Canadian Seat on U.N. Security Council

[nicky10013]

Shamed?

That's a very expensive finger-wag.

Shamed may not be the best word, but do you honestly, and I mean honestly, believe that if the USSR hadn't been embarrassed by having their lies outed in the most public international forum in the world, they would've ended up cutting a deal?

[jbg]

Shamed may not be the best word, but do you honestly, and I mean honestly, believe that if the USSR hadn't been embarrassed by having their lies outed in the most public international forum in the world, they would've ended up cutting a deal?

I'm saying that the U.N. is at best a good debating society. Totalitarian countries' leaders whose press doesn't report to its people don't give a rats' ass what the U.N. or more likely the editor of a big-city newspaper (the surrogate for "world opinion") cares about them.

[nicky10013]

I'm saying that the U.N. is at best a good debating society. Totalitarian countries' leaders whose press doesn't report to its people don't give a rats' ass what the U.N. or more likely the editor of a big-city newspaper (the surrogate for "world opinion") cares about them.

I don't think domestic press of either the US or the USSR really matter in this instance. Despite popular domestic opinion, we know where both countries are and they aren't moving camps. It's the fact that the US presentation at the UN put so many countries in the US camp, that the Soviet position was no longer tenable.

[RNG]

I'm saying that the U.N. is at best a good debating society. Totalitarian countries' leaders whose press doesn't report to its people don't give a rats' ass what the U.N. or more likely the editor of a big-city newspaper (the surrogate for "world opinion") cares about them.

At best a corrupt debating society. And one that gives way too much defference to the Bongo-Bongo dictatorship.

Edited October 20, 2010 by RNG

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

There was no UNSC resolution for war against Serbia....yet the very same criticism was levied at the UK/US led invasion of Iraq. The real impact was an expanded role for NATO and continued irrelevance for the UN when it comes to the application of force without American support.

Your "behind the scenes" anecdotes are meaningless. The "truth" is that Kofi Annan condemned the action and the UNSC actually vetoed a resolution condemning NATO's bombing campaign.

[dre]

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?

Because our actions are international in nature sometimes. You seem to be suggesting that WE become the dictators and that we force our policies on the world without giving them any representation into those decisions. Its no better for us to do that than anyone else.

[PIK]

Speaking of the balkins,peole should read Gen McKenzie's book on it. If I remember correctly, when he was holding the airport the ''other side'' started to bring in heavy weapons and the general phoned the UN and asked for some weapons himself, but it was either friday and he could not get a hold of anybody or they just said you can't under UN rules,not sure at this moment, but he phoned mulroney and mulroney then got a C-130 loaded and sent over very quickly. Rwanda was a joke on all sides, even us for sending political liberal general, who if I remember correctly again,had no overseas experence and just wanted to do something before he retired.

Edited October 21, 2010 by PIK

[nicky10013]

At best a corrupt debating society. And one that gives way too much defference to the Bongo-Bongo dictatorship.

Like I said. The UN purposefully makes no distinction between states and for good reason.

[nicky10013]

There was no UNSC resolution for war against Serbia....yet the very same criticism was levied at the UK/US led invasion of Iraq. The real impact was an expanded role for NATO and continued irrelevance for the UN when it comes to the application of force without American support.

Your "behind the scenes" anecdotes are meaningless. The "truth" is that Kofi Annan condemned the action and the UNSC actually vetoed a resolution condemning NATO's bombing campaign.

No, there was no resolution. I never denied that. I also happen to know what happened behind the very public facade of the UN. It was supported by Kofi Annan. You can believe it or not, that's just the way it happened. You can lean on every official thing ever released and it doesn't change what happened in the actual workings of the UN.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, there was no resolution. I never denied that. I also happen to know what happened behind the very public facade of the UN. It was supported by Kofi Annan. You can believe it or not, that's just the way it happened. You can lean on every official thing ever released and it doesn't change what happened in the actual workings of the UN.

Yes it does....now more than ever....it's open season with Article 51 whenever any nation feels like it. Your perspective would never have been accepted during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, but for some reason you think it should be for the laughable "Responsibility to Protect". Not surprising from a Canadian.

[dre]

Yes it does....now more than ever....it's open season with Article 51 whenever any nation feels like it. Your perspective would never have been accepted during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, but for some reason you think it should be for the laughable "Responsibility to Protect". Not surprising from a Canadian.

Article 51 just spells out whats obvious...

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations

It says you dont need the UNSC to defend your nation against an armed attack. I dont see how that makes it open season on anything besides that.

[bush_cheney2004]

Article 51 just spells out whats obvious...

It says you dont need the UNSC to defend your nation against an armed attack. I dont see how that makes it open season on anything besides that.

Simple....it's now all about PRE-EMPTIVE strikes...to hell with the UNSC. NATO can do whatever it pleases, and nobody can stop them if the USA is onboard. Just ask Rwanda.

[Rick]

Because our actions are international in nature sometimes. You seem to be suggesting that WE become the dictators and that we force our policies on the world without giving them any representation into those decisions. Its no better for us to do that than anyone else.

The U.S. already believe they are the world's dictator and that their policies should be forced onto the rest of the world without question. Just ask them...

[jbg]

Your "behind the scenes" anecdotes are meaningless. The "truth" is that Kofi Annan condemned the action and the UNSC actually vetoed a resolution condemning NATO's bombing campaign.

