Political Crossfire Forums

[SpartanPhalanx]

I think the UN is in dire need of reform, especially where the Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council are concerned.
There are nations on the Security Council who have been abusing the veto for decades....time to either reform the veto or abolish it altogether?

Your thoughts?

[acerbus80]

It's called the good ol' boy network now, not the UN. Then UN, in practice, was never really about world peace and unity, but about nationalistic political gains. If you belong to the UN, you can't do too much wrong. Even if you defy them and break the rules. Apparently they don't do anything about it, unless you are a third world country, then your ass is grass, and they are the lawnmower. But if the majority of the UN agrees with you, you are in like flint.

[maxtsu]

I agree that the UN security council is in dire need of an overhaul.
First of all a reshuffling of seats, new ones added to reflect the current military powers.
India and Pakistan should be given seats as they have nukes.
UK & France amalgameted to a EU seat (possibly, not sure on this one).
Veto should be ditched.

But try suggest it to any of the current members. No chance!

[loyalist]

The UN is useul, but doomed in my opinion. Really, it can be seen with the last General Assembly. Prime Minister Martin received little appluase for his logical, rational and well-thought out speech on the need to intervene in the case of genocide, yet random despot leaders who ranted away about George Bush being "evil" (simply displacing their own terrible human-rights records) recieved huge rouses from the crowd.
Sure, it would be great if the Security Council would self-reform, but that's not going to happen. Maybe an act of the General Assembly? Without letting tyrannies into the Secuity Council, that isn't very likely. Personnally, I think some nations need to be kicked out of the UN in order for it to do more good.

[johnlocke]

I think the UN Security Council would be fine if they would get off their high horse and do something for once. Whenever problems in the world have been brought up, all the UN has ever done is talk, talk, talk. There's no action. From 1994 in Rwanda to Nuclear Inspectors in Iraq and North Korea to Darfur today, the UN has sat back and done nothing, despite the gross infringements and atrocities that occur in the world.

[SpartanPhalanx]

Quote: John Locke wrote:-

I think the UN Security Council would be fine if they would get off their high horse and do something for once. Whenever problems in the world have been brought up, all the UN has ever done is talk, talk, talk. There's no action. From 1994 in Rwanda to Nuclear Inspectors in Iraq and North Korea to Darfur today, the UN has sat back and done nothing, despite the gross infringements and atrocities that occur in the world.


Um ..... that's not entirely true.....

Current UN Peacekeeping operations:
Region/Country Began
AFRICA
Western Sahara April 1991
Sierra Leone Oct. 1999
Democratic Republic
of the Congo Nov. 1999
Ethiopia and Eritrea July 2000
Côte d'Ivoire May 2003
Liberia Oct. 2003
Burundi May 2004
AMERICA
Haiti April 2004
ASIA
India/Pakistan Jan. 1949
East Timor May 2002
EUROPE
Cyprus March 1964
Georgia Aug. 1993
Kosovo June 1999
MIDDLE EAST
Middle East May 1948
Golan Heights June 1974
Lebanon March 1978

Completed UN Peacekeeping Operations
Region/Country Duration
AFRICA
Congo July 1960–June 1964
Angola Dec. 1988–May 1991
Namibia April 1989–March 1990
Angola May 1991–Feb. 1995
Somalia April 1992–March 1993
Mozambique Dec. 1992–Dec. 1994
Somalia March 1993–March 1995
Rwanda/Uganda June 1993–Sept. 1994
Liberia Sept. 1993–Sept. 1997
Rwanda Oct. 1993–March 1996
Chad/Libya May–June 1994
Angola Feb. 1995–June 1997
Angola June 1997–Feb. 1999
Sierra Leone July 1998–Oct. 1999
Central African Republic April 1998–Feb. 2000
MIDEAST
Middle East—1st UN
Emergency Force Nov. 1956–June 1967
Lebanon June–Dec. 1958
Yemen July 1963–Sept. 1964
Middle East—2nd UN
Emergency Force Oct. 1973–July 1979
Iran/Iraq Aug. 1988–Feb. 1991
Iraq/Kuwait April 1991–Oct. 2003
AMERICAS
Dominican Republic May 1965–Oct. 1966
Central America
Observer Group Nov. 1989–Jan. 1992
El Salvador July 1991–April 1995
Haiti Sept. 1993–June 1996
Haiti July 1996–July 1997
Guatemala Jan.–May 1997
Haiti Aug.–Nov. 1997
Haiti Dec. 1997–March 2000
ASIA
West New Guinea Oct. 1962–April 1963
India/Pakistan Sept. 1965–March 1966
Afghanistan/Pakistan May 1988–March 1990
Cambodia Oct. 1991–March 1992
Cambodia March 1992–Sept. 1993
Tajikistan Dec. 1994–May 2000
East Timor Oct. 1999–May 2002
EUROPE
Former Yugoslavia Feb. 1992–March 1995
Croatia March 1995–Jan. 1996
Former Yugoslavia
Rep. of Macedonia March 1995–Feb. 1999
Bosnia & Herzegovina Dec. 1995–Dec. 2002
Croatia Jan. 1996–Jan. 1998
Prevlaka Peninsula Feb. 1996–Dec. 2002
Croatia Jan. 1998–Oct. 1998

Source: United Nations Dept. of Public Information.

[johnlocke]

I guess the best example I can list is when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. The UN Security Council voted and action was not able to be taken. Why? Becuase the Soviet Union had a veto and vetoed action because they were the aggressors.

[Secondary Oak]

johnlocke wrote: I guess the best example I can list is when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. The UN Security Council voted and action was not able to be taken. Why? Becuase the Soviet Union had a veto and vetoed action because they were the aggressors.
Unless my memory fails me, a far worse example is the Rwandan genocide; Rwanda itself (perpetrator, at the time) was on the security council during the events, and so was France which was involved.

[thundertaker]

If they wanted to restore the UN's moral authority, they would ban non-democratic countries from having a seat on any of the UN comitees.
Sadly, this is impracticable for the time being.....

[SpartanPhalanx]

johnlocke wrote: I guess the best example I can list is when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. The UN Security Council voted and action was not able to be taken. Why? Becuase the Soviet Union had a veto and vetoed action because they were the aggressors.

Nope. I'd be more inclined to think it had something to do with the Soviet Union being the second dominant superpower in the world at that time. Care to provide an example where ANY UNSC resolution was actually passed against the U.S let alone be enforced ?

According to the UNSC, the U.S invasion of Iraq was illegal, yet nobody would DARE submit a resolution for enforcement.... International law doesn't differentiate between Soviet or American aggression. They were both launched without due cause.

We can also look at America's proxy in the M.East Israel and how she has enjoyed international immunity for decades due to American veto power.

Hence the reason for starting this thread..The UN mandate for fairness and justice as envisioned post WWII boils down to the veto and it's power where the superpower(s) are/were concerned.

Doesn't seem to be working very well does it?

[battleax86]

SpartanPhalanx wrote: According to the UNSC, the U.S invasion of Iraq was illegal, yet nobody would DARE submit a resolution for enforcement....
Really? Under what UNSC resolution was it illegal? :?

[johnlocke]

Here's one example UNSC Resolution 1441 said there will be "severe consequences" if 1441 was violated. Was it violated? Yes. Were more opportunities given to cooperate? Yes. Did Hussein cooperate? No. Did the UN do anything about it? No. The UN simply calls US action illegal because its too idoitic to say "Oops we should have done something about Hussein years ago!"

[Nico]

SpartanPhalanx wrote: I think the UN is in dire need of reform, especially where the Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council are concerned.
There are nations on the Security Council who have been abusing the veto for decades....time to either reform the veto or abolish it altogether?

Your thoughts?

I totally agree, but none of the big boys would relinquish that power, or obey a dictate that was passed without their approval.

[Nico]

Secondary Oak wrote: johnlocke wrote: I guess the best example I can list is when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. The UN Security Council voted and action was not able to be taken. Why? Becuase the Soviet Union had a veto and vetoed action because they were the aggressors.
Unless my memory fails me, a far worse example is the Rwandan genocide; Rwanda itself (perpetrator, at the time) was on the security council during the events, and so was France which was involved.

True France is on the security council but the US played a much larger role in the affair;

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/rwanda/albrite.htm

Ms. Albright was the U.S. ambassador to the UN at the time of the genocide and can provide key information about high-level decisions that led the U.S. to call on the UN Security Council to dramatically reduce the number of UN peacekeepers in Rwanda shortly after the killing began in earnest in April. Because she represented the United States on the Security Council, she can also shed light on the degree to which the UN's peacekeeping department in New York kept that body informed about the deteriorating security situation in Rwanda in the months before the genocide.

From article.

[johnlocke]

Kofi Annan was the head of the UN Peacekeeping Office in 1994. There was already a UN commander, Romeo Dallaire, on the ground. Dallaire asked Anna for 2500 more troops and said with them he could stop the genocide, Annan sent a fax to Dallaire specifically telling him to take no action. 800,000 died shortly thereafter. Dallaire went into depression soon after and is now a writer who writes against the UN. If that's not firsthand experience nothing is.

