PDA

View Full Version : a failed UN



santosh tiwari
03 Oct 06,, 15:30
Tharoor 'disappointed' with loss

India's candidate for the post of UN secretary general, Shashi Tharoor, says he is "disappointed" after coming second again in informal polling.
A career diplomat, Mr Tharoor pulled out of the race after South Korea's Ban Ki-Moon won the latest straw poll.

Mr Tharoor got 10 votes, one more than needed to stay in the race. But one of the three negative votes was from a permanent Security Council member.

A formal vote to choose the secretary general is due on 9 November.

Soon after the results were announced, Mr Tharoor, who is also the UN undersecretary general for public information, issued a statement: "It is a great honour and a huge responsibility to be secretary-general and I wish Mr Ban every success in that task."

Concedes victory

Mr Tharoor said he had "entered the race because of my devotion to the United Nations, and for the same reason I will strongly support him as the next secretary general. The UN, and the world, has a stake in his success."

Although he has conceded victory, Mr Tharoor is "disappointed" by the result.

In an interview to the BBC Hindi service, he said, "I have spent 28 years working for the UN. All the other candidates have worked for their governments. I was the only candidate who has devoted my entire professional life to the UN and worked for the international community."

Although it was not yet clear which permanent member used the negative vote against him, Mr Tharoor said he did not believe the veto was against him or India.

"This country wants Mr Ban to win and must have voted against all the other candidates too," he said.

Options open

Mr Tharoor thanked the Indian government for supporting his candidacy.

Asked if he would be joining the government in some form, he laughed and said: "No option is excluded for me. But I'm not a civil servant, nor a politician."

In reply to a question as to whether the Indian government would be nominating him to the Rajya Sabha - the Upper House of Parliament - Mr Tharoor said, "The government has done enough for me. I don't want to ask them for anything more."

Mr Tharoor has worked in the world body for nearly three decades since completing his PhD at Tufts University in the US.

"I have worked in the UN for 28 years... So I think I would bring a lot of experience and commitment to the task," Mr Tharoor told the BBC in an earlier interview when asked why he wanted the job.

"I believe passionately in the UN and see it as a force that can make a real difference in the world."

Some commentators say Mr Tharoor's experience with the UN may have gone against him.

Some say a senior insider may not be the person to deliver the radical reforms that they believe the organisation needs.

Mr Tharoor, an Indian national, has written several novels, including a political satire, The Great Indian Novel, that focuses on India's struggle for independence.

Overall there were six candidates in the race to replace the incumbent UN secretary general Kofi Annan who ends his second and final term in December.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5402010.stm

the way a veto was used against Mr Tharoor, it just proved that the UN is very old and is forced to follow world war-2 winners. this a matter of shame that five countries has got so much power that they keep threatening the rest of world by their veto powers which they got illegally and on the gun point of nuclear bombs. this is not hidden that world war two winners want to keep nuclear bombs and this veto power (which is also known as nick name of N bombs) and this way they want to rule on the rest of world illegally or by force. first they want other nations to follow UN and at the same time they dont hesitate to use veto (or N Bombs) in UN. they miss no chance to insult UN.

there is a need of making new UN with new rules. this is the time when rest of world, other than P-5s, would make a new UN where there is no threat of veto (or N bombs) in UN.

santosh tiwari
03 Oct 06,, 15:42
UNITED NATIONS: India has lambasted the 15-member Security Council for failing to meet its obligations of maintaining international peace and security, saying it is the result of its "unrepresentative" character and consequent lack of political will.

In a sharp criticism of the Council's inaction as the "tragic events" unfolded in Lebanon recently and the Mideast peace process was derailed, Indian Ambassador Nirupam Sen likened the Council to Emperor Nero who was fiddling while Rome was burning.

"The main problem that beset peacekeeping are not lack of resources or even personnel, but an unrepresentative Security Council which lacks the political will to act and when it does, does so in a manner that is entirely inadequate," he told the United Nations General Assembly.

Asking the Council members to shore up their participation in the peacekeeping operations, Sen said it is a "distressing reflection" on their willingness to share the burden of maintaining international peace and security when overwhelming number of troops in the peacekeeping operations are contributed by the developing nations.

