Canadian Seat on U.N. Security Council

[nicky10013]

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.

So what are we supposed to do? Just not talk to these people. We've tried. It doesn't work.

[PIK]

So what are we supposed to do? Just not talk to these people. We've tried. It doesn't work.

Did'nt work the other way either. It might be to late for the UN to ever clean it's house up. Edited October 22, 2010 by PIK

[PIK]

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.

And don't forget who chairs the womens rights commission, Iran.

[nicky10013]

Did'nt work the other way either. It might be to late for the UN to ever clean it's house up.

Umm, it actually does work the other way.

[Saipan]

So what are we supposed to do? Just not talk to these people.

Embargo.

[segnosaur]

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.

Here's a suggestion... go back and read my earlier posting. I pointed out that Canada is not necessarily reducing our aid... we're giving basically the same amount as we were before (and much more than Portugal does). We have just focused our aid... giving more money to fewer countries, in an attempt to do the most good.

Now, that means that we're giving more to places like Ethiopia who need it more and less to countries with, well, less need. Now that may mean some countries get cut out, but our goal should be to help as much as we can, not support the greed of some nations who may be upset that they're not getting their cut.

Oh, and by the way, this 'refocusing' of Canadian aid was originally proposed under Paul Martin (although he never really followed through on it.) So, if the Liberals were in power, those nations may still have been upset with us.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/02/23/cida-foreignaid.html

As for the UNRW, as I've said before, we have not decreased our aid. We're just giving the money directly to projects that help Palestinians, rather than dumping it in the UNRW pot.

http://www.thestar.com/living/article/750917--canada-redirects-funding-for-un-relief-agency

UAE, bad choice of example.

...

The first doesn't make any sense, especially considering the anecdotal evidence from Bob Rae.

I see... so not only are you accepting unsupported anecdotes as evidence, you are also blindly accepting statements made by an MP from an opposition party, who benefit whenever the conservative party looks bad.

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.

Ummm.... resolutions that have no real "power" behind them are not "binding" (even if they are called that).

The UN security council passed several binding resolutions against Saddam, on things such as support of terrorism. Result of those resolutions? Not a darn thing. No "automatic mechanism" kicked in to stop Saddam from supporting suicide bombers.

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.

And at one point Saddam threw out the IAEA inspectors. And Sudan expelled many UN aid workers.

Membership in the U.N. does not guarantee that a country will automatically the activities of those workers within its borders.

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.

I see.... so you don't consider the hiring of people who want to kill Israeli children as "corruption".

So, what exactly do you consider it as?

Oh and while I'm at it, what exactly do you consider the UN sex scandal to be? (You know, the one where UN peacekeepers were involved in prostitution, some with underage girls.)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article405213.ece

Then there's the problem of sexual harrasement...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124233350385520879.html

But then, I'm sure you'll find something else to label these as.

Do you consider any of those activities as "acceptable"?

re: Cuban missile crisis...

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.

Which, of course, did absolutely nothing to change the situation.

Re: UN actions in Rwanda

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.

Ummm... first of all, the fact that member states can block the use of the term "genocide" (even as millions get slaughtered) shows how useless the U.N. is.

And even if the UN does manage to declare something "genocide", it has no mechanism to automatically stop it.

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.

Ah I get it, its "praisworthy" except when its not. But its OK, because its an impossible standard to expect it to actually be able to do something in specific cases.

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

Like?

International aid can either be done bilaterally (i.e. direct aid/programs), or through organizations such as the Red Cross.

Peacekeeping/Peacemaking can be done through organizations such as NATO, or the EU, or OAS, or other regional organizations. (Oh, and before you start claiming "oh, those organizations are useless", keep in mind that if the UN did not exist, then member countries would have more incentive to support those alternative organizations.

As I pointed out, organizations like the WHO can be independent organizations. After all, there is no need to tie them to the UN. They can continue to have 'universal' membership.

Most of the other activities can be done through bilateral or multilateral diplomacy. No need for the nation of Togo to care what happens during discussions between nations that it has no contact with on issues that do not impact it.

Re: Union inaction in eastern europe during genocide...

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.

Which is not exactly evidence of the usefullness of the UN.

Russia has veto power in the UN. Even if every other country in the UN wanted to stop the genocide, as long as Russia was against it nothing could be done.

I think that's your problem. You don't realize that good wishes, empty rhetoric and the like are ineffective. What is important is action. The UN failed to act.

