Canadian Seat on U.N. Security Council

[nicky10013]

Do they, really? It doesn't seem that way at all. The UN is a wonderful idea....but it doesn't work as intended when Syria gets the same vote as Canada.

That's the entire point. The UN was designed for us to work together despite political, ethnic and religious differences to work toward peace. Countries we don't like are supposed to have the same say as us. Thinking we're superior and not engaging the problem only makes those problems worse.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

It makes the problem real. The UN creates its own unique set of problems doesn't it? Being forced into that international forum simply can't be a good thing because it is a class based system! The high cast is the security council, the low cast is everybody else. Understand that first, know that some pigs are more equal than others and you are on the right path in my opinion. The UN is as functional as the League of Nations, not at all. Its time to rethink folks.

[nicky10013]

It makes the problem real. The UN creates its own unique set of problems doesn't it? Being forced into that international forum simply can't be a good thing because it is a class based system! The high cast is the security council, the low cast is everybody else. Understand that first, know that some pigs are more equal than others and you are on the right path in my opinion. The UN is as functional as the League of Nations, not at all. Its time to rethink folks.

Whoever says the UN is like the League of Nations doesn't understand how the UN operates outside of the General Assembly. There are so many programmes operating world wide that help so many people.

[PIK]

Canada got slapped in the face by the UN for a number of reasons; for Harper's opinion of it back when he wanted to rush into Bush's Iraq war too, for Harper's regressive stance on reducing greenhouse gases, for his general derision of the UN as an obsolete organization, and for his general stupidity. The UN is quietly showing us how far we've fallen since general Harper took the helm.

Stevie makes a couple of hollow speeches to the UN general assembly recently, after ignoring and deriding the organization for decades, and expects to have a seat reserved for him at the big boys table? Dream on, Stevie.

We need an international perspective. What is the international alternative to the UN, Oleg? There isn't one. The UN's the best we've got.

We have not fallen, and I am getting sick of hearing that. Harper stood up to these idiots that run this club. How come the real polluters do not get a mention from the UN, like china, india and such. Do you know that canada produces 2% of all green house gases, do you know that if canada disappeared, it would not do a damn thing for CC. Why is the left seem to be selling out this country at every turn , trying to make us look like the evil ones.What I hear from the liberal is ,wait till we get back into power and we will do whatever you say and keep the money flowing then we will be liked again at the UN, who the fuck cares what those assholes at the UN think.And having harper stand up to them is a factor also, something they are not use to having canadiansa speaking for them selves and not just following the UN line.Sure harper has made some goofs along the way, we cons have alway stuck our foiot in our mouths, just something we do, but over all ,we are doing a batter job at running this country and if anyone thinks removing him for iggy is going to make things better is a fool. I can just see bob rae at the UN bowing and asking for forgivness from these fools. If you don't have the back bone to stand up for your country then just STFU. Imagine canada being bitch slap by these countries that can't even look after themselves or have human rights issues that would make a canadian puke.

[segnosaur]

Canada got slapped in the face by the UN for a number of reasons; for Harper's opinion of it back when he wanted to rush into Bush's Iraq war too

Of course, Portugal actually joined the "Coalition of the Willing".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing

for Harper's regressive stance on reducing greenhouse gases

Except that while Portugal never withdrew from Kyoto, it looks like they will miss their targets.

So, from the U.N. perspective, its better to lie and fail, rather than admit up front "We're not going through with this".

http://www.energy.eu/

for his general derision of the UN as an obsolete organization

Actually, it is.

, and for his general stupidity. The UN is quietly showing us how far we've fallen since general Harper took the helm.

Keep in mind that while you might want to blame Harper, the Liberals did very little to help curb our CO2 emissions (if that really is a reason we were not selected), and under the Liberals our defense greatly suffered.

We need an international perspective. What is the international alternative to the UN, Oleg? There isn't one.

Actually, there is... there are plenty of them. NATO and NORAD come to mind.