Stressing that reform of the United Nations, which the major power are demanding, would be incomplete without the expansion of the 15-member Council, he said it needs to be made more representative and effective if it is to satisfactorily perform the role mandated to it by the Charter.

It is imperative, Sen said, that any expansion and restructuring of the Council must include developing countries in both permanent and non permanent categories.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2074682.cms

Officer of Engineers
03 Oct 06,, 15:48
Oh get off it, we all saw this coming a mile away. Anybody who thought otherwise is just a numbskull who lives in la-la land.

santosh tiwari
03 Oct 06,, 15:53
WASHINGTON: India's and Shashi Tharoor's bid for the UN Secretary-General post, which was flickering to an end, might come alive following an unexpected report that the South Korean front-runner has used monetary clout to pull in support.

Tharoorís run for the prestigious office, backed formally by New Delhi, failed to make headway in the third and final straw polls, where he again came runner-up to South Koreaís foreign minister Ban Ki-moon, who had also won the first two polls.

In fact, Tharoor surprisingly lost ground in the third round, getting eight encouragements on Thursday, with three negatives and two no opinions from among the 15 Security Council members.

A candidate needs at least nine encouragements in the final cut. Ban too slipped a bit, getting 13 encouragements (down from 14 in the second poll), one discourage and one no opinion. But he was well ahead of six other contenders, including late entrant Latvian President Vaira Vike-Freiberga, the only non-Asian and woman in the race, who came third with 7-6-2.

But Banís bid could be headed for last-minute trouble, with The Times of London reporting that South Korea had spent large sums of money to win support for its foreign minister.

The Times said a month after announcing his candidature, South Korea said it would treble its aid budget to Africa to $100 million by 2008. Seoul then contributed tens of thousands of pounds to sponsor the African Union summit in the Gambia.

Ban declared 2006 to be the Year of Africa for South Korea. He also pledged $18 million for an educational programme in Tanzania, a country which has a UNSC seat.

It has since backed Ban. Though the race is technically not over, Tharoor had indicated that it might be hard to challenge Ban if he did not improve his showing in the third straw poll. Now that he has dropped to eight encouragements, he is now one short of the magic number.

"Not yet (over). We'll know only on Monday," Tharoor said in a e-mail to ToI, sent before The Times expose hit the wires.

A more decisive poll is set for Monday, when the five veto-wielding members of the Security Council will use different coloured ballots than the other 10 rotating SC members to indicate their preference. A veto from one of the five ó Britain, China, France, Russia or the United States ó will doom a candidateís campaign.

Thatís when candidates will decide if they should just drop out of the race. Those who remain then go for a formal vote in the UNSC next month, where a candidate will again need at least nine votes and no veto among the Permanent Five. The winner is then confirmed by the 192-member UN General Assembly.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2047806.cms

santosh tiwari
03 Oct 06,, 16:01
Oh get off it, we all saw this coming a mile away. Anybody who thought otherwise is just a numbskull who lives in la-la land.

here the question is not of any win or loss. the question is of using veto which they got illegally. i dont think they have right to use veto against any country. that was an illegal move by a Nuclear power, NPT signed country, who is one of those P-5, WW2 winner, who got veto because they can threaten rest of world by their nuclear power. these P-5s have taken license of Nuclear powers and Veto power and they dont hesitate to use it against any country. there must be a resistance against their illegal moves by this veto power against any country.

Officer of Engineers
03 Oct 06,, 16:35
here the question is not of any win or loss. the question is of using veto which they got illegally.

That is pure hogwash. They got their veto VERY legally.


i dont think they have right to use veto against any country.

Of course they do. It's right in the UN Charter. You don't like it? You can leave the UN. That is within every country's rights. Don't want to leave? Then, shut up and play by the rules.


that was an illegal move by a Nuclear power, NPT signed country, who is one of those P-5, WW2 winner, who got veto because they can threaten rest of world by their nuclear power.

Now, you're just a cry baby.


these P-5s have taken license of Nuclear powers and Veto power and they dont hesitate to use it against any country. there must be a resistance against their illegal moves by this veto power against any country.

Wake up! They formed the UN. They put up the money. They wrote the rules. They can do what they like. You don't have to be part of the UN. Hell, you can even ignore the UN and India did just that.

Having a UNGS from your country means didly squat. The UNGS is powerless. Hell, even if he's from your own country, your own government will ignore him.

