Photo fraud; Reutergate et.al.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

So, yes, I'm saying its ok to 'demand' something, but not necessarily enforce it. When you steal my pen, and I demand it back... and you don't give it back, is the next (and only) option to punch you in the face?

It sure is okay to 'demand something'. It's okay to demand something more than once.

It is not okay to continue demanding and never go onto the next step to get compliance.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Its like blaming democracy because opposition parties can't agree on what to do. Its the parties fault, not democracy's.

I'll use your politics example, as I think it applies very directly.

If you had a Prime Minister that introduced bills but always had them fail, would you not think of him as a failure? Prime Ministers (and political parties in charge) need to lead. They need to be able to bring together different parties and different viewpoints to support a common cause, if it's good for the country. It's not okay for him/her to just throw up his/her hands and say "I tried".

Same with the UN. It needs a leader to get the P5 to go perhaps where they don't want to. Perhaps this is where the Secretary General needs to be the leader. Perhaps one of the P5 (or all of them at different times) need to act.

If nothing ever happens, it is the system's fault. The system allows for it.

[Agamemnon]

What about this peace-keepers in Afghanistan business? I thought peace-keepers always wore the blue UN helmets. Is Canada on a peace-keeping mission in Afghanistan? I don't know much about the mission...

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

My point is that while the UN does have issues, its the best we've got. Why bother pointing out what it can't do, why not point out (and you've started) what it _can_ do? Ironically, its the Conservative parties of most governments that are against UN involvement. The UN is stuck halfway, its been established as a good idea, but when push comes to shove, world governments don't back up their votes with their military, economy, and politics. The institution is there to be used by the world's governments for good or ill. Blame the wielder of the tool, rather than the tool itself.

Instead of only pointing out what it can do, why not point out what it can do better?

If the system allows for someone to volunteer and then weasel out, there's a flaw in the system that should be fixed.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Fair enough. I was under the impression that we weren't blue-helmets in Afghanistan. Blue-helmeted peace-keepers are just that, peace-keepers. Is that what Canada is doing in Afghanistan? Have they stopped wearing the blue helmets???

The role of the "blue helmet" has evolved. Its role now includes peace-making when the need arises.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by calculoso

It sure is okay to 'demand something'. It's okay to demand something more than once.

It is not okay to continue demanding and never go onto the next step to get compliance.



I'll use your politics example, as I think it applies very directly.

If you had a Prime Minister that introduced bills but always had them fail, would you not think of him as a failure? Prime Ministers (and political parties in charge) need to lead. They need to be able to bring together different parties and different viewpoints to support a common cause, if it's good for the country. It's not okay for him/her to just throw up his/her hands and say "I tried".

Same with the UN. It needs a leader to get the P5 to go perhaps where they don't want to. Perhaps this is where the Secretary General needs to be the leader. Perhaps one of the P5 (or all of them at different times) need to act.

If nothing ever happens, it is the system's fault. The system allows for it.

Again, this is a poor comparison.

If the leaders of the bloc, liberals, ndp, conservatives and greens all had veto power over any bill (or the threat of veto if wording and provisions of the bill aren't altered) then yes, you could compare them. However, that's undemocratic and isn't applicable to canada's parliamentary system of government.

If the prime minister kept proposing bills that the greens and ndp vetoed or made inconsequential through alterations to the bill, would you consider him a failure?

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by calculoso

If you had a Prime Minister that introduced bills but always had them fail, would you not think of him as a failure? Prime Ministers (and political parties in charge) need to lead. They need to be able to bring together different parties and different viewpoints to support a common cause, if it's good for the country. It's not okay for him/her to just throw up his/her hands and say "I tried".

I don't find this example that useful because it implies that the 'PM' has failed every single time he tried to pass a resolution. Given that the UN successfully passes (and are generally obeyed) resolutions in many, many different spheres (security being one), I think its more like that the 'PM' has trouble passing legislation in one particularly difficult area.

The Middle East is a mess. To believe that the UN, which tried to bring attention to the situation, is fully and completely responsible for its end (or lack thereof) seems to put more burden on the UN than it deserves.

Same with the UN. It needs a leader to get the P5 to go perhaps where they don't want to. Perhaps this is where the Secretary General needs to be the leader. Perhaps one of the P5 (or all of them at different times) need to act.

Unfortunately state-sovereignty is paramount. You can't force any of the P5 to act without their approval. Thats what 'unity' is all about. If there isn't unity on an issue, then how is it supposed to be dealt with by a unanimous body?

If nothing ever happens, it is the system's fault. The system allows for it.

Agree to disagree I guess. I think the UN is extremely far from 'nothing ever happens'.

Take a look; www.un.org Lots of stuff happens there all the time... and very, very little of it has to do with security.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Instead of only pointing out what it can do, why not point out what it can do better?

For sure. Though, thats not what I got out of this thread. The word 'failed' was used a lot, I don't identify that as 'pointing out what it can do better'.

If the system allows for someone to volunteer and then weasel out, there's a flaw in the system that should be fixed.

The system was designed to be participatory, not to enforce a set of global laws that all states must follow. The UN is a voluntary organization. As such there are limits placed on what it can legally do, and expect member-states to do.

The role of the "blue helmet" has evolved. Its role now includes peace-making when the need arises.

So... the Canadians are on a UN peace-keeping force? Or not?

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

USA = Bingo, the most powerful member state, what he says goes.

There are problems with your analogy too.

