Political Crossfire Forums

[emmorris]

Chris29 wrote: emmorris wrote: Canada_rocks wrote: ebolish the UN..are you joking. The UN is needed to protect countires that dont spend a mega-ba-trillion dollars on defence...
I say reform it, If I see another rwanda happen again I'll barf.

In that case you shouldn't look at Sudan. And the UN's failure to call the situation a genocide. I guess millions of displaced people and hundreds of thousands dead isn't important to the UN.

the UN is actually doing something in there, they have called the situation the worst humanitarian crisis and they are trying people for war crimes and crimes against humanity (although I am afraid that the Congo is starting to take back the spot of the worst humanitarian crisis, but thats for another topic). Even the US who are opposed to the ICC have agreed to allow individuals to be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity. As for wether or not the situation is genocide, well under the current internationally agreed upon definition, the situation is not genocide, there simply is no other way to put it. Also the decision as to wether the situation was or wasn't genocide did not come from the UN secretariat but rather from a team of international lawyers to determine what the situation really is. Also the UN has managed to accumulate 4.5 billion dollars of extra aid to go to the Sudan.

So as you can see the UN is doing far from nothing.

Once the ICC actually convicts some of the real criminals, I might be impressed. The situation in the Sudan has been going on for years, and the UN has done nothing. Who is going to make sure the aid is given to the right people? Who is going to stop Arab militia from killing entire villages?

The UN released a statement saying they found no evidence of genocide. At the very least they can have the courage to stand by their finding and not blame it on a group of international lawyers. Exactly how many people have to die before the UN finds genocide. But then again, given the UN's success with helping these situations, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

[Canada_Rocks]

I think you are preaching to the chior here. emorris

I think we all believe it needs a good overhaul

[emmorris]

Canada_rocks wrote: I think you are preaching to the chior here. emorris

I think we all believe it needs a good overhaul

Reform sounds great. But how? The bigger question is not if the UN should reform, but can it reform?

[Chris29]

emmorris wrote: Once the ICC actually convicts some of the real criminals, I might be impressed. The situation in the Sudan has been going on for years, and the UN has done nothing. Who is going to make sure the aid is given to the right people? Who is going to stop Arab militia from killing entire villages?

The UN released a statement saying they found no evidence of genocide. At the very least they can have the courage to stand by their finding and not blame it on a group of international lawyers. Exactly how many people have to die before the UN finds genocide. But then again, given the UN's success with helping these situations, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

well the UN has sent one of the largest peacekeeping operations it has ever sent there, some 10 thousand troops so far, the UN has had numerous missions within the Sudan in the last decade and numerous work with the civil war that was previously going on (a seperate incident I must add). As for the UN not standing by the statement made by international lawyers, well I am not sure where that one came from but it is totally wrong. First off the team of lawyers was sent by the UN to determine of the situation was genocide or not, a measure mandatory if the situation is going to be sent to the Security Council. Second they have strongly supported the statement which is why the Security Council has sent numerous individuals to the ICC. It is important to note that the statement also states that while the situation in the Sudan is not technically genocide the situation is by no means any less severe and countless crimes against humanity are being committed there. The ICC has convicted people, including such names as Augusto Pinochet the former military dictator in Chile who ordered numerous killings but never committed any himself. The countries that have allocated the proposed aid have also stated that they want the UN to ensure its propoer arrival, much of the aid is going to the World Food Programme to provide refugees with food and water.

if you want to discuss the situation in darfur and wether or not it is genocide I would first suggest you take a look at the convention against genocide (the internationally agreed upon definition of genocide) because you cannot call a situation genocide unless the situation fits the definition.

[Chris29]

emmorris wrote: Canada_rocks wrote: I think you are preaching to the chior here. emorris

I think we all believe it needs a good overhaul

Reform sounds great. But how? The bigger question is not if the UN should reform, but can it reform?

well your whole argument about wether the UN "can" be reformed is a load of crap. As I pointed out there has been a recent surge of global altruism recently and democracies aree becoming the norm not the exception. Dictators are becoming increasingly rare and military dictators even more so. Globalization has led to many things and one of those is the increased influence on countries by the global community.

but if you are so convinced that the UN cannot even be reformed then please give us a thoughtful reason as to why

[emmorris]

Taken from the U.N's Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:

Quote: Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

* (a) Killing members of the group;
* (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
* (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
* (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
* (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Targeting villiages of non-Muslim, black Africans? Ait attacks by the Sudanese government on villages full of old men, women and children? How is it not a genocide?

Reform in the UN cannot be meaningful because the UN is primarily composed of countries that are either too corrupt to care or too busy with their own problems.

[Chris29]

emmorris wrote: Taken from the U.N's Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:

Quote: Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

* (a) Killing members of the group;
* (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
* (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
* (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
* (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Targeting villiages of non-Muslim, black Africans? Ait attacks by the Sudanese government on villages full of old men, women and children? How is it not a genocide?

Reform in the UN cannot be meaningful because the UN is primarily composed of countries that are either too corrupt to care or too busy with their own problems.

article 2 was the reason why they couldn't call the situation genocide, true the majority of individuals living in these villages are black non muslims but there are also muslims living within these villages who are also getting killed. There is no national, ethnic, racial or religious difference between the groups being killed and the murderers. What western media doesn't mention in the headlines is that these are attacks against rebel groups in the south which are supported by these villages.

the same situation occured in Rwanda regarding this definition however the UN was able to override the US's opposition to action by going to the International Judicial Court and convince them that while the two groups (the hutus and the tutsis) in conflict in Rwanda were essentially of the same ethnicity and race the two groups also considered themselves to be different ethnicities. Unfortunately the same situation doesn't apply here.

also reform can work because countries are proving that they are committed to solving these problems. Countries like Zimbabwe and Syria get more attention then other countries due to there very radical statements. This has led to the perception that you are presenting but if you actually look at the UN member states you will notice that the majority are democratic and the vast majority are working within there powers to bring about change.