Would you like some cheese with your whine?

Srirangan
03 Oct 06,, 17:04
The U.N. was a 'miserable failure' even before Mr. Tharoor withdrew. Who cares? :-\

Srirangan
03 Oct 06,, 17:05
They formed the UN. They put up the money. They wrote the rules.
Hmm.. not quite. USA and Japan fund the U.N. Why isn't Japan in the P5? Also, Communist China wasn't in the orginal P5, was it?

santosh tiwari
03 Oct 06,, 17:21
That is pure hogwash. They got their veto VERY legally.

first of all i would like to clear your concept of Legal and Illegal. something which follows laws is said to be legal and which doesnt follow the laws is said to be illegal. and the most importnat thing is, "Laws are not made on gun point or by force." this is not a incident that only world war two winners have nuclear bombs and Veto powers. "they won these power by force".



Of course they do. It's right in the UN Charter. You don't like it? You can leave the UN. That is within every country's rights. Don't want to leave? Then, shut up and play by the rules.
there is nothing like following or not following UN. untill rest of world will find it is beneficial to be with UN, they will and the time they will find it is of no use, they will not. the problem with these P-5s is that rest of world is not that weak as it was at the time of WW2. for example right now UK is the type of country who cant talk properly to even Mr Mushrraf who just abused UK few days before in its home while UK was superpower during WW2. those who will have power will make rules, not by those who had power. and time is changing, this is something which is written on the wall.



Now, you're just a cry baby.
they were also crying when india did N test and they could do nothing except crying.



Wake up! They formed the UN. They put up the money. They wrote the rules. They can do what they like. You don't have to be part of the UN. Hell, you can even ignore the UN and India did just that.
if they formed the UN because they had money and power, then this old UN will fall when P-5 will not have enough power and money as compare to others.

Srirangan
03 Oct 06,, 17:43
Santosh, relax. Tharoor wasn't never the top candidate. He did pretty well actually in running a close second for this long. And, Tharoor's defeat has little or no impact on India.

Many in South Block and MEA were lukewarm to Tharoor's candidature in the first place. Do read the NewsInsight commentary regarding this.

astralis
03 Oct 06,, 17:53
srirangan,


Hmm.. not quite. USA and Japan fund the U.N. Why isn't Japan in the P5? Also, Communist China wasn't in the orginal P5, was it?

japan is not in the P5 because she wasn't in it originally, and none of the P5 want to dilute their power.

china was in the P5, but politics have obviously changed (didn't help the ROC's case that its ambassador walked out, either). and system of gov't doesn't matter to the UN, or else the likes of the USSR wouldn't have been on, too.

santosh tiwari
03 Oct 06,, 17:56
Santosh, relax. Tharoor wasn't never the top candidate. He did pretty well actually in running a close second for this long. And, Tharoor's defeat has little or no impact on India.

Many in South Block and MEA were lukewarm to Tharoor's candidature in the first place. Do read the NewsInsight commentary regarding this.

srirangan i repeat., the question is not about who won and who lost. here a veto was used against Mr tharoor. he lost this election not because he got less vote than south korean. that could be a different thing. a veto was used against him as he belong to the country which is not liked by a country who has veto and here this concept of Veto is "Illegal".

joey2
03 Oct 06,, 19:28
I wonder who used this Veto....
Russia - IMHO NO.
UK - I dont think so...
France - nah, they have nothing to gain or loss.
China - Possible, but they said to strengthen ties with india they wont put veto..
USA - dunno , their politics is too critical to understand.

whatever happened isnt any problem .. but i personally admire this sashi guy ,his biography is interesting too.

santosh tiwari
04 Oct 06,, 01:19
I wonder who used this Veto....
Russia - IMHO NO.
UK - I dont think so...
France - nah, they have nothing to gain or loss.
China - Possible, but they said to strengthen ties with india they wont put veto..
USA - dunno , their politics is too critical to understand.

whatever happened isnt any problem .. but i personally admire this sashi guy ,his biography is interesting too.

no UK, France or Russia will use Veto who have already supported india for even permanent seat. and there is no question to doubt on US. US will not use any veto against india. and about this .......

this is only country what it says and what it really wanna do, no one knows. this country doesn’t deserve for any nuclear or veto power. there must be a resistance on it otherwise whole world will pay for that one day.

Shaishi Tharoor got support by second highest numbers by 15 members of UN council. there is no doubt that Mr Ban was getting highest number of votes but he was shashi tharoor who got positive votes by 10 members out of 15. this guy must be known to them about his excellent record in UN. he could make the competition interesting if no veto could be used against him.

Edgeplay_cgo
04 Oct 06,, 01:52
"they won these power by force".

Is there any other way to win power? The UN per se has no power, nor any legitimacy to create power. Only its sovereign members have power. The veto power of the P5 was crucial to its formation. Without that power, none would have joined.

The whole United Nations is based of a fallacious concept, and was therefore doomed from its inception. That fallacious concept is that nations have any kind of equality with each other, and even that national status gives a group some kind of legitimacy. What legitimacy does a so-called country ruled by a kleptocrat and a thug (pick your own example) have in the worldwide arena? Who the hell cares what they think or say, so long as they don't make too much trouble?

And if they do make too much trouble, the UN is powerless to intervene. Only the Great Powers have the capability and the interest to intervene halfway across the world. Conflicting political agendae of the various powers has crippled the UN since its foundation, and thankfully so. We don't need a super national entity overshadowing the sovereignty of real nations and imposing some sort of thiefís law by consensus of the various petty dictatorships and kleptocracies.

We'd be better off burning down the UN, and saving the airfare of all the delegates. Issues will be settled the way they always have been, and still are today - by bilateral and multilateral negotiations between the real players.


if they formed the UN because they had money and power, then this old UN will fall when P-5 will not have enough power and money as compare to others.

It already has failed.

So cheer up. India, a real and growing player on the World Stage, lost a race to nowhere. At your level of play, a UNSGship would be a step down.

starsiege
04 Oct 06,, 02:42
about time the un is revamped or it risks becoming another "leauge of nations" the "un" that was created after the ww1 did nothing to prevent ww2 and was as poweless as the current un is. times change and institutions should change with it. if not they will be obsolete

the "new" UN should represent the demographical/economical face of todays earth as well. to say that india should not have a veto even thou 1 in 6 people live in india while a country that has 15 times less amount of people having a veto is absurdity at its max.france and briton are not the major powers they used to be 50 years ago. either replace them, or add new members or do away with the veto thing altogether

santosh tiwari
04 Oct 06,, 02:49
a failed UN
.
.
.

In an interview to the BBC Hindi service, he said, "I have spent 28 years working for the UN. All the other candidates have worked for their governments. I was the only candidate who has devoted my entire professional life to the UN and worked for the international community."
.
.
.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5402010.stm


this is a matter of shame that the a Veto was used against the man who devoted his entire professional life to UN and for international community. there is no question of winning or losing. If Mr Ban (loving South Korean) could win by numbers of votes in a fair way, that could be welcomed. but the question is, why a Veto would be used against a man if he belong to India and if this is UN, why india follow UN?

bull
04 Oct 06,, 06:50
Well another race lost in the world scene.It would have been good to see this guy on top not becaue it wpuld have done India any good in the UN but because he was an Indian and we could have been proud about that.

Chal better luck next time

joey2
04 Oct 06,, 07:52
no UK, France or Russia will use Veto who have already supported india for even permanent seat. and there is no question to doubt on US. US will not use any veto against india. and about this .......

this is only country what it says and what it really wanna do, no one knows. this country doesnít deserve for any nuclear or veto power. there must be a resistance on it otherwise whole world will pay for that one day.

Shaishi Tharoor got support by second highest numbers by 15 members of UN council. there is no doubt that Mr Ban was getting highest number of votes but he was shashi tharoor who got positive votes by 10 members out of 15. this guy must be known to them about his excellent record in UN. he could make the competition interesting if no veto could be used against him.

LOL u think china ... and todays statesman paper headlines front page qouted it was US tht vetoed.. geez :P i dont think it'll be US though...

santosh tiwari
04 Oct 06,, 14:02
Well another race lost in the world scene.It would have been good to see this guy on top not becaue it wpuld have done India any good in the UN but because he was an Indian and we could have been proud about that.

Chal better luck next time

bull even if he was an indian, he was working for UN and it was his duty to be honest with UN. but a Veto was used against him as he is an Indian while he was honest with his work for UN, and this is matter of concern for indians. why Veto was used if he was originally from India? hope this is not that hard to understand.

