Page 2 of 18 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 256

Thread: Useless UN

  1. #16
    Banned Defense Professional Bluesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 04
    Location
    Misawa Airbase, Japan
    Posts
    8,578
    Quote Originally Posted by Broken
    Are you describing the UN? Or Congress?
    Well, on occasion, the Congress behaves badly for partisan reasons. But for the most part, they are Americans that attempt to do the best for the country, and sometimes their goals and philosophies are congruent and they act in the country's interest.

    But the UN...how many times has the UN acted for the good of the entire world, where it wasn't blocked, frustrated and used for an individual member state's benefit?

    Almost never.

  2. #17
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    30 Oct 04
    Location
    New Brunswick, NJ
    Posts
    1,141
    I have decided to resurrect this post for new UN updates.

    I throw this morsel to the many critics of the UN. May you all delight yourselves in feasting over the dying body of that is the United Nations.

    January 1, 2006
    Officials at U.N. Seek Fast Action on Rights Panel
    By WARREN HOGE

    UNITED NATIONS, Dec. 31 - Officials of the United Nations, which has struggled through a period of scandal and mismanagement, have decided they must act within weeks to produce an alternative to its widely discredited Human Rights Commission to maintain hope of redeeming the United Nations' credibility in 2006.

    The commission, which is based in Geneva, has been a persistent embarrassment to the United Nations because participation has been open to countries like Cuba, Sudan and Zimbabwe, current members who are themselves accused of gross rights abuses. Libya held the panel's chairmanship in 2003.

    "The reason highly abusive governments flock to the commission is to prevent condemnation of themselves and their kind, and most of the time they succeed," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. "If you're a thug, you want to be on the committee that tries to condemn thugs."

    Mark Malloch Brown, chief of staff to Secretary General Kofi Annan, noted that with two other crucial steps toward reform in place - a new Peacebuilding Commission to help countries emerging from war, and a biennial budget under an arrangement laying the groundwork for major management change by June - the rights commission had taken center stage.

    "For the great global public, the performance or nonperformance of the Human Rights Commission has become the litmus test of U.N. renewal," he said. "We can't overestimate getting a clear win on this in January."

    Mr. Annan begins his last year in office with a mandate to bring fundamental and lasting change to the beleaguered institution. Negotiators have been struggling for months over the terms of a new Human Rights Council that he proposed in the spring to replace the commission. A hoped-for agreement in December did not materialize.

    Negotiators resume talks on Jan. 11 and must settle on a resolution for the new council soon after to have it in place by March, when the commission reconvenes in Geneva. "The commission should hold that meeting with the understanding that it is going to be its last meeting," said Ricardo Arias, the ambassador of Panama, who is one of the leaders of the working group drawing up the new Human Rights Council.

    The current commission has 53 members serving staggered three-year terms and elected from closed slates put forward by regional groups. It meets each year in Geneva for six weeks.

    The proposed council would exist year-round, be free to act when rights violations are discovered, conduct periodic reviews of every country's human rights performance and meet more frequently throughout the year.

    Still in dispute are the council's size, the procedures for citing individual countries, how often the panel would meet, a possible two-term limit for membership and whether members would be chosen based on agreed criteria of human rights performance or by a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly as a way of weeding out notorious rights violators.

    The proposal envisions votes on each candidate for membership rather than on regional slates. As with most of the changes being proposed at the United Nations, the rights council has drawn suspicion from the poorer and less developed nations of the 191-member General Assembly. They say they fear the new council may be yet another way for wealthier and more powerful nations to intrude in their affairs.

    Abdallah Baali, the ambassador of Algeria, said the main concern of objecting nations was "whether or not this council will impose both its measures and its views on a member state or will it seek their cooperation in order to improve their human rights records. " He said Algeria supported the proposed council.

    Diplomats at the United Nations singled out Egypt and Pakistan as countries that were leading the resistance to the proposed council.

    In introducing his recommendation for a new council in March, Mr. Annan cited the flaws in the current commission and the consequences for the United Nations of not reforming it. The commission had been undermined, he argued, by allowing participation of countries whose purpose was "not to strengthen human rights but to protect themselves against criticism or to criticize others."

    "As a result," he said, "a credibility deficit has developed, which casts a shadow on the reputation of the United Nations system as a whole."

