U.S. Vetoes of U.N. Resolutions on Behalf of Israel
Byrnzie
Posts: 21,037
Anyone would think when looking at the history of U.S. Vetoes of U.N. Resolutions on Behalf of Israel that Israel is merely an offshore U.S military base in the heart of the worlds most lucrative oil rich region.
U.S. Vetoes of U.N. Resolutions on Behalf of Israel
By Donald Neff
Former Time Magazine Bureau Chief, Israel
This updated version was published in Fifty Years of Israel
Originally printed in Washington Report, September ⁄ October 1993
Donald Neff has been a journalist for forty years. He spent 16 years in service for Time Magazine and is a regular contributor to Middle East International and the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. He has written five excellent books on the Middle East.
On March 17, 1970, the United States cast its first veto in the United Nations Security Council during the presidency of Richard Nixon, when Henry Kissinger was the national security adviser. It was a historic moment, since up to that time Washington had been able to score heavy propaganda points because of the Soviet Union’s profligate use of its veto. The first U.S. veto in history was a gesture of support for Britain, which was under Security Council pressure to end the white minority government in southern Rhodesia.
Two years later, however, on Sept. 10, 1972, the United States employed its veto for the second time—to shield Israel.1 That veto, as it turned out, signalled the start of a cynical policy to use the U.S. veto repeatedly to shield Israel from international criticism, censure and sanctions.
Washington used its veto 32 times to shield Israel from critical draft resolutions between 1972 and 1997. This constituted nearly half of the total of 69 U.S. vetoes cast since the founding of the U.N. The Soviet Union cast 115 vetoes during the same period.2
The initial 1972 veto to protect Israel was cast by George Bush [Sr.] in his capacity as U.S. ambassador to the world body. Ironically, it was Bush as president who temporarily stopped the use of the veto to shield Israel 18 years later. The last such veto was cast on May 31, 1990, it was thought, killing a resolution approved by all 14 other council members to send a U.N. mission to study Israeli abuses of Palestinians in the occupied territories. Then President Bill Clinton came along and cast three more.
The rationale for casting the first veto to protect Israel was explained by Bush at the time as a new policy to combat terrorists. The draft resolution had condemned Israel’s heavy air attacks against Lebanon and Syria, starting Sept. 6, the day after 11 Israeli athletes were killed at the 1972 Munich Olympic Games in an abortive Palestinian attempt to seize them as hostages to trade for Palestinians in Israeli prisons.3 Between 200 and 500 Lebanese, Syrians and Palestinians, mostly civilians, were killed in the Israeli raids.4
Nonetheless, Bush complained that the resolution had failed to condemn terrorist attacks against Israel, adding: “We are implementing a new policy that is much broader than that of the question of Israel and the Jews. What is involved is the problem of terrorism, a matter that goes right to the heart of our civilized life.”5
Unfortunately, this “policy” proved to be only a rationale for protecting Israel from censure for violating a broad range of international laws. This became very clear when the next U.S. veto was cast a year later, on July 26, 1973. It had nothing to do with terrorism. The draft resolution affirmed the rights of the Palestinians and established provisions for Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories as embodied in previous General Assembly resolutions.6 Nonetheless, Washington killed this international effort to end Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands.
Washington used the veto four more times in 1975-76 while Henry Kissinger was secretary of state. One of these vetoes arguably may have involved terrorism, since the draft condemned Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians in response to attacks on Israel. But the three other vetoes had nothing at all to do with terrorism.