[jehovahs_waitress]

This thread is exactly like the UN, arguing over punctuation while the innocent die.

[Chris29]

jehovahs_waitress wrote: This thread is exactly like the UN, arguing over punctuation while the innocent die.

ya except for the fact that its not punctuation its international law and also except for the fact that the UN is doing lots to save people, particularly in the Sudan:

- 10 000 peacekeepers
- 4.5 billion dollars in aid, mostly in the form of food aid
- the sending of high level individuals to the ICC
- heading the co-operation with other groups and IGO's such as the African Union, the European Union and Oxfam

[jehovahs_waitress]

Too little, too late.

[Chris29]

jehovahs_waitress wrote: Too little, too late.

have you even bothered to read any of the previous posts, the UN unlike any other organization or country has been invovled in the Sudan for the past two decades, involved with both the civil war and the humanitarian crisis in the Darfur.

but good one line respose, way to debate the topic :roll:

[Canada_Rocks]

Chris29 wrote: jehovahs_waitress wrote: Too little, too late.

have you even bothered to read any of the previous posts, the UN unlike any other organization or country has been invovled in the Sudan for the past two decades, involved with both the civil war and the humanitarian crisis in the Darfur.

but good one line respose, way to debate the topic :roll:

Thats true, the UN isnt like the Imperial Empire on Star Wars. It also does small things like Humanitarian aid etc. The soul purpose of the UN isnt to butt kick every nation it encounters.

[jehovahs_waitress]

The prime purpose of the UN, the reason it was established, is to prevent conflict through the collective will of its member states.
How do you think they have done with that?

[Tysic]

Canada_rocks wrote: ebolish the UN..are you joking. The UN is needed to protect countires that dont spend a mega-ba-trillion dollars on defence...
I say reform it, If I see another rwanda happen again I'll barf.

I lot of good the UN did in rwanda :roll:

[Chris29]

jehovahs_waitress wrote: The prime purpose of the UN, the reason it was established, is to prevent conflict through the collective will of its member states.
How do you think they have done with that?

well you cant exactly measure how good the UN is going because we can't figure out how many conflicts have been averted. But what is a fact is that we are in the most peaceful period in modern history, and that says something.

[Canada_Rocks]

Tysic wrote: Canada_rocks wrote: ebolish the UN..are you joking. The UN is needed to protect countires that dont spend a mega-ba-trillion dollars on defence...
I say reform it, If I see another rwanda happen again I'll barf.

I lot of good the UN did in rwanda :roll:

Yeah I know, thats why I stress reform. WHen I watched it on the news I was only 12, And I even asked my dad, isnt there a group like the UN to step in and keep peace...and I knew s**t about politics back then.

[Canada_Rocks]

Chris29 wrote: jehovahs_waitress wrote: The prime purpose of the UN, the reason it was established, is to prevent conflict through the collective will of its member states.
How do you think they have done with that?

well you cant exactly measure how good the UN is going because we can't figure out how many conflicts have been averted. But what is a fact is that we are in the most peaceful period in modern history, and that says something.

Thats true too.
We only really hear about conflects that get out of hand.
I wonder how many conflicts were averted without our knowing and without 1 shot being fired.

[jehovahs_waitress]

Quote: well you cant exactly measure how good the UN is going because we can't figure out how many conflicts have been averted. But what is a fact is that we are in the most peaceful period in modern history, and that says something
If you can't measure it, then why are you so gung-ho in favour?
Maybe you can't measure what has been averted, but you can most certainly measure what hasn't-and there are hundreds of examples where the UN has failed, and failed miserably.
Explain by what objective measure you determine that we are in the most peaceful period in world history, that is an absurd statement.

Our only true accomplishment related to war in the last century as a warlike species is that we have not turned the planet into molten glass depsite having had the capability for almost 60 years. That is an accomplishment, but the UN had little to do with that. By any other measure- it is a failure, and an ongoing one. Nations continue to act independently with impunity. International misbehaviour/ outright aggression is NEVER tempered by fear of what the UN will do, because 99.9% of the time all they do is talk. Talk is fine, but when action is required - the UN is not the place to look for help. Usuially most of the locals are dead if and when the UN gets there.

[Eton]

Tysic wrote: Canada_rocks wrote: ebolish the UN..are you joking. The UN is needed to protect countires that dont spend a mega-ba-trillion dollars on defence...
I say reform it, If I see another rwanda happen again I'll barf.

I lot of good the UN did in rwanda :roll:

The UN doesn't have an army so it can be excused for that, you guys however supposedly have the best army in the world, where were you?

[THEXRATED]

Few articles:



University scholars play prominent role in charting reforms for United Nations

Here is the link for the report:

Report of the Secretary-General's High-level Panel

The state of reforms:

U.S. rejects U.N. reform proposals on aid, debt

The title is somewhat misleading, it was not only the US that rejected some of the proposals. Even the US agreed on most issues.

I know you people don´t like polls, but here is one from 23 countries:

Poll shows backing for UN reform

The proposal to expand the UN Security Council to include new permanent members was supported by a majority in 22 of the 23 countries

These included majority backing in four of the current permanent members, the US (70%), Britain (74%), France (67%) and China (54%).

In all countries but one, more people favour than oppose the idea of giving the UN Security Council the power to override the veto of a permanent member.