    Mr. Roth of Human Rights Watch was blunter. "If the governments of the world cannot get together on human rights at the U.N., then it is a shameful act for the entire organization," he said.

    Peggy Hicks, the global advocacy director of Human Rights Watch, said that having rights abusers on the panel had a broadly debilitating effect on its work. "In the case of Sudan, the Sudanese government's presence on the commission meant that African states and others watered down language that human rights groups around the world thought appropriate to address crimes against humanity," she said.

    She said Zimbabwe's presence on the commission was an important factor in the panel's decision to take no action this year against the government of Robert Mugabe despite widespread accusations of abuse against Zimbabwe's own citizens.

    "In general," Ms. Hicks said, "what the presence of abusive countries on the commission means is that much of its energy is taken up with the blocking actions and delaying tactics that end up weakening action on human rights abuses worldwide. Yes, they delay action on their own internal situations, but they have a vested interest in seeing that the overall ability is as weak as possible."

    Kristen Silverberg, assistant secretary of state for international organizations, said the United States' priorities were "to improve the membership so that countries like Zimbabwe and Sudan were not eligible" and "to make sure the council can act."

    "We don't need more theatrics and discussion in Geneva," she said. "We need concerted action."

    "Some countries have argued that it's better for the council to stay away from anything that would embarrass a country, but we think the council needs to be prepared to take action in serious cases like Darfur and Burma," she said in an interview, referring to the country that now calls itself Myanmar.

    Mr. Arias said that "a lot of emphasis has been placed on the matter of cooperation to improve human rights, not just passing resolutions against a country which is in violation but on making an effort to increase the capacity to improve human rights in the long term."

    Mr. Roth said the United States and the European Union were strong supporters of the proposed council but needed to become more aggressive in building the case for it with reluctant countries.

    Ms. Silverberg said that she and the State Department's adviser on United Nations reform, Ambassador Sharin Tahir-Kheli, had pressed the case for the human rights council and management reform on trips to capitals in Latin America and South Asia and that she was going to the Middle East for the same purpose next month. She noted that Ms. Tahir-Kheli had visited Cairo and Islamabad, among other capitals.

    Prince Zeid Raad al-Hussein, the ambassador of Jordan, said that while his country supported the proposed council, it was concerned that condemning the current commission outright would be to ignore that it had sometimes proved effective.

    "What we are concerned about is about 20 percent of its work, while the rest seems to be working quite well," said the prince, a former United Nations peacekeeper in Bosnia. "Look at all the rapporteurs in the field putting together their reports, often with good cooperation with governments. This must be encouraged and continued."

    This year the commission established a special rapporteur, or investigator, on human rights and counterterrorism that drew the support of 80 United Nations members, including Russia and the United States. It also passed a resolution establishing a human rights monitoring operation in Nepal where both the government and Maoist insurgents have been accused of abuses.

    In November, Mr. Arias and the other leader of the working group, Dumisani Kumalo, the South African ambassador, accompanied Jan Eliasson, the Swedish diplomat who is the General Assembly president, to Geneva on a mission to calm concerns there over plans for the council.

    "There was a good deal of suspicion, and it's important that you don't develop an antagonistic relationship between Geneva and New York," Mr. Eliasson said in a telephone interview from Stockholm.

    "It was important to pick up the best practices and good things the Human Rights Commission has been doing," he said, "and many people in Geneva felt that aspect was being disregarded."

  3. #18
    Senior Contributor BenRoethig's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Jan 04
    Location
    Dubuque, Iowa, United States
    Posts
    1,458
    The UN should be a meeting hall with no legal authority so real diplomacy can go on. Look, diplomacy in the real world is based on leverage, not the goodness of everyone's hearts. With the UN literally letting regimes get away with mass murder, there is no leverage so there is no diplomacy. I don't think Kosovo or the most recent Iraq war would have happened if the organization didn't exist.
    F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters.

  4. #19
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    30 Oct 04
    Location
    New Brunswick, NJ
    Posts
    1,141
    Quote Originally Posted by BenRoethig
    The UN should be a meeting hall with no legal authority so real diplomacy can go on. Look, diplomacy in the real world is based on leverage, not the goodness of everyone's hearts. With the UN literally letting regimes get away with mass murder, there is no leverage so there is no diplomacy.
    I agree that the diplomatic arm of the UN is almost powerless.