[nicky10013]

Of course, Portugal actually joined the "Coalition of the Willing".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing

Except that while Portugal never withdrew from Kyoto, it looks like they will miss their targets.

So, from the U.N. perspective, its better to lie and fail, rather than admit up front "We're not going through with this".

http://www.energy.eu/

Actually, it is.

Keep in mind that while you might want to blame Harper, the Liberals did very little to help curb our CO2 emissions (if that really is a reason we were not selected), and under the Liberals our defense greatly suffered.

Jeeze, considering how we're just as bad as Portugal, must suck to realize how badly we're recieved abroad. It isn't even our positions abroad that have contirbuted to our failure. It's the fact that this government is purely interested in domestic political gain. This government has ignored the international relations role except for areas where Harper could score domestically and has injected domestic politics into international policies where traditionally they've never been. Hell, Harper skipped the UN general assembly last year for a photo op at Tim Hortons! They've recognized for the opportunistic parasite that it is. Why elect someone to the Security Council when you know, given the government's track record, they'll never show up anyway?

Actually, there is... there are plenty of them. NATO and NORAD come to mind.

No there isn't. NATO is a military alliance and Norad is essentially a gigantic radar station that watches North American Airspace. You were at least maybe a little close with NATO. With NORAD you were wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy off the map. For the record, neither can do the jobs that the UN does.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Big deal, neither can the UN ! I think it does a crappy job!

[nicky10013]

Big deal, neither can the UN ! I think it does a crappy job!

Proof? Other than, grrrrrrr muslims have a vote, I haven't seen anything.

[M.Dancer]

Proof? Other than, grrrrrrr muslims have a vote, I haven't seen anything.

Are you then saying that the UN is beyond reproach, that there is not a lengthy list of failures?

Keep in mind, the UN was created during wartime as a mechanism to prevent war.

While it is possible to list the wars that took place despite the UN, showing a record of wars prevented is harder...

[nicky10013]

Are you then saying that the UN is beyond reproach, that there is not a lengthy list of failures?

Keep in mind, the UN was created during wartime as a mechanism to prevent war.

While it is possible to list the wars that took place despite the UN, showing a record of wars prevented is harder...

Nope. I completely agree the UN needs reform. However, it seems to me that the right in Canada and the United States have moved pass the desire for reform and now don't see a purpose for it at all which I just can't agree with.

As for wars prevented, you're right, it's really difficult to prove that it's stopped wars, though the Cuban Missile Crisis is an exception. It's also important to note that the Security Council has used tougher measures to stop conflict and restore sovereignty. The UN intervened in Korea to stop the invasion. The UN intervened in the Suez. Cuban Missile Crisis. The UN sanctioned the liberation of Kuwait. The UN stopped the fighting in the former Yugoslavia.

The UN has accomplished a lot because we've actually believed in the institution enough to go through it. Despite a coupld of scandals which can be rectified, there really hasn't been one thing to make us completely lose faith in the UN. If we go back and try to actually engage honestly I think we'll be surprised. However, I find it disgusting that peopel could claim it's useless when we, ourselves, haven't given any kind of honest effort to make the UN a better place to do business.

[segnosaur]

Jeeze, considering how we're just as bad as Portugal, must suck to realize how badly we're recieved abroad.

The fact that we're "received badly" may be more the fault of the other countries, rather than Canada.

I doubt anybody will ever know for sure why Canada failed in its bid to become a member of the security council. But your characterization that its somehow a fault/flaw of the Conservative government at this point seems rather baseless.

It isn't even our positions abroad that have contirbuted to our failure. It's the fact that this government is purely interested in domestic political gain.

Actually, every government in the world is run by people concerned more with "domestic political gain".

This government has ignored the international relations role except...

Actually, no they haven't. They may have changed some of their policies (as every party has the right to do), but they are still involved in "international relations".

Hell, Harper skipped the UN general assembly last year for a photo op at Tim Hortons! They've recognized for the opportunistic parasite that it is.

Ummm... do you really think countries actually care about attendance?

Actually, there is... there are plenty of them. NATO and NORAD come to mind.

No there isn't. NATO is a military alliance...

Yes its primarily a military alliance. But in recent years its been much more effective than the United Nations at handling international problems.

...Norad is essentially a gigantic radar station that watches North American Airspace.

Actually, its quite a bit more than that. Although it is focused on North America, it does involve substatial integration of U.S. and Canadian forces for mutual protection.

In my previous post, I also forgot to mention groups like the G8/G20, EU, OAS, and many other large scale organizations. Although the focus of these nations is narrower than the UN, they can be quite effective.

Yes, there are parts of the U.N. which are useful (such as the WHO)... however, such parts could easily function as independent organizations outside of the U.N. umbrella.

As for wars prevented, you're right, it's really difficult to prove that it's stopped wars, though the Cuban Missile Crisis is an exception.

Actually, much of the defusing of the Cuban missile crisis occurred through things like one on one meetings, personal notes, etc. The U.N. didn't really play a big part in ending the crisis (other than perhaps agreeing to verify the removal of the missiles, although I suspect the U.S. would have done its own independent verification.)

It's also important to note that the Security Council has used tougher measures to stop conflict and restore sovereignty. The UN intervened in Korea to stop the invasion. The UN intervened in the Suez. Cuban Missile Crisis. The UN sanctioned the liberation of Kuwait.

Up, and they stopped the massacre in Rwanda.

Er, wait... no they didn't.

But at least they stopped the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Er, wait, they didn't do that either.

At least vietnam wasn't ravaged by war.

Oops.

The UN stopped the fighting in the former Yugoslavia.

Think that was more due to NATO actions than the UN.

[nicky10013]

The fact that we're "received badly" may be more the fault of the other countries, rather than Canada.

I doubt anybody will ever know for sure why Canada failed in its bid to become a member of the security council. But your characterization that its somehow a fault/flaw of the Conservative government at this point seems rather baseless.

Well, when we never have been rejected before and the fact that this government has ignored it's international role. All of a sudden the world rejects us? It takes a special kind of hubris to believe that the rest of the world has some kind of a problem and we don't.

Actually, every government in the world is run by people concerned more with "domestic political gain".

In international relations this statement couldn't be farther from the truth. International relations between nation states and different multilateral negotiations are incredibly complex. That's why these relationships are left to state departments across the world. These people are experts in foreign trade and diplomacy. These relations are incredibly fragile which is why they're generally left to the experts. Generally, no international statement, joint statement or communique is ever issued without careful vetting from the department of foreign affairs. A change in one word could indicate the souring or warming up of an international relationship which may be completely unintended. Also, generally things are kept within the old boys club. Not many people know the true nature of an international relationship.

This explains why people like Obama can campaign on certain foreign policy endeavours on the stump, and then can act exactly in the opposite way when they're actually governing. This is why in both Canada and the US there has been extremely little changes in foreign policy over the years. Governments come to power and leave local politics at the door because the issues involved in international politics dwarf those of domestic concern. Harper is the exception to this, and we've clearly been rebuked for that.

Actually, no they haven't. They may have changed some of their policies (as every party has the right to do), but they are still involved in "international relations".

Of course, when it suits them politically in the domestic sphere.

Ummm... do you really think countries actually care about attendance?

You'd be surprised.

Yes its primarily a military alliance. But in recent years its been much more effective than the United Nations at handling international problems.

Because the country who has been conducting the largest military options refused to go through the UN because they wouldn't sanction their illegal war.

Actually, its quite a bit more than that. Although it is focused on North America, it does involve substatial integration of U.S. and Canadian forces for mutual protection.

And? NORAD has nothing in common with the wider UN mandate.

In my previous post, I also forgot to mention groups like the G8/G20, EU, OAS, and many other large scale organizations. Although the focus of these nations is narrower than the UN, they can be quite effective.