One, in fact, struck down a draft resolution that reflected U.S. policy against Israel’s alteration of the status of Jerusalem and establishment of Jewish settlements in occupied territory. Only two days earlier, U.S. Ambassador William W. Scranton had given a speech in the United Nations calling Israeli settlements illegal and rejecting Israel’s claim to all of Jerusalem.7 Yet on March 25, 1976, the U.S. vetoed a resolution reflecting Scranton’s positions which had been passed unanimously by the other 14 members of the council.8
The two other vetoes during Kissinger’s reign also were cast in 1976. One, on Jan. 26, killed a draft resolution calling for recognition of the right of self-determination for Palestinians. The other, on June 29, called for affirmation of the “inalienable rights” of the Palestinians.9
The Carter administration cast only one veto. But it had nothing to do with terrorism. It came on April 30, 1980, killing a draft that endorsed self-determination for the Palestinian people.10
The all-time abuser of the veto was the administration of Ronald Reagan, the most pro-Israel presidency in U.S. history, with the most pro-Israel secretary of state, George Shultz, since Kissinger. The Reagan team cynically invoked the veto 18 times to protect Israel. A record six of these vetoes were cast in 1982 alone. Nine of the Reagan vetoes resulted directly from Security Council attempts to condemn Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon, and Israel’s refusal to surrender the territory in southern Lebanon which it still occupies today. The other nine vetoes shielded Israel from council criticism for such illicit acts as the Feb. 4, 1986, skyjacking of a Libyan plane.11
Israeli warplanes forced the executive jet to land in Israel, allegedly in an effort to capture Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal. He was not aboard and, after interrogation, the passengers were allowed to leave.12 The U.S. delegate explained that this act of piracy was excusable “because we believe that the ability to take such action in carefully defined and limited circumstances is an aspect of the inherent right of self-defense recognized in the U.N. Charter.”13
Other vetoes employed on Israel’s exclusive behalf included the Jan. 20, 1982 killing of a demand that Israel withdraw from the Golan Heights it had occupied in 196714; the April 20, 1982 condemnation of an Israeli soldier who shot 11 Muslim worshippers at the Haram Al-Sharif in the Old City of Jerusalem15; the Feb. 1, 1988 call for Israel to stop violating Palestinian human rights in the occupied territories, abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and formalize a leading role for the United Nations in future peace negotiations16; the April 15, 1988 resolution requesting that Israel permit the return of expelled Palestinians, condemning Israel’s shooting of civilians, calling on Israel to uphold the Fourth Geneva Convention and calling for a peace settlement under U.N. auspices.17
The Bush [Sr.] administration used the veto four times to protect Israel: on Feb. 17, 1989, to kill a draft strongly deploring Israel’s repression of the Palestinian uprising and calling on Israel to respect the human rights of the Palestinians18; on June 9, 1989, deploring Israel’s violation of the human rights of the Palestinians19; on Nov. 7, 1989, demanding Israel return property confiscated from Palestinians during a tax protest and calling on Israel to allow a fact-finding mission to observe Israel’s suppression tactics against the Palestinian uprising20; and, finally, on May 31, 1990, calling for a fact-finding mission on abuses against Palestinians in Israeli-occupied lands.21
The May 31, 1990 veto was the last, presumably, as the result of a secret understanding, if not an official agreement, with Russia and the three other Security Council members with veto power. By then it had become obvious that the council could not be effective in a post-Cold War world if Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States recklessly invoked their vetoes.
Moreover, the international alliances sought by Washington to repel Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in August, 1990 made it necessary for the Bush administration to retain unity in the Security Council. As a result, instead of abstaining on or vetoing resolutions critical of Israel, as it did in 1989 and the first half of 1990, the Bush administration abruptly joined other members in late 1990, 1991 and 1992 in passing six resolutions deploring or strongly condemning Israel’s conduct against the Palestinians.22
These resolutions brought the total passed by the council against Israel since its birth to 68. If the United States had not invoked its veto, the record against Israel would total 100 resolutions condemning or otherwise criticizing its behavior or supporting the rights of Palestinians.
The agreement on vetoes held until March, 1995, when President Clinton invoked the veto after all 14 other members approved a U.N. Security Council resolution calling on Israel to rescind a decision to expropriate 130 acres of land in Arab East Jerusalem.23 The Clinton administration exercised two more vetoes in 1997, both of them on resolutions otherwise unanimously supported by the 14 other Security Council members. The draft resolution was critical of Israel’s plans to establish a new settlement at Har Homa ⁄ Jabal Abu Ghneim in East Jerusalem in the midst of Palestinian housing.24
The three Clinton vetoes brought to 32 the number Washington has cast to protect Israel.
