UN shows its ineffectiveness again,

[transplant99]

The US is trying to get some pressure (diplomatically...the answer for everything apparently) put on the Sudanese leaders through that wonderful UN body that so many clamor for to do ANYTHING worldwide.

Once more...it isnt working.


UN drags its feet

So, would the leftists/anti-war crowd be upset if the US unilaterally went into Sudan and removed the rebels and allowed humanitarian aid to flow again, while ending the genocide that has been occuring?

Or, as we were told in the last week, should the US just wait by idly waiting for UN approval, because after all, we wouldnt want to impose "our" way of life on a people that know no other way of life, so it aint all that bad.

And another landmine...IF the US did go in to help, would they again be chastised if they wanted to help re-build the oil fields of Sudan? Or would this one be OK?

[peter12]

If US went in to become a breakwater for the genocide and stop it that would be best. Unfortunately the US has no history of doing this.

[Gugstanley]

Maybe the world should go with Lanny's idea and send in school teachers. Education is the problem. Those teachers will get the humaitarian aid flowing in no time.

I prefer the US sit back for a while and let the world solve its own problems. The US can't win regardless of what action they take.

[peter12]

I would definitely prefer the US gets in there and kick the sh*t out of the scum that is perpetrating the genocide in Sudan. I just know that they wouldn't. There would be no interest in it for them.

[transplant99]

Originally posted by peter12@Sep 19 2004, 12:26 PM
I would definitely prefer the US gets in there and kick the sh*t out of the scum that is perpetrating the genocide in Sudan. I just know that they wouldn't. There would be no interest in it for them.

Really?

So you admit that OIL is of no interest to the US?

Isnt that what Iraq is all about?

[peter12]

Originally posted by transplant99+Sep 19 2004, 10:30 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (transplant99 @ Sep 19 2004, 10:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-peter12@Sep 19 2004, 12:26 PM
I would definitely prefer the US gets in there and kick the sh*t out of the scum that is perpetrating the genocide in Sudan. I just know that they wouldn't. There would be no interest in it for them.

Really?

So you admit that OIL is of no interest to the US?

Isnt that what Iraq is all about? [/b][/quote]
Sudan's oilfields have no structure to them at all, at least the US had something to work with in Iraq.

Quick question here: Is the US re-structuring Iraqi oilfields "free of charge" (meaning paying for expenses with Iraqi oil) or are the Iraqis on credit here.

[Agamemnon]

Though I've said this before, I've accepted that it goes in one ear and out the other. The UN is a bureacratic organization. The only... ONLY way it can make ANY decision regarding the security or sovereignty of ANY other state is for its member-states to pass a resolution to this effect. If ANY resolution is passed by the MEMBER-STATES (ie. US, China, Russia, UK, France) of the Security Council, then the UN will act on that resolution IMMEDIATELY. Quite often, the UN wants nothing more than to go into these situations (except for the cost which they tend to foot), but it's MEMBER-STATES prevent it by not creating an appropriate resolution.

When you blame the UN for 'not acting', you show that you fundamentally misunderstand what the UN is and who is actually responsible. The P-5 and other Sec. Council member states. Your generalization is what supports an anti-UN ideology that is foundless.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Sep 19 2004, 04:39 PM
Though I've said this before, I've accepted that it goes in one ear and out the other. The UN is a bureacratic organization. The only... ONLY way it can make ANY decision regarding the security or sovereignty of ANY other state is for its member-states to pass a resolution to this effect. If ANY resolution is passed by the MEMBER-STATES (ie. US, China, Russia, UK, France) of the Security Council, then the UN will act on that resolution IMMEDIATELY. Quite often, the UN wants nothing more than to go into these situations (except for the cost which they tend to foot), but it's MEMBER-STATES prevent it by not creating an appropriate resolution.

When you blame the UN for 'not acting', you show that you fundamentally misunderstand what the UN is and who is actually responsible. The P-5 and other Sec. Council member states. Your generalization is what supports an anti-UN ideology that is foundless.

If you subscribe to that argument then your basically saying that the UN is useless due to the fact that its more important for the UN to service the goals of its member organizations as opposed to servicing the goals of the UN.

As long as the nationalities on the sec coucil and the general memberships can dictate terms to the UN, it does not function as it should.