    Quote Originally Posted by BenRoethig
    I don't think Kosovo or the most recent Iraq war would have happened if the organization didn't exist.
    I don't understand this. Please explain why those those two conflicts would not have happened if the UN did not exist.

  5. #20
    Senior Contributor BenRoethig's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Jan 04
    Location
    Dubuque, Iowa, United States
    Posts
    1,458
    Sometimes the threat of action gives enough leverage where a nation like Iraq takes negotiations seriously. When you add foreign business interests and the appeasement crowd, who both consider military action as a non-starter, the diplomatic situation deteriorates very quickly. With Iraq, we were backed into a corner where we either had to appease to go to war.
    F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters.

  6. #21
    Regular
    Join Date
    03 Jan 06
    Posts
    58

    world needs the UN

    i agree That the Un needs to clean up its corruption problems. closing it down is not the solution. if there was no UN, powerful nations like england, US, france, japan etc..etc.. would be able to use 100% of their enormous economic and military power to set agendas for the rest of this globe. in the last 50 years,because of the UN,nations in Asia,africa, south america have been able to get a public forum in which their issues and concerns can be addressed to the rest of the world. I firmly believe that if there was such a thing as a United nations organization during the 18th or 19th century,european nations like england or france would not have colonized nations in asia and africa. Since there is only one global superpower in the world today(US), it is absolutely important to have an organization like the UN to keep an eye on this so called superpower.

  7. #22
    Global Moderator
    Dirty Kiwi
    Parihaka's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Wellington, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    18,071
    A little bit of study in this time of UN bashing is an interesting exercise too.

    Peace breaks out with some help from the UN

    January 12, 2006
    Despite the grim exceptions of Iraq and Afghanistan, war is waning
    across the world, writes Andrew Mack.
    Seen through the eyes of the media, the world appears an ever more dangerous place. Iraq is sliding towards civil war, the slaughter in Darfur appears unending, violent insurgencies are brewing in Thailand and a dozen other countries, and terrorism has struck again in Bali. It is not surprising that most people believe global violence is increasing.
    However, most people, including many leading policymakers and scholars, are wrong. The reality is that, since the end of the Cold War, armed conflict and nearly all other forms of political violence have decreased. The world is far more peaceful than it was.
    Why has this change attracted so little attention? In part, because the global media give far more coverage to wars that start than to those that end quietly, but also because no international agency collects global or regional data on any form of political violence.
    The Human Security Report, an independent study funded by five countries and published by Oxford University Press last October, draws on a wide range of little-publicised scholarly data, plus specially commissioned research to present a portrait of global security that is sharply at odds with conventional wisdom. The report reveals that after five decades of inexorable increase, the number of armed conflicts started to fall worldwide in the early 1990s. The decline has continued.
    By 2003, there were 40 per cent fewer conflicts than in 1992. The deadliest conflicts - those with 1000 or more battle deaths - fell by 80 per cent. The number of genocides and other mass slaughters of civilians also dropped by 80 per cent, while core human rights abuses have declined in five out of six regions of the developing world since the mid-1990s.
    International terrorism is the only type of political violence that has increased. Although the death toll has jumped sharply over the past three years, terrorists kill only a fraction of the number who die in wars.
    What accounts for the extraordinary and counter-intuitive improvement in global security over the past dozen years? The end of the Cold War, which had driven at least a third of all conflicts since World War II, appears to have been the single most critical factor.
    In the late 1980s, Washington and Moscow stopped fuelling "proxy wars" in the developing world, and the United Nations was liberated to play the global security role its founders intended. Freed from the paralysing stasis of Cold War geopolitics, the Security Council initiated an unprecedented, though sometimes inchoate, explosion of international activism designed to stop ongoing wars and prevent new ones.
    Other international agencies, donor governments and non-government organisations also played a critical role, but it was the United Nations that took the lead, pushing a range of conflict-prevention and peace-building initiatives on a scale never before attempted.
    The number of UN peacekeeping operations and missions to prevent and stop wars has increased by more than 400 per cent since the end of the Cold War. As this increase in international activism grew in scope and intensity through the 1990s, the number of crises, wars and genocides declined.
    There have been some horrific and much-publicised failures, of course - the failures to stop genocide in Rwanda, Srebrenica and Darfur being the most egregious. But the quiet successes - in Namibia, El Salvador, Mozambique, Eastern Slovenia, East Timor and elsewhere - went largely unheralded, as did the fact that the United Nations' expertise in handling difficult missions has grown dramatically.
    A major study by Rand Corporation published last year found that UN peace-building operations had a two-thirds success rate. They were also surprisingly cost-effective.
    In fact, the United Nations spends less running 17 peace operations around the world for an entire year than the United States spends in Iraq in a single month. What the United Nations calls "peacemaking" - using diplomacy to end wars - has been even more successful. About half of all the peace agreements negotiated between 1946 and 2003 have been signed since the end of the Cold War.
    With the Security Council often reluctant to act - the abject failure to stop the Rwandan genocide remains a key example - and with too many missions having been denied adequate resources, appropriate mandates or properly trained personnel, these successes are all the more remarkable.
    After the recent global summit at the United Nations, many critics wrote the UN off as an institution so deeply flawed that it was beyond salvation.
    The analysis and the carefully collated data in the Human Security Report reveal something very different: an organisation that, despite its failures and creaking bureaucracy, has played a critical role in improving global security.
    Former ANU professor Andrew Mack directs the Human Security Centre at the University of British Columbia. He was director of the strategic planning unit in the executive office of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan between 1998 and 2001.
    Here's a link to the Human Security Report