U.S. Vetoes of U.N. Resolutions on Behalf of Israel
By Donald Neff
Former Time Magazine Bureau Chief, Israel
This updated version was published in Fifty Years of Israel
Originally printed in Washington Report, September ⁄ October 1993
Donald Neff has been a journalist for forty years. He spent 16 years in service for Time Magazine and is a regular contributor to Middle East International and the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. He has written five excellent books on the Middle East.
On March 17, 1970, the United States cast its first veto in the United Nations Security Council during the presidency of Richard Nixon, when Henry Kissinger was the national security adviser. It was a historic moment, since up to that time Washington had been able to score heavy propaganda points because of the Soviet Union’s profligate use of its veto. The first U.S. veto in history was a gesture of support for Britain, which was under Security Council pressure to end the white minority government in southern Rhodesia.
Two years later, however, on Sept. 10, 1972, the United States employed its veto for the second time—to shield Israel.1 That veto, as it turned out, signalled the start of a cynical policy to use the U.S. veto repeatedly to shield Israel from international criticism, censure and sanctions.
Washington used its veto 32 times to shield Israel from critical draft resolutions between 1972 and 1997. This constituted nearly half of the total of 69 U.S. vetoes cast since the founding of the U.N. The Soviet Union cast 115 vetoes during the same period.2
The initial 1972 veto to protect Israel was cast by George Bush [Sr.] in his capacity as U.S. ambassador to the world body. Ironically, it was Bush as president who temporarily stopped the use of the veto to shield Israel 18 years later. The last such veto was cast on May 31, 1990, it was thought, killing a resolution approved by all 14 other council members to send a U.N. mission to study Israeli abuses of Palestinians in the occupied territories. Then President Bill Clinton came along and cast three more.
The rationale for casting the first veto to protect Israel was explained by Bush at the time as a new policy to combat terrorists. The draft resolution had condemned Israel’s heavy air attacks against Lebanon and Syria, starting Sept. 6, the day after 11 Israeli athletes were killed at the 1972 Munich Olympic Games in an abortive Palestinian attempt to seize them as hostages to trade for Palestinians in Israeli prisons.3 Between 200 and 500 Lebanese, Syrians and Palestinians, mostly civilians, were killed in the Israeli raids.4
Nonetheless, Bush complained that the resolution had failed to condemn terrorist attacks against Israel, adding: “We are implementing a new policy that is much broader than that of the question of Israel and the Jews. What is involved is the problem of terrorism, a matter that goes right to the heart of our civilized life.”5
Unfortunately, this “policy” proved to be only a rationale for protecting Israel from censure for violating a broad range of international laws. This became very clear when the next U.S. veto was cast a year later, on July 26, 1973. It had nothing to do with terrorism. The draft resolution affirmed the rights of the Palestinians and established provisions for Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories as embodied in previous General Assembly resolutions.6 Nonetheless, Washington killed this international effort to end Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands.
Washington used the veto four more times in 1975-76 while Henry Kissinger was secretary of state. One of these vetoes arguably may have involved terrorism, since the draft condemned Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians in response to attacks on Israel. But the three other vetoes had nothing at all to do with terrorism.
