1996. The missions were to monitor the Rwandan border then assist displaced persons and protect relief supplies following a civil war. A further 247 personnel also provided humanitarian assistance during 1994 but not under mandate from the UN. 1993 - Mozambique. United Nations Operations in Mozambique (ONUMOZ). 4 observers monitored a ceasefire and kept warring sides apart. The Mission lasted from February 1993 and December 1994. 1993 - Haiti. Haiti Embargo Enforcement followed by United Nations Mission in Haiti (UNMIH). 750 personnel, 80+ civilian police and one navy vessel enforce the embargo, train police, protect international personnel and maintain security from September 1993 to present. This included a small observer group along the border with the Dominican Republic in 1994. 1993 - Cambodia. Cambodian Mine Action Centre (CMAC). 7 personnel from 1993 to June 2000. 1995 - Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. United Nations Preventative Deployment Force in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (UNPREDEP). 1 officer from March 1995 to February 1999 then a further 55 personnel helped set up the NATO Extraction Force headquarters, December 1998 to April 1999. 1995 - Azerbaijan. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) sponsored a peacekeeping mission in the former Soviet area of Nagorny-Karabakh. 3 personnel assisted this mission from 1995 to 1996. 1995 - Former Yugoslavia. NATO Implementation Force (IFOR). This mission replaced the United Nations in the Balkans in December 1995 with 1,029 Canadian troops. In 1996 the mission was renamed SFOR and became a stabilization force. The number of Canadian personnel was gradually reduced after 2001 to 650 members by October 2004. In 1996 we contributed one frigate to enforce an embargo. The United Nations did continue some work in Bosnia-Herzegovina, called United Nations Mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina (UNMIBH) (December 1995 – February 2000). Canada contributed two Canadian Forces members to de-mining and police training. From August to November 1997, 112 personnel providing tactical air support to enforce the Dayton Peace Accord. 1996 - Zaire. African Great Lakes Multinational Force. 354 personnel to assist in the delivery of humanitarian supplies to Rwandan refugees and facilitate their return to Rwanda. This mission lasted from November to December 1996. 1996 - Haiti. United Nations Support Mission in Haiti (UNSMIH). 750 personnel supported UN peacekeeping and institution building mission from July 1996 to July 1997. 1996 - Croatia. United Nations Observers in Prevlaka (UNMOP). 1 officer from February 1996 to September 2001. 1997 - Guatemala. United Nations Mission in Guatemala. (MINUGUA). 15 observers and civilian police went to help enforce a ceasefire. The mission lasted January to May 1997. 1997 - Haiti. There were two missions to this country in the same year. Mission de Police des Nations unies en Haiti. (MIPONUH) contributed vehicles and driver instructors from November 1997 to February 2000. The United Nations Transition Mission in Haiti (UNTMIH) sent 750 personnel and a number of police officers to train police and protect UN staff from August to November 1997. 1997 - Italy. Canadian Air Component in MAMDRIM. 14 personnel supported the SFOR mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina by providing weather briefings, intelligence briefings and aircraft maintenance. From February 1997 to February 1998. 1998 - Honduras. Joint Task Force Central America (JTFCAM) 290 personnel performed humanitarian work and the DART (Disaster Assistance Response Team) deployed from November to December 1998. 1998 - Kosovo. Kosovo Diplomatic Observer Mission/Verification Mission. 23 personnel supported the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe with treaty compliance from October 1998 to May 1999 1998 - Central African Republic. Mission des Nations unies en Republique Centrafricaine (MINURCA). 80 personnel maintained security in the capital, Bangui, and then provided support during elections. This mission lasted from March 1998 to December 1999. 1999 - Kosovo. Canada participated in several missions in this region. United Nations Interim Administration in Kosovo (UNMIK) 1 liaison officer followed by 1,450 personnel with the NATO Force Kosovo (KFOR). Two aircraft were also used in the Humanitarian Airlift in Support of Kosovar Refugees from April to August 1999. A further 4 personnel served with the United Nations Mine Action Co-ordination Centre in Kosovo for six months from June to December 1999. From January to April 1999 there were 8 personnel serving with the Kosovo Verification Coordination Centre in the Former Yugoslav Republic Of Macedonia. 1999 - Turkey. Joint Task Force Serdivan (JTFS). 200 personnel from the Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) deployed after an earthquake. The mission lasted from August to October 1999. 1999 - Mozambique. United Nations Development Programme's Accelerated Demining Programme. (ADP). 3 personnel served on this mission from April 1999 to July 2000. 1999 - East Timor. International Force in East Timor (INTERFET). 650 personnel, including a navy vessel and aircraft, were sent to restore stability as the country voted for independence from occupying Indonesia. This mission lasted from September 1999 to February 2000. The remaining few personnel with the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET) finished their mission in May 2001. 1999 - Congo. United Nations Mission in the Republic of Congo. 1 officer was initially assigned but there are currently 9 personnel on this assignment to enforce a ceasefire between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and five regional states that was signed in 1999. This is a United Nations sponsored mission, MONUC. 1999 - Sierre Leone. United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL) was created by the United Nations after years of civil war. 5 observers went to this African country in November 1999 to monitor disarmament. The mission was completed in July 2005. 2000 - Sierra Leone. International Military Advisory Training Team (IMATT). 8 personnel initially deployed has increased to 11. The British led mission to restore peace and stability in this war ravaged West African country began in November 2000 and continues. 2000 - Ethiopia and Eritrea. United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE) 450 personnel deployed to verify a ceasefire. The mission lasted from August 2000 to June 2003. 2000 - Albania. The Rinas airport recovery project. Albania's main airport was damaged when it was used for the Kosovar airlift. Together with the Canadian International Development Agency, National Defence helped rebuild runways, parking aprons and taxi-ways. This mission lasted from September 2000 to September 2001. 2001 - Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. NATO Operation "Essential Harvest" involved 200 personnel and lasted from August 2001 to September 2002. 2001 - Afghanistan. International Campaign Against Terrorism. 2,000 personnel was reduced to 1,000 in 2002 under this American led international mission against terrorism to remove the Taliban from government in Afghanistan and support a democratic government. See 2006 mission listing for Afghanistan. 2003 - Senegal. Special Representative of the Secretary General in West Africa. 1 colonel on a peace support mission that lasted for one year from March 2003 to March 2004. 2003 - Democratic Republic of Congo. Interim Emergency Multinational Force. Canada contributed two aircraft and about 50 personnel for the month of June to the French led operation. 2003 - Liberia. United Nations Mission in Liberia. (UNMIL). 4 personnel from September to November 2003 to aid in the transition from regional peacekeeping mission to a United Nations sponsored mission. 2003 - Iraq. United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI). One military observer assigned to this mission lead by the Secretary General Special Representative for Iraq. The mission is continuing. 2004 - Haiti. United Nations Multinational Interim Force followed by the UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH). 602 personnel. Mission from March to August 2004. Since 2005, 6 personnel continue with the UN mission. 2004 - Sudan. United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMISUD). The two personnel originally assigned to this mission have been increased to more than 100. About 60 personnel are currently still in theatre with the United Nations and the African Union Mission. They are providing support in headquarters and training in the use of military vehicles in the troubled Darfur region. 2004 - Bosnia-Herzegovina. In the fall of 2004 a European military force assumed command from NATO. There are about 24 personnel still in the Balkans with the Task Force Balkans and EUFOR Liaison and Observation Teams. Since 1992 more than 40,000 Canadians have served in the Balkans. 2005 - Sri Lanka. Operation Structure sent the DART to provide disaster relief following the Asian tsunami. January to February 2005. 2005 - Gaza. Eight personnel are providing military advice to the Palestinian Authority. They are based in Jerusalem and the mission is continuing. 2005 - United States. Operation UNISOM. 900 personnel including navy divers, three vessels and engineers provided relief to the Southern United States after Hurricane Katrina. Completed in one month October 2005. 2005 - Pakistan. Operation Plateau. DART disaster assistance team deployed to the Kashmir region of Pakistan following an earthquake. October to December 2005. 2006 - Afghanistan. In February Canadian troops moved from Kabul to Kandahar to assume command of the Multi National Brigade for Regional Command South. There are 2,300 personnel serving at Kandahar Airfield (KAF) and with the Provincial Reconstruction Team at Camp Nathan Smith located in Kandahar City. Since the end of July 2006 this mission is now a NATO mission (ISAF) and continues the war against terrorism. 2008 - Myanmar/Burma. DART deployed to Myanmar to assist in disaster relief following a devistating cyclone. 