[Nico]

johnlocke wrote: Kofi Annan was the head of the UN Peacekeeping Office in 1994. There was already a UN commander, Romeo Dallaire, on the ground. Dallaire asked Anna for 2500 more troops and said with them he could stop the genocide, Annan sent a fax to Dallaire specifically telling him to take no action. 800,000 died shortly thereafter. Dallaire went into depression soon after and is now a writer who writes against the UN. If that's not firsthand experience nothing is.

That is one way of telling the story, but an examination of events shows that the US, as part of the security Council, was unwilling to back an intervention.
Boutros Ghali got to carry the can, as head spokesman. The Annan you hate so much, was the US' nomination to replace him , after the fact. There was the common view that he was more US friendly and pliable.

Madeleine Albright has been defending her part in the incident, to a much greater degree than all other players, ever since.

[johnlocke]

Anaximander wrote: That is one way of telling the story, but an examination of events shows that the US, as part of the security Council, was unwilling to back an intervention.
Boutros Ghali got to carry the can, as head spokesman. The Annan you hate so much, was the US' nomination to replace him , after the fact. There was the common view that he was more US friendly and pliable.

Madeleine Albright has been defending her part in the incident, to a much greater degree than all other players, ever since.


Annan is seemingly more pliable. The problem is he is pliable in the wrong direction. The same Madeline Albright you refer to had to go to Annan and say that America and others felt Slobodan Milosevic had to be removed in Yugoslavia in 1998. Annan had insisted that diplomacy was the best course of action (Like Always). I'm not a fan of Clinton or his administration but in this case, he had the right idea.

[Nico]

johnlocke wrote: Anaximander wrote: That is one way of telling the story, but an examination of events shows that the US, as part of the security Council, was unwilling to back an intervention.
Boutros Ghali got to carry the can, as head spokesman. The Annan you hate so much, was the US' nomination to replace him , after the fact. There was the common view that he was more US friendly and pliable.

Madeleine Albright has been defending her part in the incident, to a much greater degree than all other players, ever since.


Annan is seemingly more pliable. The problem is he is pliable in the wrong direction. The same Madeline Albright you refer to had to go to Annan and say that America and others felt Slobodan Milosevic had to be removed in Yugoslavia in 1998. Annan had insisted that diplomacy was the best course of action (Like Always). I'm not a fan of Clinton or his administration but in this case, he had the right idea.

All of the years the UN has been peacekeeping have been a mixed story. In my opinion the 90's were an unmitigated disaster of beauracracy. But don't think for one second that the US was somehow not a player in a lot of that [as well as all the other big countries]. Part of the reason the early Bosnian debacle was hamstrung was due to the ancient serbian Russian alliances and the unwillingness of the US to assist the Bosnian muslims IMO. France, Germany and other countries involved also muddied the water. The UN has in the past been held hostage by a number of countries veto's but examination of who has done the most to de-fang the UN with this process shows one nation in particular.


It is popular for Americans to hate the UN now, but it is simply for the same reason that France is unpopular with Americans; they just don't agree with some of your current actions.

That means that as ammunition the past gets trawled for wrongdoings. The only problem with that is that when you look, you also have to see yourself, along with the others.


Personally, I would like to see the UN become an umbrella for NGO's. Then we can let them continue with the fine work that never gets talked about on this forum, and let the militaries of the world go back to punching for their respective 'freedoms' and political ideologies. Actually the UN looks pretty good when you think hard enough about the latter scenario.
Still, some powers would never care about a UN ruling and just go on military conquests anyway.

[millijava]

Doing away with the veto is a no brainer. I however agree that it will never happen. Personaly I think either the role of the UN should be radically changed to more of a red cross organisation or that the US should pull out of it entirely. The UN costs America a butt load and realizes us no benefits.

[Nico]

millijava wrote: Doing away with the veto is a no brainer. I however agree that it will never happen. Personaly I think either the role of the UN should be radically changed to more of a red cross organisation or that the US should pull out of it entirely. The UN costs America a butt load and realizes us no benefits.

What benefits are you looking for? It is not a moral stamp for military adventures. Its not a stockmarket, or a high interest bank account. It is a best-fit organisation that tries to take the edge off international conflict and poverty, and even then it is up against its own members. If the most powerful nations are only paying lip-service to its 'authority' anyway, then it is a thankless job being in the UN's employ.
If it is to have any credibility, then every member has to agree to some basic rules of membership. These don't have to include issues of self sovereignty, but should be respectful of the sovereignty of others.