  8. #23
    Ray
    Ray is offline
    Military Professional Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Aug 03
    Posts
    19,624
    The amount of good work also done by the UN is never publicised.

    Ever since the UN refused to toe the US line, there has been a whole lot of UN bashing and that too very shrill.

    Corruption is everywhere. The US Senators shenangians and the history of the US Congress and the fat cats is legend.

    Is the UN a terriffic organisation and without blemish? Never.

    But then, which organisation or country is?


    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

    HAKUNA MATATA

  9. #24
    Lord High Hullabalooster Senior Contributor dalem's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 04
    Location
    Columbia Heights, MN
    Posts
    13,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Ray
    The amount of good work also done by the UN is never publicised.

    Ever since the UN refused to toe the US line, there has been a whole lot of UN bashing and that too very shrill.

    Corruption is everywhere. The US Senators shenangians and the history of the US Congress and the fat cats is legend.

    Is the UN a terriffic organisation and without blemish? Never.

    But then, which organisation or country is?
    The UN was loathed by many long before the current U.S. administration.

    -dale

  10. #25
    Banned Defense Professional Bluesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 04
    Location
    Misawa Airbase, Japan
    Posts
    8,578
    Quote Originally Posted by mich
    i agree That the Un needs to clean up its corruption problems. closing it down is not the solution. if there was no UN, powerful nations like england, US, france, japan etc..etc.. would be able to use 100% of their enormous economic and military power to set agendas for the rest of this globe. in the last 50 years,because of the UN,nations in Asia,africa, south america have been able to get a public forum in which their issues and concerns can be addressed to the rest of the world. I firmly believe that if there was such a thing as a United nations organization during the 18th or 19th century,european nations like england or france would not have colonized nations in asia and africa. Since there is only one global superpower in the world today(US), it is absolutely important to have an organization like the UN to keep an eye on this so called superpower.
    Are you for real? I mean, do you REALLY think like this?

    I'm not sure where to start in on this raw meat, but let's just take your reference to 'france' [sic] as a powerful nation. It ain't, not in any category. It wasn't able to stop the US in Iraq, despite its all-out effort (and now we all know WHY they wanted to stop it, and it has to do with exactly what this thread is about: UN CORRUPTION, France's part in same). It also has no ability to prevent Iran from aquiring nuclear weapons; it has no ability to influence many nations to ANYthing, and thang God for that.

    When one looks up 'perfidy' in the dictionary, it says "See 'France'".

    As for the UN being around to restrain the US, you're correct, but not in the way you mean, and it certainly isn't a GOOD thing, no matter what you may believe. This world would function so much better without a UN, and I am all in favor of our immediate withdrawal from it. All of those downtrodden and victimized Asian, African and South American countries whose causes you champion against the rapacious Americans, Europeans and Japanese are run by the very worst dictators and thugs in the world, and THEY are the very governments that use the UN to keep their boots on their people's necks, while holding decency and progress - in the form of the 'powerful' countries that you so fear - at bay.

    You have it exactly backwards - the UN serves to enslave most of the world that desperately needs what the UN serves to destroy - LIBERTY from their oppressors.