The "truth" is that I have absolutely no interest in the phony politicking at the U.N. or its generation and/or vetoing of meaningless paper.

[nicky10013]

The "truth" is that I have absolutely no interest in the phony politicking at the U.N. or its generation and/or vetoing of meaningless paper.

You don't and neither do a lot of people here, then again that's the reason why they're not running foreign policy and why we've been rebuked.

[jbg]

You don't and neither do a lot of people here, then again that's the reason why they're not running foreign policy and why we've been rebuked.

I would be in favor of the U.N. if it could possibly accomplish something; if it weren't a horrid waste of paper, money and time. It's a veritable cesspool of hatred, not a creator of peace.

[nicky10013]

I would be in favor of the U.N. if it could possibly accomplish something; if it weren't a horrid waste of paper, money and time. It's a veritable cesspool of hatred, not a creator of peace.

The entire world is a cesspool of hate and for a lot of good reasons. Retreating to your corner because of it doesn't solve anything. It never has and never will.

[jbg]

The entire world is a cesspool of hate and for a lot of good reasons. Retreating to your corner because of it doesn't solve anything. It never has and never will.

Wouldn't you rather use the money saved by not funding the U.N. to actually help real people?

[nicky10013]

Wouldn't you rather use the money saved by not funding the U.N. to actually help real people?

The UN actually does help people. As I said above, there is tonnes of aid (both literally and figuratively) that the UN delivers abroad. It's a job that can only be done by an international organisation with universal membership. Do you honestly believe that North Korea would allow NATO to deliver it's food aid and oil? Remember, the people who need the most help live under the regimes that most people think shouldn't have a say. The fact that they have input at the UN helps bridge the gap and bring down the paranoia level re: letting outside agencies into their countries. Many many NGOs have been kicked out of many different countries due to percieved bias. A quick example is only 2-3 years ago, Russia kicked out all NGOs.

How is putting money into private organisations going to help when they can't get access to the people who really need that help?

[jbg]

How is putting money into private organisations going to help when they can't get access to the people who really need that help?

Usually the problem is that the "governments" hijack much of the aid on the way to the people.

[g_bambino]

Usually the problem is that the "governments" hijack much of the aid on the way to the people.

It isn't "governments" in quotation marks; I was just listening to CBC As It Happens and it's report on how Ethiopia's governing party won't pass on donated aid - fertilizer, seeds, housing, food - to anyone who isn't a party supporter. Apparently Canada sent $150 million to Ethiopia in 2008-2009.

[Radsickle]

It was the `cool' attitude in the early part of this decade to dismiss the U.N. I'm not sure if it's a symptom of the growing cynicism in North America or a desired, and propagated, opinion of the rich, powerful, and criminally-minded types like Carl Rove and George Bush who find the U.N. getting in their way but there is no better organization for achieving world peace so why did Harper's regressive conservatives `dis' it?

And please don't pretend NATO is an alternative to an actual world-wide forum.

I wonder if we were shut out of the security council because we can't even abide by the International treaties we sign...

http://www.thestar.com/Canada/Columnist/article/431927

Edited October 21, 2010 by Radsickle

[bloodyminded]

It was the `cool' attitude in the early part of this decade to dismiss the U.N. I'm not sure if it's a symptom of the growing cynicism in North America or a desired, and propagated, opinion of the rich, powerful, and criminally-minded types like Carl Rove and George Bush who find the U.N. getting in their way but there is no better organization for achieving world peace so why did Harper's regressive conservatives `dis' it?

And please don't pretend NATO is an alternative to an actual world-wide forum.

I wonder if we were shut out of the security council because we can't even abide by the International treaties we sign...

http://www.thestar.com/Canada/Columnist/article/431927

An interesting article, Radsickle.

[bush_cheney2004]

It was the `cool' attitude in the early part of this decade to dismiss the U.N. I'm not sure if it's a symptom of the growing cynicism in North America or a desired, and propagated, opinion of the rich, powerful, and criminally-minded types like Carl Rove and George Bush who find the U.N. getting in their way but there is no better organization for achieving world peace so why did Harper's regressive conservatives `dis' it?

Two problems with this:

1) It was the UN failures of the 1990's (long before Rove and Bush ever showed up). PM Chretien had no problem participating in the impotency (Rwanda) and outright disdain (Kosovo) for the UN. General Dallaire can tell us all about it.

2) NGOs have thrived not in small measure because of the UN's real and perceived corruption and incompetence.

I wonder if we were shut out of the security council because we can't even abide by the International treaties we sign...

You mean...like...ummm...overthrowing a democratically elected president in Haiti!?

Edited October 21, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Argus]

I wonder if we were shut out of the security council because we can't even abide by the International treaties we sign...

http://www.thestar.com/Canada/Columnist/article/431927

I seriously doubt there is even one person at the UN who knows or cares about what we do in Afghanistan. It is a collectin of dictators who brutalize their own people. They had no trouble voting Libya to the Human Rights Commision, for Gods sakes! You think they give a rats ass about what we do? We didn't get in because the Europeans wanted another European on the SC. It's that simple. As for winning a vote in the GA that requires you suck up to the Muslim Bloc - the most socially backward collection of dictators in the place.