Maybe you think Kofi Annan managed to use prayer to stop the genocide. Or maybe he had a metal suit that could fly and he went there himself to personally stop the genocide. Or maybe that's the plot from Iron man.

Edited October 23, 2010 by segnosaur

[bloodyminded]

And at one point Saddam threw out the IAEA inspectors.

Yes, I remember the adminstration making this claim, and everyone taking it as fact, in contradiction to the public record; even the news agencies who correctly reported the situation intitially, apparently decided that Bush understood things better than did mere objective reality:

"The U.N. orders its weapons inspectors to leave Iraq after the chief inspector reports Baghdad is not fully cooperating with them."

-- Sheila MacVicar, ABC World News This Morning, 12/16/98

"To bolster its claim, Iraq let reporters see one laboratory U.N. inspectors once visited before they were kicked out four years ago."--John McWethy, ABC World News Tonight, 8/12/02

"The Iraq story boiled over last night when the chief U.N. weapons inspector, Richard Butler, said that Iraq had not fully cooperated with inspectors and--as they had promised to do. As a result, the U.N. ordered its inspectors to leave Iraq this morning"--Katie Couric, NBC's Today, 12/16/98

"As Washington debates when and how to attack Iraq, a surprise offer from Baghdad. It is ready to talk about re-admitting U.N. weapons inspectors after kicking them out four years ago."--Maurice DuBois, NBC's Saturday Today, 8/3/02

"The chief U.N. weapons inspector ordered his monitors to leave Baghdad today after saying that Iraq had once again reneged on its promise to cooperate--a report that renewed the threat of U.S. and British airstrikes."

--AP, 12/16/98

"Information on Iraq's programs has been spotty since Saddam expelled U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998."

--AP, 9/7/02

"Immediately after submitting his report on Baghdad's noncompliance, Butler ordered his inspectors to leave Iraq."

--Los Angeles Times, 12/17/98

"It is not known whether Iraq has rebuilt clandestine nuclear facilities since U.N. inspectors were forced out in 1998, but the report said the regime lacks nuclear material for a bomb and the capability to make weapons."

--Los Angeles Times, 9/10/02

"The United Nations once again has ordered its weapons inspectors out of Iraq. Today's evacuation follows a new warning from chief weapons inspector Richard Butler accusing Iraq of once again failing to cooperate with the inspectors. The United States and Britain repeatedly have warned that Iraq's failure to cooperate with the inspectors could lead to air strikes."

--Bob Edwards, NPR, 12/16/98

"If he has secret weapons, he's had four years since he kicked out the inspectors to hide all of them."

--Daniel Schorr, NPR, 8/3/02

"This is the second time in a month that UNSCOM has pulled out in the face of a possible U.S.-led attack. But this time there may be no turning back. Weapons inspectors packed up their personal belongings and loaded up equipment at U.N. headquarters after a predawn evacuation order. In a matter of hours, they were gone, more than 120 of them headed for a flight to Bahrain."

--Jane Arraf, CNN, 12/16/98

"What Mr. Bush is being urged to do by many advisers is focus on the simple fact that Saddam Hussein signed a piece of paper at the end of the Persian Gulf War, promising that the United Nations could have unfettered weapons inspections in Iraq. It has now been several years since those inspectors were kicked out."--John King, CNN, 8/18/02

"Russian Ambassador Sergei Lavrov criticized Butler for evacuating inspectors from Iraq Wednesday morning without seeking permission from the Security Council."

--USA Today, 12/17/98

"Saddam expelled U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998, accusing some of being U.S. spies."

--USA Today, 9/4/02

"But the most recent irritant was Mr. Butler's quick withdrawal from Iraq on Wednesday of all his inspectors and those of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitors Iraqi nuclear programs, without Security Council permission. Mr. Butler acted after a telephone call from Peter Burleigh, the American representative to the United Nations, and a discussion with Secretary General Kofi Annan, who had also spoken to Mr. Burleigh."

--New York Times, 12/18/98

"America's goal should be to ensure that Iraq is disarmed of all unconventional weapons.... To thwart this goal, Baghdad expelled United Nations arms inspectors four years ago."--New York Times editorial, 8/3/02

"Butler ordered his inspectors to evacuate Baghdad, in anticipation of a military attack, on Tuesday night--at a time when most members of the Security Council had yet to receive his report."

--Washington Post, 12/18/98

"Since 1998, when U.N. inspectors were expelled, Iraq has almost certainly been working to build more chemical and biological weapons."

--Washington Post editorial, 8/4/02

"Butler abruptly pulled all of his inspectors out of Iraq shortly after handing Annan a report yesterday afternoon on Baghdad's continued failure to cooperate with UNSCOM, the agency that searches for Iraq's prohibited weapons of mass destruction."

-- Newsday, 12/17/98

"The reason Hussein gave was that the U.N. inspectors' work was completed years ago, before he kicked them out in 1998, and they dismantled whatever weapons they found. That's disingenuous."

--Newsday editorial, 8/14/02

Edited October 23, 2010 by bloodyminded

[segnosaur]

Yes, I remember the adminstration making this claim, and everyone taking it as fact, in contradiction to the public record

You're right... technically it was the UN that withdrew the inspectors. However, it basically did so after years of non-compliance by Iraq. The Iraqi government, for example:

- Regularly refused admittance to various buildings (for example, the Ministry of Agriculture in 1992)

- Dictated who could and could not be on inspection teams

- Blocked the use of helicopters by UN inspection teams in some areas (e.g. in 1991)

Basically they were preventing them from doing their job, as mandated by the UN. So while they may be physically there, they were often nothing more than tourists.

Oh, and by the way, did you know that at one point, Iraq did kick out some of the inspectors? (Basically the ones from the U.S., even though they were mandated by the U.N. to be there.)

From: http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02

(in 1997)....Iraq, perhaps bolstered by the evident rift in the Security Council, announces it will not deal at all with U.S. weapons inspectors, orders them to leave the country...

(Note: although the source is from a magazine which is not well known, the same information appears in other sources, suhch as the NY Times.)

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, I remember the adminstration making this claim, and everyone taking it as fact, in contradiction to the public record; even the news agencies who correctly reported the situation intitially, apparently decided that Bush understood things better than did mere objective reality:

He did...as the UN inspectors most certainly could not return to their task in Iraq after they left. So the point is moot.

[bloodyminded]

You're right... technically it was the UN that withdrew the inspectors. However, it basically did so after years of non-compliance by Iraq. The Iraqi government, for example:

- Regularly refused admittance to various buildings (for example, the Ministry of Agriculture in 1992)

- Dictated who could and could not be on inspection teams

- Blocked the use of helicopters by UN inspection teams in some areas (e.g. in 1991)

Basically they were preventing them from doing their job, as mandated by the UN. So while they may be physically there, they were often nothing more than tourists.

Oh, I'm not arguing for the sweetness and light of Saddam's approach to this or any other matter.

But to say that "true, he didn't literally kick them out, but made it difficult," etc...that's all well and good, but it's no justificaiton for the repetaed, baldly-stated, flatly-false claim being made.

By defending it, you're defending propaganda--propaganda that, in this case, was part of the deception used to lead countries into a war.

It has no place in our political discourse. Zero. (I'm not accusing you of deception, just to be clear. I'm accusing the American leadership of deception--outright lying, actually--and I'm accusing the media for acting as a propaganda arm for war policy; the media have no excuse, since they could check their own bloody archives for the accurate information--as we see in the bit I posted--rather than repeating propaganda.)

Hell, why don't we all start making stuff up, just invent things to "prove" a point...and then justify it in terms of "literally false, but true in...spirit, I guess."

Surely truth, facts, are worthwhile.

Oh, and by the way, did you know that at one point, Iraq did kick out some of the inspectors? (Basically the ones from the U.S., even though they were mandated by the U.N. to be there.)

I didn't know this, no. But it is not the point being argued, and my same objection to the other falsehood applies. The folks we're talking about weren't talking about that situation (and Scott Ritter, who opposed the war, could nonetheless tell us lots about Iraqi non-compliance, having lived through it). The folks in question all uttered proveable falsehoods.

That so many in the media were doing it is an excellent illustraiton of the how the so-called "leftist media" often acts as a pro-war cheerleader, a disseminator of government misinformation.

Hell, the pro-war hawks should love the media, not hate it. It does exactly what they wish it to do.

Edited October 23, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

He did...as the UN inspectors most certainly could not return to their task in Iraq after they left. So the point is moot.

OK. The government lying, and the media credulously publishing deceptive propaganda as truth...is moot.

[bloodyminded]

You're right... technically it was the UN that withdrew the inspectors. However, it basically did so after years of non-compliance by Iraq. The Iraqi government, for example:

- Regularly refused admittance to various buildings (for example, the Ministry of Agriculture in 1992)

- Dictated who could and could not be on inspection teams

- Blocked the use of helicopters by UN inspection teams in some areas (e.g. in 1991)

Basically they were preventing them from doing their job, as mandated by the UN. So while they may be physically there, they were often nothing more than tourists.