2010 - Haiti. Canada's military deployed the Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) to provide "eyes-on" feedback and assistance to the catastrophic situation left by the massive earthquake that occurred in Haiti's capital, Port-au-Prince. A convoy of vehicles including transport planes; helicopters; 2 Navy Frigates containing a Sea King helicopter; a CF-17 loaded with a Griffin helicopter, along with 2,000 Armed Forces members and rescue workers, were sent to Haiti to provide aid and rescue to trapped Haitians and Canadians. Canadians are relatively strong supporters of both the UN, and the concept of multilateralism in general, and the UN general carries a fair bit of weight with Canadians. A good example of this is prior to the Iraq war (also known as OPERATION: Oops! Shoulda thought THAT through better) there was almost a 30 point swing between those polled on potential Canadian involvment WITH and WITHOUT UN authorization. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 29, 2010 Report Posted June 29, 2010 Canadians are relatively strong supporters of both the UN, and the concept of multilateralism in general, and the UN general carries a fair bit of weight with Canadians. A good example of this is prior to the Iraq war (also known as OPERATION: Oops! Shoulda thought THAT through better) there was almost a 30 point swing between those polled on potential Canadian involvment WITH and WITHOUT UN authorization. Sure...except when it comes to bombing Serbia for 79 days (Kosovo)....oops...sorry UN. LOL! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Moonlight Graham Posted June 29, 2010 Report Posted June 29, 2010 (edited) UN watch dog accuses the UN council of not doing it's job, having double standards towards some nations. Is this another sign of the UN beoming irrelevant, or to politcalized for it's own good.... Of course the UN has double-standards. The Security Council being the most blatant i suppose. This isn't news at all! It has been this way from the beginning. The fact that major security decisions are decided by only 15 states on the UNSC and not the 192 nations in the General Assembly, and the fact that only 5 states in the UNSC have exclusive veto rights on any binding int'l law, is of course a double-standard toward some nations. Africa and South America, for example, have no countries that are members of the permanent 5 UNSC gang. The international system is based on the sovereignty of states that exist in a system of anarchy ie: no overarching global authority to enforce int'l law. Therefore states mostly do what is in their own national interest. There was little to no intervention in Rwanda, DRC, or Darfur because intervening in said internal conflicts provided little benefit to most industrialized countries beyond the moral rationale. Beyond that, the rule of the sovereign equality of all states that has dominated the international system since 1648 means that there is great resignation among states in intervening in the internal affairs (ie: civil wars etc.) of other states. for example, U.N. peace-keeping troops cannot enter a country unless it has expressed permission from the participating country/countries. In many ways, it is a shame that states are so self-regarding. despite its flaws, the U.N. is a wonderful organization in that it fosters a great amount of cooperation and at least brings conflicting countries to the bargaining table instead of isolating themselves. Edited June 29, 2010 by Moonlight Graham Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Bonam Posted June 29, 2010 Report Posted June 29, 2010 The fact that major security decisions are decided by only 15 states on the UNSC and not the 192 nations in the General Assembly, and the fact that only 5 states in the UNSC have exclusive veto rights on any binding int'l law, is of course a double-standard toward some nations. Africa and South America, for example, have no countries that are members of the permanent 5 UNSC gang. Which is a good thing. The last thing the UN needs is even more third world lunacy dominating the agenda. The international system is based on the sovereignty of states that exist in a system of anarchy ie: no overarching global authority to enforce int'l law. Therefore states mostly do what is in their own national interest. As it should be. Why should states surrender their sovereignty to an international organization that cares little for the interests of said states? This process is difficult enough in the EU, where member nations share much in common. It would be impossible on a global scale. There was little to no intervention in Rwanda, DRC, or Darfur because intervening in said internal conflicts provided little benefit to most industrialized countries beyond the moral rationale. Beyond that, the rule of the sovereign equality of all states that has dominated the international system since 1648 means that there is great resignation among states in intervening in the internal affairs (ie: civil wars etc.) of other states. Again, as it should be. Why should civilized nations send their men and women off to die in third world hellholes for no benefit of their own? In many ways, it is a shame that states are so self-regarding. despite its flaws, the U.N. is a wonderful organization in that it fosters a great amount of cooperation and at least brings conflicting countries to the bargaining table instead of isolating themselves. Really? Just about any sensitive negotiations are handled by special envoys, bilateral or multilateral talks, etc, outside the UN. Whether it is the North Korea issue with the six party talks or the "quartet" when it comes to the middle-east, or the G8 and G20 when it comes to world economic issues, most of the real debate takes place outside the UN. Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted June 30, 2010 Report Posted June 30, 2010 (edited) Which is a good thing. The last thing the UN needs is even more third world lunacy dominating the agenda. Third world lunacy? What about 1st world lunacy? But, of course there would be a problem with wacko govs like North Korea or Hussein-era Iraq having a veto. The problem with third world countries (minus China i suppose) not getting much of a say on the UNSC is that decisions continually benefit the interests of the developed world, while undeveloped countries get the shaft and continue to be exploited by the developed world as they have been for centuries. Makes it even harder for them to make any progress if they want to. Really? Just about any sensitive negotiations are handled by special envoys, bilateral or multilateral talks, etc, outside the UN. Whether it is the North Korea issue with the six party talks or the "quartet" when it comes to the middle-east, or the G8 and G20 when it comes to world economic issues, most of the real debate takes place outside the UN. In terms of sensitive security issues, I agree. However, the UN still does much work in settling disputes, such as in the International Court of Justice, along with peacekeeping, peacemaking, and post-conflict peacebuilding. And of course, the UNSC sets resolutions which puts force or pressure on states to avoid/solve conflict. It may not work sometimes, but its often better than not trying. Beyond collective security, I think the best thing about the UN is that it brings countries together to foster a ton of cooperation between countries to solve countless global problems ie: the UNEP, UNICEF, WFP, and other related specialized agencies/orgs like the ILO, WTO, WHO, IAEA, World Bank, IMF, and all sorts of commissions and conferences. It furthers countries to cooperate and work together more and build better relationships, which can further foster a greater amount of bilateral/multilateral cooperation & talks outside of the UN. As well, the General Assembly may not have a ton of teeth, but at least it gives countries a platform to voice their opinions and cast a vote on issues. As i said before, it brings countries to the table who may be unfriendly and normally not communicate much with each other. Edited June 30, 2010 by Moonlight Graham Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Bonam Posted June 30, 2010 Report Posted June 30, 2010 Third world lunacy? What about 1st world lunacy? But, of course there would be a problem with wacko govs like North Korea or Hussein-era Iraq having a veto. The problem with third world countries (minus China i suppose) not getting much of a say on the UNSC is that decisions continually benefit the interests of the developed world, while undeveloped countries get the shaft and continue to be exploited by the developed world as they have been for centuries. Makes it even harder for them to make any progress if they want to. Yes I'm sure it's all about shafting developing nations. That's why the UN keeps making targets for rich nations to fork over cash to poor ones, uses money collected mainly from rich nations to run aid programs, etc. Frankly you have it completely backwards. The developed world shoulders the financial burden of the UN while most UN programs (that actually do anything) are there specifically to deliver aid to poor nations. In terms of sensitive security issues, I agree. However, the UN still does much work in settling disputes, such as in the International Court of Justice, along with peacekeeping, peacemaking, and post-conflict peacebuilding. And of course, the UNSC sets resolutions which puts force or pressure on states to avoid/solve conflict. It may not work sometimes, but its often better than not trying. The UNSC might pass a few resolutions but in the end it is still up to the world's developed nations to shoulder the burden of carrying them out, such as in Afghanistan. In other cases, the UN's authorization or lack thereof is irrelevant, as in Iraq. Post-conflict peacebuilding? Perhaps you'd like to point out some of the glorious examples of the UN succeeding at this, such as UNIFIL *sarcasm*? Beyond collective security, I think the best thing about the UN is that it brings countries together to foster a ton of cooperation between countries to solve countless global problems Yeah it brings world leaders together to listen to the mad ramblings of dictators and their represenatives like Chavez and Ahmadinejad. ie: the UNEP, UNICEF, WFP, and other related specialized agencies/orgs like the ILO, WTO, WHO, IAEA, World Bank, IMF, and all sorts of commissions and conferences. Right, the only function of the UN that succeeds: taking money from peoples who have succeded at building functional economics and giving them to failed states, mostly to be squandered. IAEA? Useless, they've been trying to inspect Iran for how long now with no effect? WTO? As if an equivalent body wouldn't exist regardless of the UN. WHO? Spreading mad panic about non-issues like swine flu? No thanks. It furthers countries to cooperate and work together more and build better relationships, which can further foster a greater amount of bilateral/multilateral cooperation & talks outside of the UN. As well, the General Assembly may not have a ton of teeth, but at least it gives countries a platform to voice their opinions and cast a vote on issues. Yeah the UN sure gives countries a platform to voice their opinions alright. Like for example we get to hear Iran's opinion as a member of the commission on women's rights. I'm sure we can all learn a lot from Iran about that topic... The UN is a disgraceful failure. Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted June 30, 2010 Report Posted June 30, 2010 Yes I'm sure it's all about shafting developing nations. That's why the UN keeps making targets for rich nations to fork over cash to poor ones, uses money collected mainly from rich nations to run aid programs, etc. Frankly you have it completely backwards. The developed world shoulders the financial burden of the UN while most UN programs (that actually do anything) are there specifically to deliver aid to poor nations. UNESCO/programmes and funds, and many specialized agencies linked with the UN do a lot of (somewhat) well-meaning work for developing nations yes. Yes, developed nations pay most of the tab, who else would? However, states don't usually act unless it's in their best interests. Many of the policies of the World Bank/IMF, designed to "help" third world countries, have mostly ignored the actual grassroots demands of underdeveloped countries and in many cases only provide aid/loans etc. to third world countries if they agree to the conditions stipulated by these 1st world-run agencies/programs...which often benefit the 1st world. The 1st world have implemented neo-liberal policies in these 3rd world countries (see: the "Washington Consensus") largely in order to expand export markets and make cheap imports/manufacturing in favour of the developed countries. The WTO also makes trade laws that greatly disadvantage developing countries and exploit them in favour of the developed world. The developing countries have little choice but to accept the terms. The UN still does a lot of good work in the third world, but also shafts them at the same time. The UN is a disgraceful failure. I disagree. Maybe if the UN had existed in 1914, WWI may never have happened. It was a stupid war. Collective security/concert of power has proven to be the best system to avoid war since the sovereignty of states was established in 1648. There are a lot of things the UN fails to do, but much of it has to do with the nature of the international system and the sovereignty of states. Nothing can change that, this is the way the world works. The Iraq War is an example. The US/Britain etc. did not get UN approval for the invasion, yet still invaded. That is their right as sovereign states. However, one can also argue that the UN did work in that instance because it did not approve the war and the entire rationale for the war turned out to be a sham. I'm sure next time a country has to decide whether to invade another, they will weight the approval of the UN even more greatly. Why do you feel the UN is such a failure? What does it fail to do? How would you change it and/or what's the alternative? Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 30, 2010 Report Posted June 30, 2010 (edited) The Iraq War is an example. The US/Britain etc. did not get UN approval for the invasion, yet still invaded. That is their right as sovereign states. However, one can also argue that the UN did work in that instance because it did not approve the war and the entire rationale for the war turned out to be a sham. I'm sure next time a country has to decide whether to invade another, they will weight the approval of the UN even more greatly. Not really...as you left out the part of the story wherein the UNSC voted to endorse US/UK occupation plans and government formation, as well as other housekeeping items required after a garden variety invasion by conquerors. Edited June 30, 2010 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Bonam Posted June 30, 2010 Report Posted June 30, 2010 Why do you feel the UN is such a failure? What does it fail to do? How would you change it and/or what's the alternative? The UN fails to be balanced when it comes to its condemnations of nations. The UN fails to take a principled stand on issues, instead letting backward nations drive its ideology. The UN General Assembly is dominated numerically by nations which have utterly failed to achieve any level of success, and yet presume to think that they know what is best for the world. The UN is mired in endless controversy, corruption, and abuse. The UN failed from the very beginning to enforce some of its very first declarations. The