The G8/G20 is non-binding, the OAS is a joke primarily because it's eclipsed by the UN and the EU isn't integrated nearly enough to provide the services the UN does. Furthermore, none of these organizations focus are far too narrow. They can't do what the UN does.

Yes, there are parts of the U.N. which are useful (such as the WHO)... however, such parts could easily function as independent organizations outside of the U.N. umbrella.

What you're also leaving out is they'd function just as well. So what's the point. That being the only upside, and it isn't one, what about the downsides? Moving those organizations as independent and presumably privately run, there's absolutely no indepedent oversight to stop corruption when it happens again. Corruption happened in the UN but it was cleaned up. I guarantee you there aren't any resources to stop it otherwise.

Actually, much of the defusing of the Cuban missile crisis occurred through things like one on one meetings, personal notes, etc. The U.N. didn't really play a big part in ending the crisis (other than perhaps agreeing to verify the removal of the missiles, although I suspect the U.S. would have done its own independent verification.)

The US and the Soviet Union went before the Security Council to debate the matter of missiles in Cuba. The US held the Soviets feet to the fire and had evidence. If the UN didn't exist, they wouldn't have had an opportunity for that historic moment and the US wouldn't have had the momentum to cut a deal and there would've been war. The UN did it's job in that instance.

Up, and they stopped the massacre in Rwanda.

Er, wait... no they didn't.

A genocide was declared. When this happens, the International Law Against Genocide binds country to action. No one did. The UN worked, its member countries didn't.

But at least they stopped the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Er, wait, they didn't do that either.

At least vietnam wasn't ravaged by war.

Oops.

Well, if you want to be smart, the Paris Peace Accords were enforced by the UN. Canadian Soldiers actually went to Vietnam to observe the peace.

AS for the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, I see we're down to holding a human made institution to perfection. Well, it failed this time or that time. It's worked a whole bunch of other times, but lets throw those out the window because of the exception rather than the rule. Nothing we ever do will be perfect. None of our institutions will function properly 100% of the time. To expect the impossible is to presume always presume failure. Over it's history the UN has preformed fairly well. It now needs reform, but by no means is the institution obsolete.

Think that was more due to NATO actions than the UN.

Kosovo in 1999 was carried out by NATO but sanctioned by the UN. 1995 same thing. UN was on the ground in the former Yugoslavia at the outbreak of war in 1992 and were in Bosnia until 2004.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Kosovo in 1999 was carried out by NATO but sanctioned by the UN.....

This is patently false, as NATO's Operation Allied Force was most certainly not sanctioned by the UN. To use your vernacular, it was an "illegal war".

[nicky10013]

This is patently false, as NATO's Operation Allied Force was most certainly not sanctioned by the UN. To use your vernacular, it was an "illegal war".

They never even tried to pass a resolution because everyone in the UN from Kofi Annan down was in favour of it except for the Serbs and the Russians. I had a seminar prof who was the Canadian Ambassador to NATO at the time and who was very involved. Even saw the coded wire that went out hours before military operations were take place including infamous instructions to embassy staff to destroy sensitive information and technology.

Edited October 20, 2010 by nicky10013

[segnosaur]

Well, when we never have been rejected before and the fact that this government has ignored it's international role. All of a sudden the world rejects us? It takes a special kind of hubris to believe that the rest of the world has some kind of a problem and we don't.

Um, no it doesn't. It takes an examination of various facts...

For example:

- Canada has decided to focus its aid, concentrating on a smaller number of poorer African nations and/or in Latin america (the idea being we can do more by giving a larger chunk to the more needy nations.) This may have caused some African nations (who were previous recipients of aid) to vote against us. It didn't necessarily mean we were giving less, just to a smaller number of countries. That's not "ignoring its roll" (yet by some reports some African nations campaigned against us because of that.)

- Canada has decided to reduce its funding of UNRWA, instead we are giving money directly to specific projects. Again, that's not "ignoring our roll". We're still giving roughly the same amount of money

- Canada is in a diplimatic "spat" with the UAE over airline routes. Does your version of fulfilling our "international roll" involve giving in to any demands from foreign governments?

