Options
United Nations security council is a joke...
thankyougrandma
Posts: 1,182
UN security council is innefective.
So why does a country like France, or Russia, who both have the military capability to intervene and take a stand, are not just doing it under their own terms? I mean why can't French govt. just negociate with Lebanese govt. to help the 15,000 deployment in the south, not calling for anything else like a cease fire, but saying they'll shoot everyone who target them or the civillians they're trying to help, including Hezbollah and Israel troops? I mean now they must send someone to create a buffer zone, NOW. Then they'll have to negociate their peace terms and all that stuffs, but it can't go on like this forever... not even for another month...
So why does a country like France, or Russia, who both have the military capability to intervene and take a stand, are not just doing it under their own terms? I mean why can't French govt. just negociate with Lebanese govt. to help the 15,000 deployment in the south, not calling for anything else like a cease fire, but saying they'll shoot everyone who target them or the civillians they're trying to help, including Hezbollah and Israel troops? I mean now they must send someone to create a buffer zone, NOW. Then they'll have to negociate their peace terms and all that stuffs, but it can't go on like this forever... not even for another month...
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
i've used France as an example, but it could be any country, but it's like they're all using the security council as an excuse not to intervene, but it's CLEAR AND OBVIOUS, that this council is innefective. If they want to act, then act, don't wait for the UN security council, the USA did it in Iraq and no one has been judge so it's obviously legal to go on without the UN, so now until the UN reform itself, country must go on their own, or on their own coalition.
Canada is not in a military position to do it, and our stand on this crisis have made us lose all credibility on this conflict, so we're part of the problem and part of those who are saying "we think like the UN, we'll act like the UN say". I thought it was a good justification before, now i think it's lame due to the joke that the UN security council has become.
Note, i'm not talking about United Nations Human Rights commission, or United Nation international tribunal, it's the joke that has become the security council, that piss me off...
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
well we all know that the USA made a mistake into moving to the iraq and there
was no real reason but it has happend and see now it´s a desasster but this one is a bit diffrent if i remember the talkings right.
many of "you" say the UN is innefective because of corruptions and peacekeeping, what i believe is that the Security council just doesn't work, cause there's too much diplomacy, politics and obviously agendas involved, which should not happen, peace is the goal in all situation, not siding with an ally or taking popular decision.
One of my though about a reform, the security council member should probably be larger, include more country, have elected members, and follow a kind of majority rules (majority rules that would always need to respect the International Human Rights charter.) That would prevent situation like this one, where they're negociating while leaders on both side are calling for more blood spilling, it's hypocrites and as it's been said, immoral. If they want peace that much, some of these countries have the means to do it, they don't need the security council.
In fact it's not like Iraq, Iraq was not urgent, it could have wait and maybe if the USA would have wait, they would have get more allies in their invasions, and probably more success also, just an opinion.
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Yeah, let Washington rule the wolrd.
GO USA !! GO USA!! GO USA!!
(for my countrymen, the above was sarcasm tinged with irony)
If nobody is willing to act, then nobody should act like hypocrites calling for a solution and more meeting, stop that diplomacy that is just for public opinions, just stay at home and watch the news.
Btw i don't think they'd need 15,000 french troops, Lebanese would need logistical and arming help, plus a coalition could be set up, but they're probably are all just lying about their real "peace" intentions. Just like Africa is being left over, hypocrites leaders that we currently have.
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
I'll just copy paste my reply to the other post
"In fact it's not like Iraq, Iraq was not urgent, it could have wait and maybe if the USA would have wait, they would have get more allies in their invasions, and probably more success also."
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Actually yes, the current UN security council is quite ineffective. The thing is, IMO and that of many scholars with much more knowledge than me, that such council still works under a Cold War framework, which -as we all know- no longer exists, so it becomes outdated when trying to take decisions and pass resolutions in the new global context. Obviously the 5 permanent members with veto power will refuse to give it away. However, as Kemal Dervis proposes -he's the current UNDP's Administrator and has been UE Parliament member and Turkey's ministry of economics- the Security Council could be redesigned in a way wich would include countries that are relevant in the current international arena (like India, Japan, Germany, Brasil, etc) and without taking away veto powers to the 5 members, would prevent decisions/resolutions to be blocked. I find Dervis' proposal for reforming UN Security Council very bright and well thought-out. For those interested in reading, here's the link:
http://www.cgdev.org/doc/books/better_globalization/chapter3.pdf
About France trying to reach an agreement at the council, I believe it won't take a month (or perhaps I hope). In my opinion they went to the UN in order to legitimize (is this a word??) their proposal.