One, in fact, struck down a draft resolution that reflected U.S. policy against Israel’s alteration of the status of Jerusalem and establishment of Jewish settlements in occupied territory. Only two days earlier, U.S. Ambassador William W. Scranton had given a speech in the United Nations calling Israeli settlements illegal and rejecting Israel’s claim to all of Jerusalem.7 Yet on March 25, 1976, the U.S. vetoed a resolution reflecting Scranton’s positions which had been passed unanimously by the other 14 members of the council.8
The two other vetoes during Kissinger’s reign also were cast in 1976. One, on Jan. 26, killed a draft resolution calling for recognition of the right of self-determination for Palestinians. The other, on June 29, called for affirmation of the “inalienable rights” of the Palestinians.9
The Carter administration cast only one veto. But it had nothing to do with terrorism. It came on April 30, 1980, killing a draft that endorsed self-determination for the Palestinian people.10
The all-time abuser of the veto was the administration of Ronald Reagan, the most pro-Israel presidency in U.S. history, with the most pro-Israel secretary of state, George Shultz, since Kissinger. The Reagan team cynically invoked the veto 18 times to protect Israel. A record six of these vetoes were cast in 1982 alone. Nine of the Reagan vetoes resulted directly from Security Council attempts to condemn Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon, and Israel’s refusal to surrender the territory in southern Lebanon which it still occupies today. The other nine vetoes shielded Israel from council criticism for such illicit acts as the Feb. 4, 1986, skyjacking of a Libyan plane.11
Israeli warplanes forced the executive jet to land in Israel, allegedly in an effort to capture Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal. He was not aboard and, after interrogation, the passengers were allowed to leave.12 The U.S. delegate explained that this act of piracy was excusable “because we believe that the ability to take such action in carefully defined and limited circumstances is an aspect of the inherent right of self-defense recognized in the U.N. Charter.”13
Other vetoes employed on Israel’s exclusive behalf included the Jan. 20, 1982 killing of a demand that Israel withdraw from the Golan Heights it had occupied in 196714; the April 20, 1982 condemnation of an Israeli soldier who shot 11 Muslim worshippers at the Haram Al-Sharif in the Old City of Jerusalem15; the Feb. 1, 1988 call for Israel to stop violating Palestinian human rights in the occupied territories, abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and formalize a leading role for the United Nations in future peace negotiations16; the April 15, 1988 resolution requesting that Israel permit the return of expelled Palestinians, condemning Israel’s shooting of civilians, calling on Israel to uphold the Fourth Geneva Convention and calling for a peace settlement under U.N. auspices.17
The Bush [Sr.] administration used the veto four times to protect Israel: on Feb. 17, 1989, to kill a draft strongly deploring Israel’s repression of the Palestinian uprising and calling on Israel to respect the human rights of the Palestinians18; on June 9, 1989, deploring Israel’s violation of the human rights of the Palestinians19; on Nov. 7, 1989, demanding Israel return property confiscated from Palestinians during a tax protest and calling on Israel to allow a fact-finding mission to observe Israel’s suppression tactics against the Palestinian uprising20; and, finally, on May 31, 1990, calling for a fact-finding mission on abuses against Palestinians in Israeli-occupied lands.21
The May 31, 1990 veto was the last, presumably, as the result of a secret understanding, if not an official agreement, with Russia and the three other Security Council members with veto power. By then it had become obvious that the council could not be effective in a post-Cold War world if Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States recklessly invoked their vetoes.
Moreover, the international alliances sought by Washington to repel Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in August, 1990 made it necessary for the Bush administration to retain unity in the Security Council. As a result, instead of abstaining on or vetoing resolutions critical of Israel, as it did in 1989 and the first half of 1990, the Bush administration abruptly joined other members in late 1990, 1991 and 1992 in passing six resolutions deploring or strongly condemning Israel’s conduct against the Palestinians.22
These resolutions brought the total passed by the council against Israel since its birth to 68. If the United States had not invoked its veto, the record against Israel would total 100 resolutions condemning or otherwise criticizing its behavior or supporting the rights of Palestinians.
The agreement on vetoes held until March, 1995, when President Clinton invoked the veto after all 14 other members approved a U.N. Security Council resolution calling on Israel to rescind a decision to expropriate 130 acres of land in Arab East Jerusalem.23 The Clinton administration exercised two more vetoes in 1997, both of them on resolutions otherwise unanimously supported by the 14 other Security Council members. The draft resolution was critical of Israel’s plans to establish a new settlement at Har Homa ⁄ Jabal Abu Ghneim in East Jerusalem in the midst of Palestinian housing.24
The three Clinton vetoes brought to 32 the number Washington has cast to protect Israel.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Palestine: Syrian-Lebanese Complaint. 3 power draft resolution 2/10784 9/10/1972 Bush 13-1, 1
Palestine: Examination of Middle East Situation. 8-power draft resolution (S/10974) 7/2/1973 Scali 13-1, 0 (China not partic.)
Palestine: Egyptian-Lebanese Complaint. 5-power draft power resolution (S/11898) 12/8/1975 Moynihan 13-1, 1
Palestine: Middle East Problem, including Palestinian question. 6-power draft resolution (S/11940) 1/26/1976 Moynihan 9-1,3 (China & Libya not partic.)
Palestine: Situation in Occupied Arab Territories. 5-power draft resolution (S/12022) 3/25/1976 Scranton 14-1,0
Palestine: Report on Committee on Rights of Palestinian People. 4-power draft resolution (S/121119) 6/29/1976 Sherer 10-1,4
Palestine: Palestinian Rights. Tunisian draft resolution. (S/13911) 4/30/1980 McHenry 10-1,4
Palestine: Golan Heights. Jordan draft resolution. (S/14832/Rev. 2) 1/20/1982 Kirkpatrick 9-1,5
Palestine: Situation in Occupied Territories, Jordan draft resolution (S/14943) 4/2/1982 Lichenstein 13-1,1
Palestine: Incident at the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. 4-power draft resolution 4/20/1982 Kirpatrick 14-1, 0
Palestine: Conflict in Lebanon. Spain draft resolution. (S/15185) 6/8/1982 Kirpatrick 14-1,0
Palestine: Conflict in Lebanon. France draft resolution. (S/15255/Rev. 2) 6/26/1982 Lichenstein 14-1
Palestine: Conflict in Lebanon. USSR draft resolution. (S/15347/Rev. 1, as orally amended) 8/6/1982 Lichenstein 11-1,3
Palestine: Situation in Occupied Territories, 20-power draft resolution (S/15895) 8/2/1983 Lichenstein 13-1,1
Security Council Vetoes/Negative voting 1983-present
Occupied Arab Territories: Wholesale condemnation of Israeli settlement policies - not adopted 1983
S. Lebanon: Condemns Israeli action in southern Lebanon. S/16732 9/6/1984 Vetoed: 13-1 (U.S.), with 1 abstention (UK)
Occupied Territories: Deplores "repressive measures" by Israel against Arab population. S/19459. 9/13/1985 Vetoed: 10-1 (U.S.), with 4 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, UK, France)
Lebanon: Condemns Israeli practices against civilians in southern Lebanon. S/17000. 3/12/1985 Vetoed: 11-1 (U.S.), with 3 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, UK)
Occupied Territories: Calls upon Israel to respect Muslim holy places. S/17769/Rev. 1 1/30/1986 Vetoed: 13-1 (US), with one abstention (Thailand)
Lebanon: Condemns Israeli practices against civilians in southern Lebanon. S/17730/Rev. 2. 1/17/1986 Vetoed: 11-1 (U.S.), with 3 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, UK)
Libya/Israel: Condemns Israeli interception of Libyan plane. S/17796/Rev. 1. 2/6/1986 Vetoed: 10 -1 (US), with 4 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, France, UK)
Lebanon: Draft strongly deplored repeated Israeli attacks against Lebanese territory and other measures and practices against the civilian population; (S/19434) 1/18/1988 vetoed 13-1 (US), with 1 abstention (UK)
Lebanon: Draft condemned recent invasion by Israeli forces of Southern Lebanon and repeated a call for the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli forces from Lebanese territory; (S/19868) 5/10/1988 vetoed 14-1 (US)
Lebanon: Draft strongly deplored the recent Israeli attack against Lebanese territory on 9 December 1988; (S/20322) 12/14/1988 vetoed 14-1 (US)
Occupied territories: Draft called on Israel to accept de jure applicability of the 4th Geneva Convention; (S/19466) 1988 vetoed 14-1 (US)
Occupied territories: Draft urged Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention, rescind the order to deport Palestinian civilians, and condemned policies and practices of Israel that violate the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories; (S/19780) 1988 vetoed 14-1 (US)
Occupied territories: Strongly deplored Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories, and strongly deplored also Israel's continued disregard of relevant Security Council decisions. 2/17/1989 Vetoed 14-1 (US)
Occupied territories: Condemned Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories. 6/9/1989 Vetoed 14-1 (US)
Occupied territories: Deplored Israel's policies and practices in the occupied territories. 11/7/1989 Vetoed 14-1 (US)
Occupied territories: NAM draft resolution to create a commission and send three security council members to Rishon Lezion, where an Israeli gunmen shot down seven Palestinian workers. 5/31/1990 Vetoed 14-1 (US)
Middle East: Confirms that the expropriation of land by Israel in East Jerusalem is invalid and in violation of relevant Security Council resolutions and provisions of the Fourth Geneva convention; expresses support of peace process, including the Declaration of Principles of 9/13/1993 5/17/1995 Vetoed 14-1 (US)
Middle East: Calls upon Israeli authorities to refrain from all actions or measures, including settlement activities. 3/7/1997 Vetoed 14-1 (US)
Middle East: Demands that Israel cease construction of the settlement in east Jerusalem (called Jabal Abu Ghneim by the Palestinians and Har Homa by Israel), as well as all the other Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories
3/21/1997 Vetoed 13-1,1 (US)
Call for UN Observers Force in West Bank, Gaza 3/27/2001 Vetoed 9-1 (US),
with four abstentions
(Britain, France, Ireland and Norway)
Condemned acts of terror, demanded an end to violence and the establishment of a monitoring mechanism to bring in observers. 12/14/2001 Vetoed 12-1 (US)
with two abstentions
(Britain and Norway)
On the killing by Israeli forces of several UN employees and the destruction of the World Food Programme (WFP) warehouse
12/19/2002 12-1 (US)
with two abstentions
(Bulgaria and Cameroon)
Demand that Israel halt threats to expel Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat 9/16/03 Vetoed 11-1 (US)
with three abstentions
(Britain, Germany and Bulgaria)
Seeks to bar Israel from extending security fence 10/14/03 Vetoed 10-1 with four absentations (Britain, Germany, Bulgaria and Cameroon)
Condemns Israel for killing Ahmed Yassin 3/25/04 Vetoed 11-1 (US)
with three absentations
(Britain, Germany, Romania)
Calls For Israel To Halt Gaza Operation 10/05/04 Vetoed 11-1 (US)
with three absentations
(Britain, Germany, Romania)
Calls For Israel To Halt Gaza Operation 7/13/06 Vetoed 10-1 (US)
with four absentations
(Britain, Peru, Denmark and Slovakia)
Full list of the use of the Veto on United Nations Resolutions
by the USA:
http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa03.html
Wait just for a sec, lemme see if I can understand where you're coming from. The entire world-that is what the UN represents, a government body representing all of the countries around the world-decides to condemn Israel, what over 30 times...and every time the US vetoes the resolution. It has often been the US and Israel against the ENTIRE world.
But every single time, for the past 40 years, every country around the world has been wrong and the US and Israel were in the right? interesting idea...
whoa !!
so the land of the free supported britain in its endevour to continue apartheid regime?
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
i think the main reason the uno is so pro palestine is that its filled with members of all anti-israel countries - all teh irans, the egypts, the pakistans etc etc. they never have any problems with iran wanting to wipe away israel, they never have a problem with state funded jehadi machinery - but they all jointly point a finger at israel. also most countries that are dependent on arab oil, either sail with them at pointing fingers at israel or at least ignore the designs of the arab countries.
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
What you have said here is utter bollocks. How can you possibly justify vetoing resolutions such as the following by saying that the U.N is pro palestine?
Call for UN Observers Force in West Bank, Gaza 3/27/2001 Vetoed 9-1 (US), with four abstentions
(Britain, France, Ireland and Norway)
Condemned acts of terror, demanded an end to violence and the establishment of a monitoring mechanism to bring in observers. 12/14/2001 Vetoed 12-1 (US)
with two abstentions
(Britain and Norway)
On the killing by Israeli forces of several UN employees and the destruction of the World Food Programme (WFP) warehouse
12/19/2002 12-1 (US)
with two abstentions
(Bulgaria and Cameroon)
Condemns Israel for killing Ahmed Yassin 3/25/04 Vetoed 11-1 (US)
with three absentations
(Britain, Germany, Romania)
If you take a look at the full list of U.S vetoes at the U.N - http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa03.html - then will you extend your argument to say that the U.N was pro ANC, and that this is why successive U.S administrations felt the need to vetoe resolutions condemning apartheid? Is the U.N also pro Cuba, and is this why the U.S has consistently defied international law by continuing it's illegal blockade of Cuba? E.t.c, e.t.c.....
The U.S has single handedly blocked every effort to produce a two state solution in the middle east. Is this because the U.N is pro Palestine?
You say that the U.N is filled with anti Israel countries? If any of these supposedly anti-Israel countries places a yes vote for such a resolution as asking Israel to abide by the Geneva convention, or a resolution which calls on Israel to cease building settlements in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories, then why would you be bothered by this? Are you saying that you don't believe in abiding by international law, and that you believe in unrestrained aggressive military force against soveriegn nations? Interesting. The Nazis also held similar views.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
As far as I know it takes just one 'no' vote by one of a number of countries, such as the U.S, France, Russia, Britain, and more recently China.
I'm not sure why this is so, but some countries have the power of veto and some don't.
As far as the UN Security Council is concerned there are memebers who hold veto power (US, UK, France, Germany, Russia and China). Any one of these countries can sink a resolution with a no vote.
no germany. no japan either.
the veto power is the exclusive right of the 5 "winners" of the 2nd world war. usa, england, france, russia and china.
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
Germany does have veto power because it is a permanenet member of the security council. It has nothing to do with WW II.
O.k, here's the full list of veto's -
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/data/vetotab.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membship/veto/vetosubj.htm
China = 4 -5
France = 18
Britain = 32
US = 81
USSR/Russia = 122
Over 70 out of 80 U.S resolutions have been in support of Israel.
Also, this article is quite interesting:
http://www.finalcall.com/international/annan_un10-08-2002.htm
'Annan: Perceived 'double standard' at UN is a problem' WEB POSTED 10-08-2002
UNITED NATIONS (IPS)—UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said recently that the world body has long been "dogged" by charges it has two yardsticks to measure violations of Security Council resolutions.
Asked about the alleged "double standard" in punishing Iraq for violating resolutions while ignoring Israel’s violations, Mr. Annan told reporters: "I don’t think I have given a single press conference in the Middle East or an interview with a Middle East journalist where the question of double standards has not come up."
This is a "tough issue," which the United Nations and the Security Council has to deal with, he added.
"This question comes up often and I hope the Security Council will be able to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian issue once and for all and put this behind. But it is tough," he said.
Addressing the General Assembly, Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Shara recently said the only way out of the Middle East crisis is to make Israel abide by all Security Council resolutions.
"Why should the world request Iraq to adhere to Security Council resolutions, while Israel is allowed to be above international law?" he asked.
"It is indeed odd that the United States considers Israel acting in self-defense in occupied territories that are acknowledged to be occupied by Security Council resolutions, which the United States played a role in drafting and adopting since the foundation of the United Nations," he said.
President George W. Bush has made a case for a military attack on Iraq on the grounds that Baghdad was not only developing weapons of mass destruction but also violating 16 UN resolutions, including one demanding the return of all prisoners from the 1990s Gulf War and another forbidding involvement with terrorism and terrorist groups.
Mr. Bush also accused Iraq of breaching a UN resolution against the repression of its own people.
"By breaking every pledge, by his deceptions and by his cruelties, Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself," President Bush added.
But Arab diplomats counter the Bush argument by pointing out that Washington adheres to a "double standard" in not holding Israel accountable for violating more than 70 UN resolutions, since its creation as a nation in 1948.
Israel has not only refused to implement Security Council resolutions calling for the return of land captured in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, but also violated resolutions "reaffirming the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, national independence and sovereignty, and the right of the Palestinians to their homes and property."
Since the founding of the United Nations 57 years ago, the United States has used its veto on 75 occasions, virtually all of them on Middle East resolutions or to "protect" Israel, Arabs say.
The vetoes include those cast against a resolution "deploring" Israel’s altering of the status of Jerusalem; calling for self-determination for the Palestinian peoples; demanding Israel’s withdrawal from the Golan Heights; condemning air strikes on southern Lebanon; and deploring Israel’s actions in the repression of the Palestinian uprising.