Oh, and by the way, while we're at it: Canada gives roughly 0.3% of our GDP to foreign aid. Portugal only 0.18%. (And they have a smaller GDP so the total amounts are less too.) Does that sound like we're "ignoring our international role"?

Because the country who has been conducting the largest military options refused to go through the UN because they wouldn't sanction their illegal war.

The G8/G20 is non-binding

Ummm.... you DO realize that most of the work the UN does is "non binding" as well? And even when it does pass "binding" resolutions (like several of those against Sadam's Iraq) they get routinely ignored.

...the OAS is a joke primarily because it's eclipsed by the UN and the EU isn't integrated nearly enough to provide the services the UN does. Furthermore, none of these organizations focus are far too narrow. They can't do what the UN does.

We still haven't really seen much value in what it does.

Yes, there are parts of the U.N. which are useful (such as the WHO)... however, such parts could easily function as independent organizations outside of the U.N. umbrella.

What you're also leaving out is they'd function just as well. So what's the point. That being the only upside, and it isn't one, what about the downsides? Moving those organizations as independent and presumably privately run, there's absolutely no indepedent oversight to stop corruption when it happens again. Corruption happened in the UN but it was cleaned up. I guarantee you there aren't any resources to stop it otherwise.

Bull cr*p. Corruption happens on a very regular basis at the U.N.

- UN cultural conferences widely viewed as antisemitic

- Oil for food scandal

- UNRWA hiring people with ties to terrorist groups

- Despotic countries heading up human rights commissions

So tell me, given the fact that these types of problems happen regularly, why exactly should we expect that they have "cleaned up"?

The US and the Soviet Union went before the Security Council to debate the matter of missiles in Cuba. The US held the Soviets feet to the fire and had evidence. If the UN didn't exist, they wouldn't have had an opportunity for that historic moment and the US wouldn't have had the momentum to cut a deal and there would've been war.

Actually, no... they could have debated / presented their case anywhere in the world.

A genocide was declared. When this happens, the International Law Against Genocide binds country to action. No one did. The UN worked, its member countries didn't.

Uh, no... there is no such "binding".

I hate to use Wikipedia, but since its a historic event, it should be safe.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War

The legitimacy of NATO's bombing campaign in Kosovo has been the subject of much debate. NATO did not have the backing of the United Nations Security Council because the war was opposed by permanent members with ties to Yugoslavia, in particular Russia, who had threatened to veto any resolution authorizing force.

Well, if you want to be smart, the Paris Peace Accords were enforced by the UN. Canadian Soldiers actually went to Vietnam to observe the peace.

Lot of good that did... not only was Vietnam ravaged by a war, but when "peace" was made, the North subsequently ignored its provisions and took over the south.

Yah UN.

AS for the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, I see we're down to holding a human made institution to perfection. Well, it failed this time or that time. It's worked a whole bunch of other times

Not really. You might think its working, but pretty much everything could be accomplished without it.

Kosovo in 1999 was carried out by NATO but sanctioned by the UN. 1995 same thing. UN was on the ground in the former Yugoslavia at the outbreak of war in 1992 and were in Bosnia until 2004.

Uh, no... it wasn't sanctioned by the UN.

[bush_cheney2004]

They never even tried to pass a resolution because everyone in the UN from Kofi Annan down was in favour of it except for the Serbs and the Russians. I had a seminar prof who was the Canadian Ambassador to NATO at the time and who was very involved. Even saw the coded wire that went out hours before military operations were take place including infamous instructions to embassy staff to destroy sensitive information and technology.

In other words....you are quite mistaken.

[Saipan]

They never even tried to pass a resolution because everyone in the UN from Kofi Annan down was in favour of it except for the Serbs and the Russians. I had a seminar prof who was the Canadian Ambassador to NATO at the time and who was very involved. Even saw the coded wire that went out hours before military operations were take place including infamous instructions to embassy staff to destroy sensitive information and technology.