About the United Nations (a little off topic), but it is important people know that the Security Council and the General Assembly are just a tiny part of the whole UN System. There are many organizations belonging to such system, like UNDP, FAO, UNICEF, WHO, UNESCO, ILO that actually carry out many important duties in most developing counries.
Peace from Argentina
Caterina
thanks for the link, UN security council must be reform, without a doubt.
I've used France as an example to prevent the "french are also doing nothing" answer that is always coming back to me, but it's just one country, and the one i agree the most with currently.
Absolutly, it's important to make a distinction between all these UN groups and the security council, i correct myself in another post but should have mention that in the first post of the thread...
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
but this is urgent right....and i think it´s good if the un send peacetrubbs into this region or not?...it´s so difficult ...
I'm sorry if you thought it was personal.
I was talking in general, because on many ocasions I read "the UN is a joke" or "the UN should be dismantled", you know stuff like that, and most of the time these people are really referring to the Security Council and/or the General Assembly...the bulk of UN's job is done on a daily basis outside both organisms...
Right. China and Russia can't even agree on what day it is most of the time, so I'm not sure how effective they'll be. But at least they have the support of powerhouse countries like Kyrgyzstan.
yes this is urgent, and it is right to send troops there since it is what BOTH side want, but they just negociate and negociate and negociate, that's why i think the UN security council is innefective, it's obvious that a resolution is needed, an urgent one, and one that is for peace. They probably negociate the punctuation of the document, and the choice of words like "lasting peace" over "immediate cease fire" or this kind of debate, peoples are dying...
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Blinkered, stereotyped, il informed. Well done. Keep up the good work, il be here all day for re-runs!!
And Kyrgyzstan, yeah, havent they got like more Gas and Oil than the US has ever had, or something? ISnt that where we got kicked out of, or the base rents went up a hundred fold? Not sure.
Yeah, lets discount them...
Scared much? I don't discount what they one day have the possibility to become. But to say they'll soon be calling the shots is silly. I'm not sure what they've accomplished in the past 5 years that led you to that conclusion.
Won't happen. The US isn't going to sarifice sovereignty to the whims of 3rd world countries.
Because the US should ultiamtely make all the necessary decisons...why?
Give me a break there is more than one freaking country in this world.....
Bryznie I agree it should be a majority rules and expanded to include a better proportion of the world's countries....America needs to stop believing they are the world police....
I guess since Canada does not hold a permanent seat we are then a 3rd world country....
USA will do what they're told to if there's a reform, some "3rd world" country are just doin better than the USA on the world scale, USA could take example on them...
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
You know the age old saying...."ignorance is bliss".....and this is not directed at you.....
Hmm, that would be great. However, but it is never going to happen. None of the UN permanent members (not just the US) have the least intention of giving up their veto powers. The problem with veto trascends the US, really. Every country has used his veto power to block decisions/resolutions contrary to his interests...for example, before to the Iraq Invation the Security Council held meetings. Well, prior to such meetings France, Russia and the US stated they would veto whatever proposal the other members had...hence the reunion was blocked before it started.
I'm positive about the fact that not one of those countries will give away the veto power, however the veto could be reframed in order to prevent a decision/ressolution from being banned.
You see the essence of the veto is pointless....should be resolved....all countries have agenda's and will abuse this power....it shoudl be modified to give equal representation...I was under the impression that the UN was supposed to represent the world...not a handful of coutries that happen to have large nuclear arsenals.....
How about a veto that would only imply the said country affair? Mean if the French don't want a resolution on Rwanda, then they step aside using their veto, but that wouldn't prevent others from doing something.
Also they must give some obligations to those who have a veto at the UN, right now the Veto is an advantage that seem to come with no obligation, other than discussing and negociating...
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Its a power tool IMHO.....and a misued one at that.....
First of all, the term third world has been out of use for, hmmm, like 20 years. Really, as an inhabitant of a developing country I can assure you we're in the same world as everybody else. It is actually very disrispectful to refer like that to those countries. And one more thing, it is not like we always have "whims", you know, sometimes we actually deal with real conflicts, problems, etc
Second, giving away veto power at the UN Security Council does not translate into sacrificing sovereignty, not at all. It just shows a willingess to negotiate/discuss possible solutions for international conflicts, which is why the Security Council was created. However, I'm not that naive, as I've stated in my previous post, I know such powers won't be given up. So, the UN Security Council reform must take into account this issue.
You'll have to point to the part of my post which states that those without permanent seats are 3rd world countries. Maybe you have some sort of national inferiority complex that led you to read that into my post.
And I'd be more than happy to no longer have the US considered the world police.