Officer of Engineers
04 Oct 06,, 14:10
Oh get off it, the veto is more than legal. It's just not fair. That's your point. So what? Life is not fair. Annan was elected even though he allowed the Rwandan genocide to occur and he was allowed an extension even when he was neck deep into the oil-for-food scandal and he was personally the one who shut down the UN mission in Iraq. Is that fair? Not by a long shot. Is that legal? Damn right it is.

I don't see you clamouring for the other candidates who lost. It is because this guy is Indian that you're all rile about.

Stop being a cry baby.

gilgamesh
04 Oct 06,, 14:40
Best form of veto is to have plenty many nukes.

Edgeplay_cgo
05 Oct 06,, 03:39
about time the un is revamped or it risks becoming another "leauge of nations" the "un" that was created after the ww1 did nothing to prevent ww2 and was as poweless as the current un is. times change and institutions should change with it. if not they will be obsolete

The UN was a failed organization before the ink was dry on it's charter. It is nothing more than mindless optimism with no basis in reality. It has always been powerless, and always will be.

The only way the UN could be effective, would be to have supra national powers, superceding the sovereignty of all nations. None of the big powers would accept that. (The rest don't matter.) Why should they accept it? Why would it be in their best interests to give up their sovereignty.

The only way it would be acceptable to me (arrogantly speaking for the whole USA :rolleyes: ) would be for the US Constitution to be the UN Charter. No doubt you would propose a different basis. Why should either of us give up that which we hold dear?

Do you want a league of thieves and cut-throats to rule your country (your own politicians excepted, of course :biggrin: )? I sure don't (my own domestic cut throats exceptec of course :biggrin: )! But seriously, why should the likes of Syria and Uganda have any vote over what goes on in decent peoples' back yards?

The best thing to do with the UN would be to scrap it and write it off as a bad idea.

Officer of Engineers
05 Oct 06,, 04:39
BACK OFF!

The UN has done good. Extreme good. BUT and ONLY BUT when MEN OF CHARACTER stood up and took charge.

Generals MacKenzie, Cott, Jetley, Jackson were of a few such men. Generals Dallaire and Nambiar were of those good men who tried.

I cannot and will not allow the names of such good men to be soiled by the likes of Annan ... and truth be told, also by the name of Tharoor. This guy is part of the problem, Santosh and you cannot see it.

lemontree
05 Oct 06,, 06:19
Shashi Tharoor did not win, so what. At least he ran and the GoI supported him even though he was not an Indian government endevour.

We are looking for UNSC permanent membership and not a temporary chair. Why do you guys worry about sideline issues when the strategic issue of a UNSC membership is more important.

Ray
05 Oct 06,, 07:28
The world and humanity are failures themselves, so what's the big deal?

Edgeplay,

Whatever makes you feel that the US Consitution is the solution?

And why should anyone accept that, please?

Have you noticed that the US which used to command respect around the world, is floundering, inspite of being teh sole global power?

Why so?

Colonel,

Anan may not be perfect and neither was Dag Hjalmar Agne Carl Hammarskjold was Secretary-General of the United Nations from 10 April 1953 until 18 September 1961 when he met his death in a plane accident while on a peace mission in the Congo.

There is a moral responsibility and legal powers and responsibility.

UN Secretary Generals don't have the legal powers to enforce any decision. The legal responsibility and the powers vest on the UNSC. If anyone has failed, it is the Big Five of the UNSC.

Srirangan
05 Oct 06,, 07:34
The world and humanity are failures themselves, so what's the big deal?
Until capitalism came along... :biggrin:

Santosh, are you a relative of Mr. Tharoor? ;)

Srirangan
05 Oct 06,, 07:35
Have you noticed that the US which used to command respect around the world, is floundering, inspite of being teh sole global power?

Why so?
Communist media.

YellowFever
05 Oct 06,, 07:36
I'm not paying very close attention (actually none whatsoever) to the goings on in the UN right now but it the conclusions I've drawn from the articles posted by santosh tiwari is that Shashi Tharoor is not the right person for the job. People who posted here mostly seems to think the UN needs revamping and I don't think that'll happen under him with quotes like,

"Some commentators say Mr Tharoor's experience with the UN may have gone against him.
Some say a senior insider may not be the person to deliver the radical reforms that they believe the organisation needs."