If the US is the only member state that matters, the UN would have been in Iraq, not the US.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Moderators/admin = Security Council. They are granted power above the norm of the General Assembly, and can create and enforce policy, though not without the consent (implicit or otherwise) of Bingo/USA.

General Assembly = the rest of the posting body. Suggestions and initiatives are often taken under advisement, and can even become policy. Matters can be put to a vote, though the votes aren't necessarily binding.

If the "can enforce policy" is never used, it might as well not even be there.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by calculoso

If the "can enforce policy" is never used, it might as well not even be there.

It has been used.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

If the prime minister kept proposing bills that the greens and ndp vetoed or made inconsequential through alterations to the bill, would you consider him a failure?

Yes I would. If he was unable to work with the rest of the parties and make it palatable to them (moderate it), then he would be a failure. There will be times when this is impossible, but if it happens more often than not then failure would be a good word for it.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

The Middle East is a mess. To believe that the UN, which tried to bring attention to the situation, is fully and completely responsible for its end (or lack thereof) seems to put more burden on the UN than it deserves.

If all they are there to do is bring attention, then there might as well not be a security council. The general body can do that.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Unfortunately state-sovereignty is paramount. You can't force any of the P5 to act without their approval. Thats what 'unity' is all about. If there isn't unity on an issue, then how is it supposed to be dealt with by a unanimous body?

Even when there is unity and unanimous support, there is little actual action (other than drafting a resolution). This is the criticism, and where there needs to be improvement.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Take a look; www.un.org Lots of stuff happens there all the time... and very, very little of it has to do with security.

The whole discussion has been about security, and how the UN (or, if you want to nitpick down to the specific division of it, UNSC) fails to enforce its resolutions. If you want to take the discussion totally out of context then go right ahead.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Yes I would. If he was unable to work with the rest of the parties and make it palatable to them (moderate it), then he would be a failure. There will be times when this is impossible, but if it happens more often than not then failure would be a good word for it.

So you agree that the UN is not a failure because they pass more resolutions than those that are shot down?

Glad we agree.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

It has been used.

Fine.. caught on a generalization.

If the UNSC is not going to enforce its resolutions when they are deliberately and constantly being ignored, something is wrong. The resolutions may not as well even be there.

Better?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by calculoso

There are problems with your analogy too.

If the US is the only member state that matters, the UN would have been in Iraq, not the US.

Uhm, what?

The US invaded Iraq because it doesn't matter what the UN thinks, they will do as they wish.

Much like Bingo can ban anyone he wants, it doesn't matter what anyone else says. All the mods and users could say 'no' like most did in the case of Iraq, but it's bingo's perogative because no one could stop him.

Is this really that hard to understand?

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

So you agree that the UN is not a failure because they pass more resolutions than those that are shot down?

Glad we agree.

If all that is needed for compliance is a finger wag, then anyone can do it. I hardly see the vast amount of money being spent on the UN passing resolutions as being worth it for that.

If they would actually back up those resolutions when they are ignored, then yes the UN would not be a failure.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The US invaded Iraq because it doesn't matter what the UN thinks, they will do as they wish.

If the UN doesn't matter to the US, why did they bother trying?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Fine.. caught on a generalization.

If the UNSC is not going to enforce its resolutions when they are deliberately and constantly being ignored, something is wrong. The resolutions may not as well even be there.

Better?

So you admit you're wrong, then restate your original position as if you've taken the correction into account?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by calculoso

If the UN doesn't matter to the US, why did they bother trying?

Because it's easier politically if you appear to be seeking world consensus?

What's more important here, the words or the actions?

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by calculoso

If all they are there to do is bring attention, then there might as well not be a security council. The general body can do that.

For some mind-boggling reason you seem to be taking this single issue and using it as a comprehensive judgement on all UN security actions now and in the past. The UNSC has used military intervention before. They may again. Just because they haven't this second doesn't mean they never have, or never well. Thats pretty narrow.

Even when there is unity and unanimous support, there is little actual action (other than drafting a resolution). This is the criticism, and where there needs to be improvement.

Sounds good. Whats the improvement? 'A better leader'? Right now the P5 states jointly lead the UNSC. What can the UN do to get these member-states to agree more? What criticism can you level at the UNSC for the lack of P5 commitment?

If this inability to do anything is so obvious to you, why are the P5 states wasting their time using the institution? Clearly the world's governments believe the UNSC is very important; its where all the recent negotiating over a cease-fire occurred. These states could have easily met outside the UNSC, but it was the P5's vehicle of choice. If you think the UNSC is obsolete, aren't these countries all foolish for bothering to participate?

The whole discussion has been about security, and how the UN (or, if you want to nitpick down to the specific division of it, UNSC) fails to enforce its resolutions. If you want to take the discussion totally out of context then go right ahead.

Well... phrases like 'the UN is incompetent' are pretty broadly-based. Its not my fault if people aren't specific about which organization they're saying has 'failed'. If you look at the thread you'll see many instances where the whole organization has been painted with the failure brush due to the UNSC's lack of military intervention in the Middle East.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Because it's easier politically if you appear to be seeking world consensus?

What's more important here, the words or the actions?

Obviously the 'words' if you believe in the actions of the UNSC.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

So you admit you're wrong, then restate your original position as if you've taken the correction into account?

Every once in a blue moon they do act.. but it is by far the exception rather than the rule.

I want to see it become more of a rule - when they're obviously and constantly being ignored, do more action. Stand up for their demands. Stop blowing hot air all the time.