UN has ignored some of the world's most terrible slaughters, while pouring endless condemnations on a few specific nations. The UN exists to reduce the sovereignty of individual states, something I fundamentally disagree with. Many UN programs exist to subjugate first world populations and their productive output to the endless needs of rapidly ballooning third world populations, socialism on a global scale. The UN leadership issues nothing but meaningless statements, whatever the issue may be. The UN costs western taxpayers billions of dollars every year, and benefits them in no tangible way whatsoever. What would I suggest instead? Let sovereign states be sovereign states, stop the sham of ineffectual world government. Nations that have meaningful ties can form their own alliances, groups, and summits, as many already have, like NATO, the G8/G20, the SCO, etc. Why should we listen to nations that have nothing to contribute besides the desire to leech money while condemning the developed world (where the money they want originates)? I have no need of some third world dictator opining on my rights and freedoms. Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted June 30, 2010 Report Posted June 30, 2010 Not really...as you left out the part of the story wherein the UNSC voted to endorse US/UK occupation plans and government formation, as well as other housekeeping items required after a garden variety invasion by conquerors. The UN did not clearly authorize military force against Iraq. Show me the resolutions. Efforts to vote on such a resolution failed in winter 2003. Resolution 1441 threatened "serious consequences". Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Machjo Posted June 30, 2010 Report Posted June 30, 2010 Thats the piont is it not that the UN own watch dog is telling the UN council they are not following thier own standards in fact it clearly states that they seem to have a double standard when it comes to Israel....And if they are not following their own standards they are infact becoming irrelevent.... On the contrary. If UN Watch thought the UN irrelevant, it would not be encouraging the UN to live up to its own standards but rather trying to disband it altogether. Instead of pointing out how the UN is not living up to its standards and encouraging the UN to live up to them, it would be pointing out how the UN's own standards are corrupt and so ought not to even be put into effect. This has been discussed at length here before, not many nations around the world take the UN seriously for many of the reasons stated in this report. and while it looks good on paper, what real powers does the UN have...Its military adventures have really been a waste of time and effort, it can not enforce sanctions or levies it applies.....so really what does it do that makes it revelvent. The UN is flawed; that does not make it irrelevant, but rather in need of reform. Heck, Canada is flawed too, so does that make it irrelevant, or simply in need of constant improvement like any other country? Quote With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies? With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?
Machjo Posted June 30, 2010 Report Posted June 30, 2010 Canadians are relatively strong supporters of both the UN, and the concept of multilateralism in general, and the UN general carries a fair bit of weight with Canadians. A good example of this is prior to the Iraq war (also known as OPERATION: Oops! Shoulda thought THAT through better) there was almost a 30 point swing between those polled on potential Canadian involvment WITH and WITHOUT UN authorization. Good point. Though I was not officially polled for this myself, I too could see some legitimate grounds for invading Iraq on condition that it be done under UN command. By the way, I'd like to see Afghanistan be turned over to a UN mission too. Quote With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies? With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?
Moonlight Graham Posted June 30, 2010 Report Posted June 30, 2010 The UN fails to be balanced when it comes to its condemnations of nations. The UN fails to take a principled stand on issues, instead letting backward nations drive its ideology. The UN General Assembly is dominated numerically by nations which have utterly failed to achieve any level of success, and yet presume to think that they know what is best for the world. The UN is mired in endless controversy, corruption, and abuse. The UN failed from the very beginning to enforce some of its very first declarations. The UN has ignored some of the world's most terrible slaughters, while pouring endless condemnations on a few specific nations. The UN exists to reduce the sovereignty of individual states, something I fundamentally disagree with. Many UN programs exist to subjugate first world populations and their productive output to the endless needs of rapidly ballooning third world populations, socialism on a global scale. The UN leadership issues nothing but meaningless statements, whatever the issue may be. The UN costs western taxpayers billions of dollars every year, and benefits them in no tangible way