    And you believe that the world needs more UN, and less US?

    Idiot.

  11. #26
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    26,104
    Bad Cop, Good Cop.

    How many countries are now running to the UN trying to avoid being stampede by the US?
    Chimo

  12. #27
    Ray
    Ray is offline
    Military Professional Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Aug 03
    Posts
    19,624
    With the way the Iran crisis is moving and the world acting totally impotent, I reckon all have given up their ghosts!

    Iran has threatened to hike oil prices. It is the second highest oil exporter. It has shaken the world. No country can weather any more price hikes.

    Every single country, superpower, not so superpower, deluding superpower, third world pretenders, everyone has simple become impotent.

    The only way to get Iran is by a nuclear attack because troops are at a premium and none appear to be ready, at least for now, to put their troops in the kitty.

    But will any country dare to use their nukes?

    The crisis has been allowed to run its mile and we have reached this ridiculous point.


    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

    HAKUNA MATATA

  13. #28
    Ray
    Ray is offline
    Military Professional Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Aug 03
    Posts
    19,624
    Quote Originally Posted by dalem
    The UN was loathed by many long before the current U.S. administration.

    -dale
    Not really.

    If it were so, then the US would have not taken up the Iraq issue with the UN.

    The US would have gone the way it did, without even asking the UN.

    One doesn't ask for permission of someone who one loathes!




    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

    HAKUNA MATATA

  14. #29
    Lord High Hullabalooster Senior Contributor dalem's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 04
    Location
    Columbia Heights, MN
    Posts
    13,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Ray
    Not really.

    If it were so, then the US would have not taken up the Iraq issue with the UN.

    The US would have gone the way it did, without even asking the UN.

    One doesn't ask for permission of someone who one loathes!


    Ray, politically that is very niaive. It was in the best interests of the U.S. and Iraq to get the stamp of approval from the UN. But when the stamp was withheld, we did it anyway.

    -dale

  15. #30
    Ray
    Ray is offline
    Military Professional Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Aug 03
    Posts
    19,624
    Of course.

    International politics is all about playing politics. So, is the UN doing the same as the US. What is the difference? All acting "cute" for self interest!

    Even Iran. Again all are acting cute to save their bacon.

    Therefore, I wonder how the UN is useless!

    The League of Nations was given the facade as a panacea of whatever ails the world and so was the UN. But the instruments to ensure so was kept in the hands of the "powers that be"! The security council. The General Assembly is a toothless tiger to give the sheen of that holy cow - democracy!

    Therefore, the UN is nothing better than being a ventroliquists dummy! And inspite of this serious infirmity, it has done some remarkable work.

    Since you are from the first world, you cannot appreciate the same. Others do.

    But for the UN, Africa would have been a holier mess than she is already. I hope you are aware how the richest nation the Belgian Congo as it were known then has been reduced to a ridiculous mockery and my whom? Not the UN. Whatever be the little semblance of law and order or even governance, it is all thanks to the UN.

    The good work done by the humanitarian agencies of the UN requires no elaboration.

    Therefore, loathing is not a true representation of the work of the UN.

    It is a moot point if it were in the best interest of Iraq since the Iraqi govt then did not show that inclination.

    The US alone thought that it was in the interest of Iraq. I am sure the US is not the world's conscience keeper, or is it?

    Ask the Pakistanis who are taking out rallies showing indignation against the shooting of 18 by the US (its a different matter that the US wanted to taken on the AQ No 2 but that bloke skipped it). They don't think the US has any right to go shooting in their territory or do you think the US has the right to do exactly what it wants, wherever it wants, and without asking the country where it is going to act, if the US can act there?

    The Pak govt was not aware if one goes by what the Pak Info Minister has said.
    Last edited by Ray; 16 Jan 06, at 18:55.


    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

    HAKUNA MATATA

Page 2 of 18 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. F16 - Most Useless Modern Plane?
    By PubFather in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 151
    Last Post: 26 Jun 06,, 11:10
  2. Kashmir moot useless: Mirwaiz
    By Ray in forum International Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 27 May 06,, 20:30
  3. Useless Facts
    By THL in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 20 Mar 06,, 18:54
  4. OIC wants permanent UNSC seat
    By troung in forum International Politics
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 18 Jul 05,, 22:55
  5. Adjustment Lending useless concept
    By Adjustment in forum International Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 26 Feb 05,, 14:45

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •