United Nations security council is a joke...

thankyougrandma · August 2006

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...

monkey spanker · August 2006

many of us have been saying this for years. we should just do away with the whole damn thing in my opinion.

ladygooddiva · August 2006

it´s not easy like that ...and by the way america ,china and israel doesn´t want to do something ....

thankyougrandma · August 2006

ladygooddiva wrote:

it´s not easy like that ...and by the way america ,china and israel doesn´t want to do something ....

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...

zcyrus · August 2006

Your President of France. Try to tell your people that you want to send 15,000 kids to South Lebanon. NOBODY is willing to do this, not the USA, not Russia, not China.

ladygooddiva · August 2006

thankyougrandma wrote:

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...

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.

thankyougrandma · August 2006

monkey spanker wrote:

many of us have been saying this for years. we should just do away with the whole damn thing in my opinion.

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.

sliverstain · August 2006

monkey spanker wrote:

many of us have been saying this for years. we should just do away with the whole damn thing in my opinion.

Yeah, let Washington rule the wolrd.

GO USA !! GO USA!! GO USA!!

(for my countrymen, the above was sarcasm tinged with irony)

thankyougrandma · August 2006

zcyrus wrote:

Your President of France. Try to tell your people that you want to send 15,000 kids to South Lebanon. NOBODY is willing to do this, not the USA, not Russia, not China.

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.

thankyougrandma · August 2006

ladygooddiva wrote:

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.

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."

sliverstain · August 2006

And dont worry bout the UN...the SCO - Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, will be soon calling the shots on the world stage.

CaterinaA · August 2006

thankyougrandma wrote:

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...

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

thankyougrandma · August 2006

CaterinaA wrote:

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

thanks for the link, UN security council must be reform, without a doubt.

CaterinaA wrote:

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.

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.

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

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...

ladygooddiva · August 2006

thankyougrandma wrote:

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."

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 ...

CaterinaA · August 2006

thankyougrandma wrote:

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...

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...

jeffbr · August 2006

sliverstain wrote:

And dont worry bout the UN...the SCO - Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, will be soon calling the shots on the world stage.

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.

thankyougrandma · August 2006

ladygooddiva wrote:

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 ...

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...

sliverstain · August 2006

jeffbr wrote:

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.

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...

jeffbr · August 2006

sliverstain wrote:

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.

Byrnzie · August 2006

What needs to be done is that the power of automatic veto needs to be withdrawn so that countries like the U.S won't be able to, for example, veto every resolution critical of Israel, or every resolution asking for a two state solution.

jeffbr · August 2006

Byrnzie wrote:

What needs to be done is that the power of automatic veto needs to be withdrawn so that countries like the U.S won't be able to, for example, veto every resolution critical of Israel, or every resolution asking for a two state solution.

Won't happen. The US isn't going to sarifice sovereignty to the whims of 3rd world countries.

United Nations security council is a joke...

Comments

Categories