OeE is right, the UN HAS done alot of good, despite my feelings for it these days.

Mr. Tharoor might or might not have been the best person for the job but he's coming off as a whiner in this article.

YellowFever
05 Oct 06,, 07:49
Have you noticed that the US which used to command respect around the world, is floundering, inspite of being teh sole global power?

Why so?

Sir, I have some theories but I'd like to hear your theory on the matter.

What so greatly reduced the stature of America in your eyes?

Despite what it may look like from the outside, the US has not changed at all from my prespective.
It's the world that's changed.
Just because the big bad bear has gone away, the rest of the war is drunk with sudden myopic visions of "everlasting peace" and "koombaya" attitude that, frankly, I find hard to stomach.

Ray
05 Oct 06,, 07:55
Sir, I have some theories but I'd like to hear your theory on the matter.

What so greatly reduced the stature of America in your eyes?

Despite what it may look like from the outside, the US has not changed at all from my prespective.
It's the world that's changed.
Just because the big bad bear has gone away, the rest of the war is drunk with sudden myopic visions of "everlasting peace" and "koombaya" attitude that, frankly, I find hard to stomach.

You want me to state so in a US run forum? :eek:

The last time I took on Bush, I was nearly banned. :biggrin: :tongue:

There are many good reasons why the stature has diminished. One of them is that the US acts arbitrarily and unilaterally without even a show of having taken universal "approval".

Example: the world is not complaining about Afghanistan. Not even the Moslems. But Iraq?

Because the US is doing everything feasible to solve the Iran nuclear imbroglio and it has built up an international support, should the US do anything against Iran, there will be very little griping!

The world has not changed. It still bumbles along!

Edgeplay_cgo
05 Oct 06,, 11:15
Whatever makes you feel that the US Consitution is the solution?

And why should anyone accept that, please?

Because I believe it does more to ensure the Rights of Man and ensure decent government than any other document ever written. It still needs tweaking, though. Always will.

As I said, you may have other opinions about the perfect foundation document. But I (speaking for some 300 million "Muricans :rolleyes: ) would accept no less.

What basis would you propose? The current UN Charter is worthless.


Have you noticed that the US which used to command respect around the world, is floundering, inspite of being the sole global power?

No I haven't. Anyone who is worth having as a ally is still an ally. Anyway, nations don't have friends. They have interests.


If anyone has failed, it is the Big Five of the UNSC.

Thay have not failed. They protected their own interests. That is what nations do. And that is why the UN will never be anything more than a wet dream.

Edgeplay_cgo
05 Oct 06,, 11:19
BACK OFF!

The UN has done good. Extreme good. BUT and ONLY BUT when MEN OF CHARACTER stood up and took charge.

The UNSC, which is the only agency of the UN potentially able to take world changing actions, has only done anything good (Like the Korean War) when it has been "hijacked" by the Great Powers. And in those cases, the GPs could have done the same thing without the blue flags.

Of all the UN bureaucracies, the only one I have seen to do any good, is UNICEF, but I suspect that it steals so much in the middle, that the effort is greatly diluted. National aid agencies and NGOs are more efficient than UNICEF.

Officer of Engineers
05 Oct 06,, 12:24
UN Secretary Generals don't have the legal powers to enforce any decision.

Sir,

No, they don't have the legal authority to enforce any decision. They just have the authority to screw up the decisions. Four dead UN peacekeepers told just how really stupid Annan was at not pulling them out at least from that one spot.


The legal responsibility and the powers vest on the UNSC. If anyone has failed, it is the Big Five of the UNSC.

Sir, that's a cop out. Generals Nambiar and Jetly didn't listen to New York's bellyaching. They just went ahead and did their jobs. I remind you, Sir, that General MacKenzie tossed a UN walking clusterfuk out of General Nambiar's HQ. General Dallaire ignored a UNSC resolution to abandon his mission.

Officer of Engineers
05 Oct 06,, 16:40
The UNSC, which is the only agency of the UN potentially able to take world changing actions, has only done anything good (Like the Korean War) when it has been "hijacked" by the Great Powers. And in those cases, the GPs could have done the same thing without the blue flags.

But they didn't.