whatsoever. Well, you certainly have some strong opinions lol. The UN Charter is idealistic, yes. It would be foolish to think sovereign states would all follow the charter to a "t". The UN isn't perfect, far from it. It needs reform. But its existence is very important IMO because, in an increasingly globalizing world, it attempts to provide stability and cooperation between virtually all nations. If there is no cooperation, there is conflict. If there is no stability, there is instability. The UN was created out of the ashes of WWII so that such a bloody conflict (along with WWI) would not be repeated. In that sense, the UN has been successful. Most importantly, you either don't acknowledge or dont understand the more subtle, indirect ways that the UN avoids conflict and spurs cooperation between states. What would I suggest instead? Let sovereign states be sovereign states, stop the sham of ineffectual world government. Nations that have meaningful ties can form their own alliances, groups, and summits, as many already have, like NATO, the G8/G20, the SCO, etc. This was tried before. It led to WWI. The complex web of bilateral/multilateral alliances up to 1914 did little but virtually force europe into a brutal war. Then collective security was attempted via the League of Nations, which was flawed from the start and its failure was one of the reasons that WWII occurred. I have no need of some third world dictator opining on my rights and freedoms. Let them them say that they wish. Have their words actually affected your life or your country in any significant way? Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
M.Dancer Posted June 30, 2010 Report Posted June 30, 2010 By the way, I'd like to see Afghanistan be turned over to a UN mission too. It is already a UN mission.... The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is a NATO-led security mission in Afghanistan established by the United Nations Security Council on 20 December 2001[1] as envisaged by the Bonn Agreement.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 30, 2010 Report Posted June 30, 2010 The UN did not clearly authorize military force against Iraq. Show me the resolutions. Efforts to vote on such a resolution failed in winter 2003. Resolution 1441 threatened "serious consequences". Iraq's material breach of existing UN resolutions from the Gulf War were more than enough, but further, the UNSC approved post invasion plans by the UK/USA. The UN continues to support the Iraq government and elections all while the INVADERS remain in country. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Bonam Posted June 30, 2010 Report Posted June 30, 2010 The UN isn't perfect, far from it. It needs reform. But its existence is very important IMO because, in an increasingly globalizing world, it attempts to provide stability and cooperation between virtually all nations. If there is no cooperation, there is conflict. If there is no stability, there is instability. The UN was created out of the ashes of WWII so that such a bloody conflict (along with WWI) would not be repeated. In that sense, the UN has been successful. Are you seriously trying to attribute the lack of a WWIII to the UN? It was not cooperation or the UN that prevented WWIII, as you should know, the USA and the USSR hated and feared one another plenty. What prevented such a conflict from ever happening was the existence of nuclear weapons and the deterrent policy of mutual assured destruction. Quote
Radsickle Posted July 1, 2010 Report Posted July 1, 2010 Iraq's material breach of existing UN resolutions from the Gulf War were more than enough, but further, the UNSC approved post invasion plans by the UK/USA. The UN continues to support the Iraq government and elections all while the INVADERS remain in country. Please don't mislead yourself; the UN only `approved' the post-invasion plans because there were no other alternatives. Your Bush/Cheney team will always be international crooks who ignored the UN's disapproval and instigated an unjust invasion based on lies. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 1, 2010 Report Posted July 1, 2010 Please don't mislead yourself; the UN only `approved' the post-invasion plans because there were no other alternatives. Your Bush/Cheney team will always be international crooks who ignored the UN's disapproval and instigated an unjust invasion based on lies. Clue for you: The UN had no other alternatives before the invasion either. Next time, stop us if you can. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Borg Posted July 1, 2010 Report Posted July 1, 2010 (edited) Horseshit. LOL! Nice answer - you really do not have a clue What is past is past - it is the present that matters - UN is corrupt. Done enough tours wearing the maple leaf in the various shit holes in the world to be completely unimpressed with their abilities. Locals as a rule detest the UN once they have sucked the honey pot dry. Canuckleheads as a rule are so idealistic as to not see the truth of the UN and how they are failing - in some cases quite purposefully. Borg Edited July 1, 2010 by Borg Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.