Anecdotal stories are always a good evidence

[nicky10013]

Um, no it doesn't. It takes an examination of various facts...

For example:

- Canada has decided to focus its aid, concentrating on a smaller number of poorer African nations and/or in Latin america (the idea being we can do more by giving a larger chunk to the more needy nations.) This may have caused some African nations (who were previous recipients of aid) to vote against us. It didn't necessarily mean we were giving less, just to a smaller number of countries. That's not "ignoring its roll" (yet by some reports some African nations campaigned against us because of that.)

- Canada has decided to reduce its funding of UNRWA, instead we are giving money directly to specific projects. Again, that's not "ignoring our roll". We're still giving roughly the same amount of money

- Canada is in a diplimatic "spat" with the UAE over airline routes. Does your version of fulfilling our "international roll" involve giving in to any demands from foreign governments?

Oh, and by the way, while we're at it: Canada gives roughly 0.3% of our GDP to foreign aid. Portugal only 0.18%. (And they have a smaller GDP so the total amounts are less too.) Does that sound like we're "ignoring our international role"?

Because the country who has been conducting the largest military options refused to go through the UN because they wouldn't sanction their illegal war.

We've reduced our aid to Africa. Gee, that's not going to cause a problem. We're going to cut funding to a UN program. Gee, that's going to have no effect. UAE, bad choice of example. Bob Rae, in a press conference illuminated the real dispute between Canada and the UAE. He essentially couldn't talk to anyone within the government. The ambassador was previously the ambassador to France and commented to Rae that he had no problem getting regular access to the French foreign minister and Sarkozy to deal with important bilateral issues. He was trying to do the same vis-a-vis Canada regarding students and visas. He couldn't get a hold of anyone and went to Rae. Now, even if you want to get rid of every bit of that anecdote due to partisanship, think of this. The UAE and Canada have been attempting to negotiate this deal for 5 years. All of a sudden the UAE pulls this? There's two explanations. Either this is a completely out of the blue move or this is the very public souring of a relationship quietly gone bad over the past 4 years. The first doesn't make any sense, especially considering the anecdotal evidence from Bob Rae.

Ummm.... you DO realize that most of the work the UN does is "non binding" as well? And even when it does pass "binding" resolutions (like several of those against Sadam's Iraq) they get routinely ignored.

Not true. Treaties formulated at the UN go back for ratification. They become international law. Most nations vigorously enforce international law. Only the very public breaches really become public. Hence the false theory that the UN does nothing.

We still haven't really seen much value in what it does.

The UN runs the IMF, the WTO, The World Food Programme, The IAEA, WHO. They also have UNICEF, UNDP, UNCHR, Millenium Development Goals and the list goaes on. Furthermore, don't think for a second that any of these organizations can be run by anything other than an international organization with universal membership. Most of the countries where these programmes operate are in developing states. They also happen to be those non-democracies everyone believes shouldn't have a say, or as much a say. If these organizations and the vital work they do were to become independent or run by an organization which doesn't view these nations as on an equal setting, they won't be allowed access due to percieved bias. It happens all the time. Russia threw out all NGOs a few years back which is unfortunate because they have an exploding AIDS outbreak.

Bull cr*p. Corruption happens on a very regular basis at the U.N.

- UN cultural conferences widely viewed as antisemitic

- Oil for food scandal

- UNRWA hiring people with ties to terrorist groups

- Despotic countries heading up human rights commissions

So tell me, given the fact that these types of problems happen regularly, why exactly should we expect that they have "cleaned up"?

Uhhh, if you didn't notice, the only actual example you cited which is actually corruption is oil for food. And it was shut down. Proves my point.

Actually, no... they could have debated / presented their case anywhere in the world.

Theoretically they could've debated on the moon. The point is the USSR was shamed in front of the most powerful international body on the planet.

Uh, no... there is no such "binding".