Of all the UN bureaucracies, the only one I have seen to do any good, is UNICEF, but I suspect that it steals so much in the middle, that the effort is greatly diluted. National aid agencies and NGOs are more efficient than UNICEF.

And UNPROFOR?

highsea
05 Oct 06,, 17:02
...There are many good reasons why the stature has diminished. One of them is that the US acts arbitrarily and unilaterally without even a show of having taken universal "approval".

Example: the world is not complaining about Afghanistan. Not even the Moslems. But Iraq?Sir, what about the 18 or 20 UNSC resolutions that Iraq ignored? Time and time again the US went to the UN to try to get something done, but it was blocked by countries that had vested interests in the status quo in Iraq (France, Russia). The Oil-for-Food program was funding the UN budget for several years, and Annan and many others were on Saddam's payroll.

Granted it was wasted effort, but do you think we didn't try? The situation was such that "universal approval" was impossible. Iran is no different.

...Because the US is doing everything feasible to solve the Iran nuclear imbroglio and it has built up an international support, should the US do anything against Iran, there will be very little griping!We haven't put even 1/10 of the effort into Iran yet that we had put into Iraq at the UN. The support for our efforts wrt Iran is just lip service, the same thing we got with Iraq.

Should push come to shove, there would be griping from every side!

Dreadnought
05 Oct 06,, 17:38
Myself, Ill be glad when Annan is gone. The man had no teeth and only wants to talk and thats particularly why the US circumnavigates the UN is cases such as Iraq. Hopefully the UN will elect a leader that has teeth and savy and will use both to bring an end to some of the problems that are infront of us. Someone who wont let a peoples fate be decided by countries that have vested interests in the country but dont give a dam about its people. As I understand it a South Korean gentlemen leads the nominations thus far.

highsea
05 Oct 06,, 17:45
...and thats particularly why the US circumnavigates the UN is cases such as Iraq.But we didn't circumnavigate the UN- we went there first, and were rejected. When it was clear that there would be no SC authorization of force, we went forward anyway.

In Serbia, we circumnavigated- we didn't even ask for UN blessing. IIRC, it was purely a NATO decision. (OOE might correct me on this...)

Dreadnought
05 Oct 06,, 18:23
But we didn't circumnavigate the UN- we went there first, and were rejected. When it was clear that there would be no SC authorization of force, we went forward anyway.

In Serbia, we circumnavigated- we didn't even ask for UN blessing. IIRC, it was purely a NATO decision. (OOE might correct me on this...)

Sorry High bad choice of words to get across my meaning. What I meant was that we try to do things with their blessing but sometimes that doesnt always work out. So ofcoarse we must endure the unpopular actions in some cases because in certain cases time is of the essence and we have no time to argue with vested interests involved.

Edgeplay_cgo
06 Oct 06,, 01:52
And UNPROFOR?

That's another of the few cases where the GPs actually agreed on something. Those are the cases where the UN isn't evil, merely unnecessary. Those things would have been done anyway, without the UN.

Officer of Engineers
06 Oct 06,, 03:17
Hehehehehehahahahahaha,

The only thing the P5 did was to play their own games. The CIA bought time to re-arm the Croats, the Russians legitimized Serb actions, the Chinese highlighted the Muslim plea.

The people who did good were the ones who served in UNPROFOR. At times, not even the UN suits did any good. God knows how many times the fatiques ignored the suits. Hell, MGen MacKenzie even tossed a UN REMF out of his HQ.

astralis
06 Oct 06,, 03:22
dreadnought,


Myself, Ill be glad when Annan is gone. The man had no teeth and only wants to talk and thats particularly why the US circumnavigates the UN is cases such as Iraq. Hopefully the UN will elect a leader that has teeth and savy and will use both to bring an end to some of the problems that are infront of us. Someone who wont let a peoples fate be decided by countries that have vested interests in the country but dont give a dam about its people. As I understand it a South Korean gentlemen leads the nominations thus far.

to be sure the secretary-general has quite a bit of influence over the proceedings. but one has to remember that the UN is ultimately at the mercy of the very countries that form the UN, and even more specifically, the big 5.

some people can talk about how the UN has no teeth, how it's morally blind, on and on- let us just say that the US (and certainly other countries) has done its share of word-play over what constitutes "genocide" and what does not, in the hopes of getting out of actually having to do something about it.