Oh, I'm not arguing for the sweetness and light of Saddam's approach to this or any other matter.

But to say that "true, he didn't literally kick them out, but made it difficult," etc...that's all well and good, but it's no justification for the repetaed, baldly-stated, flatly-false claim being made.

By defending it, you're defending propaganda--propaganda that, in this case, was part of the deception used to lead countries into a war.

It has no place in our political discourse. Zero. (I'm not accusing you of deception, just to be clear. I'm accusing the American leadership of deception--outright lying, actually--and I'm accusing the media for acting as a propaganda arm for war policy; the media have no excuse, since they could check their own bloody archives for the accurate information--as we see in the bit I posted--rather than repeating propaganda.)

Hell, why don't we all start making stuff up, just invent things to "prove" a point...and then justify it in terms of "literally false, but true in...spirit, I guess."

Surely truth, facts, are worthwhile.

Oh, and by the way, did you know that at one point, Iraq did kick out some of the inspectors? (Basically the ones from the U.S., even though they were mandated by the U.N. to be there.)

But it is not the point being argued, and my same objection to the other falsehood applies. The folks we're talking about weren't talking about that situation (and Scott Ritter, who opposed the war, could nonetheless tell us lots about Iraqi non-compliance, having lived through it). The folks in question all uttered proveable falsehoods.

That so many in the media were doing it is an excellent illustraiton of the how the so-called "leftist media" often acts as a pro-war cheerleader, a disseminator of government misinformation.

Hell, the pro-war hawks should love the media, not hate it. It does exactly what they wish it to do.

[bush_cheney2004]

OK. The government lying, and the media credulously publishing deceptive propaganda as truth...is moot.

Of course it's moot....inspectors in or out was only the opening act of a pre-ordained event....REGIME CHANGE. So it is written...so it shall be done. And God Bush was pleased.

[PIK]

Of course it's moot....inspectors in or out was only the opening act of a pre-ordained event....REGIME CHANGE. So it is written...so it shall be done. And God Bush was pleased.

But he tried to kill my daddy. LOL

[nicky10013]

Embargo.

Cuba has been embargoed from it's largest trading partner since 1962. Yeah, it's worked alright. North Korea has every sancation you could think of levied against it. It still built nuclear weapons. So, how is it not talking to these countries works again?

[bush_cheney2004]

Cuba has been embargoed from it's largest trading partner since 1962.

The USA is now Cuba's 5th largest trading partner. So much for the "embargo".

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The USA is now Cuba's 5th largest trading partner. So much for the "embargo".

It is time to normalize that relationship.

[M.Dancer]

It is time to normalize that relationship.

There is a stumbling block. Cuba refuses to compensate the legal owners of the property that the communists siezed.

[ToadBrother]

There is a stumbling block. Cuba refuses to compensate the legal owners of the property that the communists siezed.

I don't think it's that big a stumbling block. After all, Nixon didn't demand the Kuomintang and its supporters get reparations from the PRC before he went and shook hands with Mao.

[M.Dancer]

I don't think it's that big a stumbling block. After all, Nixon didn't demand the Kuomintang and its supporters get reparations from the PRC before he went and shook hands with Mao.

The US doesn't have a large disposesed chinese population voting in florida

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't think it's that big a stumbling block. After all, Nixon didn't demand the Kuomintang and its supporters get reparations from the PRC before he went and shook hands with Mao.

Great...then let Canada pay for it.

[bush_cheney2004]

It is time to normalize that relationship.

Why? What's the hurry after so many years.

[Jack Weber]

The US doesn't have a large disposesed chinese population voting in florida

They do all over the West coast,though...

[nicky10013]

They do all over the West coast,though...

I think we need to also be honest about "American" property in Cuba. Curious to know what proportion of it was owned by the mafia.

[segnosaur]

Cuba has been embargoed from it's largest trading partner since 1962. Yeah, it's worked alright. North Korea has every sancation you could think of levied against it. It still built nuclear weapons. So, how is it not talking to these countries works again?

Ummm... Both North Korea and Cuba are both members of the United Nations. Both are dictatorships that supress human rights. So.... how does "talking through the United Nations" actually work now?

North Korea is also "involved with" the the IAEA. Well, they were... but they expelled inspectors.