You bet it is. This is why Clinton's press secretary wouldn't use the term "genocide." Categorically declaring something genocide binds nations to act. Hence the term, act of genocide.

I hate to use Wikipedia, but since its a historic event, it should be safe.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War

The legitimacy of NATO's bombing campaign in Kosovo has been the subject of much debate. NATO did not have the backing of the United Nations Security Council because the war was opposed by permanent members with ties to Yugoslavia, in particular Russia, who had threatened to veto any resolution authorizing force.

Look at my post above.

Lot of good that did... not only was Vietnam ravaged by a war, but when "peace" was made, the North subsequently ignored its provisions and took over the south.

Yah UN.

Like I said, it's not a perfect institution. I'm not the one holding it up to an impossible standard.

Not really. You might think its working, but pretty much everything could be accomplished without it.

Like?

Uh, no... it wasn't sanctioned by the UN.

Again, check out my above post.

Edited October 20, 2010 by nicky10013

[nicky10013]

Anecdotal stories are always a good evidence

David Wright. Check him out. He loves to tell his stories. Makes him feel important. Apparently he has the third visa ever issued for one of the Baltic states after they declared independence from the USSR. Was on the first flight in with Mulroney. Was also the person in NATO to invoke article 5 of the NATO charter on 9/11. An attack on one is an attack on all.

[nicky10013]

In other words....you are quite mistaken.

Nope. UN was involved and informed the entire way. Like I said, they didn't get a resolution out because of Russia, but everyone was quite wed to the responsibility to protect.

[Saipan]

David Wright. Check him out. He loves to tell his stories. Makes him feel important. Apparently he has the third visa ever issued for one of the Baltic states after they declared independence from the USSR. Was on the first flight in with Mulroney. Was also the person in NATO to invoke article 5 of the NATO charter on 9/11. An attack on one is an attack on all.

Yep, the friggin' Serbs shouldn't attack WTC.

[bush_cheney2004]

Nope. UN was involved and informed the entire way. Like I said, they didn't get a resolution out because of Russia, but everyone was quite wed to the responsibility to protect.

Utter nonsense...we can all see what you are avoiding...it is so obvious. Chretien didn't even get a vote from Parliament despite objections...at least the American Congress got to vote on the matter.

If UNSC-sanctioned humanitarian interventions are seen as legitimate, what about humanitarian interventions that might be sanctioned by regional organisations such as NATO, EU or ASEAN? For example, NATO’s Operation Allied Force in Kosovo was a humanitarian intervention but undertaken without UNSC’s approval. This was because any resolution for an armed intervention would have been vetoed by Russia and China .

http://www.mindef.gov.sg/content/imindef/publications/pointer/journals/2004/v30n4/features/feature5.print.html?Status=1

Edited October 20, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[jbg]

We need an international perspective. What is the international alternative to the UN, Oleg? There isn't one. The UN's the best we've got.

I take real exception to this.

Why does Canada(or the U.S.) need an international perspective? Why do two progressive, forward-looking countries of hard-working people need to take BS from tinpot dictators or worse?

[jbg]

Theoretically they could've debated on the moon. The point is the USSR was shamed in front of the most powerful international body on the planet.

Shamed?

That's a very expensive finger-wag.

[nicky10013]

Utter nonsense...we can all see what you are avoiding...it is so obvious. Chretien didn't even get a vote from Parliament despite objections...at least the American Congress got to vote on the matter.

If UNSC-sanctioned humanitarian interventions are seen as legitimate, what about humanitarian interventions that might be sanctioned by regional organisations such as NATO, EU or ASEAN? For example, NATO’s Operation Allied Force in Kosovo was a humanitarian intervention but undertaken without UNSC’s approval. This was because any resolution for an armed intervention would have been vetoed by Russia and China .

http://www.mindef.gov.sg/content/imindef/publications/pointer/journals/2004/v30n4/features/feature5.print.html?Status=1

I'm not avoiding anything. That's the truth. I'd much rather trust someone who was there behind the scenes than some internet posting.