The Bush administration cast its first veto in March of last year when it torpedoed a resolution to create a UN observer force in Israeli-occupied territories, a proposal strongly opposed by Israel.
"In real fact," one Arab diplomat said sarcastically, "Israel has traditionally been the sixth veto-wielding member of the Security Council."
The United States, Britain, France, China and Russia are the five nations that can veto resolutions.
"The United States has continued to be a proxy for Israel. whenever the United States exercises its veto, it is doing so on behalf of Israel," he added.
Speaking on behalf of the 115-member Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), Ambassador Jeanette Ndhlovu of South Africa told the Security Council that the sense of despair, frustration and hopelessness in the Middle East is brought about by occupation and "by the fact that no land has been returned in exchange for peace as required by Security Council resolutions."
"For far too long," she said, "Israel has ignored the decisions of both the Security Council and the General Assembly."
Ms. Ndhlovu also pointed out that Israel routinely violates even the most basic provisions of international humanitarian law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, which protects nationals of a country from an occupying power.
Israel also continues to illegally occupy Syrian and Lebanese territory, and is in violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon, she added.
Mr. Annan said reform of the Security Council and its vetoes will be an important part of overall changes that he will introduce to make the cash-strapped United Nations more relevant to the needs of the 21st century.
So the UN Security Council is pretty much useless then no? I guess the UN isnt a democractic set-up. It should be. Majority should rule when voting on "world wide issues". I can see a country the size of the US or Russia or China getting more "voting power". But absolute vetos? How did the UK, France and Germany vote? Im sure Russia and China just vote opposite the US.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
I could be wrong in this, but I think one of the main reasons is that the UN security forces are mostly made up of soldiers from those countries, therefore they have more say. if Portugal (or whoever) wants to throw 100k or 200k soldiers into the UN's security forces, they might get more say in these matters.
Here you go...work it out for yourself....
http://www.un.org/documents/scres.htm
But the fact that Israel is the main aggressor and most powerful military force in the region which is currently in defiance of over 60 U.N resolutions, I wouldn't be surprised to find that Israel comes on top of the table in the Middle East for violating human rights.
Your argument is that the whole world, except for the U.S.A, is biased against Israel. Is this the equivalent of saying that anyone who criticises Israel is anti-semitic. You claim that other middle eastern countries haven't been condemned for violating Israeli human rights? So when Nazi Germany was occupying France, for example, should the French resistance have been condemned for violating German human rights?
The U.K usually abstains in order to not upset the U.S and remain the U.S's obediant poodle.
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/8510.html
only the winner have veto powers (china too is a winner in that it threw out the "nazi" japanese)
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
I'm not so sure about that. Why don't you research the facts? You've got a computer, so use it.
no thanks. you take the time to post a LONG 2 post thread and then can't even do a little research to show the other side. also pretty funny how you say they're the "aggressor". huh, the "aggressor" against a TERRORIST organization that has held their own country captive for years. Israel has done absolutely the right thing and the US is right to take up for them against the completely corrupt UN.
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
The completely corrupt U.N? How is the U.N corrupt? Why don't you back your statements up with some facts rather than just spouting rubbish? If you took the trouble to read the title of this thread and the articles which I posted then you may learn why the U.N has been corrupted, and by whom. The Israeli and the U.S governments are both pariahs who see themselves as being above the law. The Nazis were no different.
And as far as 'terrorism' goes, do you not think that the activities of the Israeli military amounts to terrorism? If not, then what is it? I suppose you'd call 38 years of murdering civilians and stealing their land 'self defence', right?
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20060405.htm
Ronaldus Magnus
I expected nothing less from you fando y lis than such a laughable comment. I look forward to the day when you actually say something sensible, rather than spouting crap with no facts to support it.
Repeat after me, Germany has veto powers in the UN security council.
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
ok
Germany has....um er........GREAT BEER...
sorry couldn't do it...
Where's your evidence? How about some examples? I'm bored with reading these meaningless statements that have no basis in reality, and which have no reference to the facts. There's too much flatulence being spouted on this message board at the moment.