The UN should be an above nations and thier goals, and do things for the good of countries that are being bullied by other nations, or nations that are being destroyed from the inside. Instead its caught up in useless arguments by the larger nations who's members are more caught up in protecting the economic or physical good of thier country.

Thats the prime reason that the UN fails.

From the standpoint of anykind of military strength that the UN can apply is destroyed due to the fact that the Military commanders on site have to be subserviant to UN Beaurocracy (SP?) and poor command and control structures.

[transplant99]

but it's MEMBER-STATES prevent it by not creating an appropriate resolution.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

The UN as it exists is useless. What i have been saying all along.

[Mike F]

I have to admit that I'm baffeled as to why you see this as UN ineffectiveness and contrary to the US's position.

The US backed resolution passed 11-0 and while some countries abstained none used their veto as had been threatened by China. In response Sodanese gov't officials said they "would try to comply with the resolution meant to force Khartoum to rein in ethnic Arab militias".

Not only that, but, as you can read here, "Mr Annan, who made his unusual intervention on Thursday, is meanwhile adding to the pressure by personally dispatching the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, as well as his special envoy on genocide, Juan Mendes, to Khartoum this weekend"

So why is it that the US should be considering doing anything unilaterally right now?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Mike F@Sep 19 2004, 05:11 PM
I have to admit that I'm baffeled as to why you see this as UN ineffectiveness and contrary to the US's position.

The US backed resolution passed 11-0 and while some countries abstained none used their veto as had been threatened by China. In response Sodanese gov't officials said they "would try to comply with the resolution meant to force Khartoum to rein in ethnic Arab militias".

Not only that, but, as you can read here, "Mr Annan, who made his unusual intervention on Thursday, is meanwhile adding to the pressure by personally dispatching the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, as well as his special envoy on genocide, Juan Mendes, to Khartoum this weekend"

So why is it that the US should be considering doing anything unilaterally right now?

Even though they passed the resolution, it will be some time before the UN actually does anything active to separate the sides.

At some point or the other an organization like the UN has to act decisively instead of like a debate club.

While they're debating sanctions, more people are going to die there.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by transplant99@Sep 19 2004, 05:08 PM
but it's MEMBER-STATES prevent it by not creating an appropriate resolution.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

The UN as it exists is useless. What i have been saying all along.

Wow. You definitely had no credibility with me before, but its flippant comments like this that really show where you're arguing from. That one sentence is completely loaded, and pure opinion. 'The UN as it exists is USELESS'. There are a lot of people that would disagree with you. UNICEF alone assists in easing the lives of millions of children. You sir, do not know what you're talking about.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Sep 19 2004, 05:07 PM
If you subscribe to that argument then your basically saying that the UN is useless due to the fact that its more important for the UN to service the goals of its member organizations as opposed to servicing the goals of the UN.

As long as the nationalities on the sec coucil and the general memberships can dictate terms to the UN, it does not function as it should.

The UN should be an above nations and thier goals, and do things for the good of countries that are being bullied by other nations, or nations that are being destroyed from the inside. Instead its caught up in useless arguments by the larger nations who's members are more caught up in protecting the economic or physical good of thier country.

Thats the prime reason that the UN fails.

From the standpoint of anykind of military strength that the UN can apply is destroyed due to the fact that the Military commanders on site have to be subserviant to UN Beaurocracy (SP?) and poor command and control structures.

I surely do subscribe to that theory, as that is the way that the United Nations works. There's no opinion on that matter, that's the way the UN Charter dictates that it operates. The UN has no unilateral abilities to violate the sovereignty of any nation-state without the approval of the Security Council. It is not 'important for the UN to service the goals of its member organizations as opposed to servicing the goals of the UN'. It has only one, mandated objective, which is to follow the legislation set for it by its member-states. For ANY action at all to happen in the UN, the countries that are involved in the decision making process have to agree.

Some of you seem to think that the UN is an independent body. This is wrong. No body could be more _dependent_ on its members. If you ever (wrongly) criticize something as the 'UN's fault', then what you're doing is misplacing the blame, foisting it onto an umbrella organization when it has absolutely no power over what its separate parts do. That's up to countries like the P-5 to dictate.

I'm pretty sure the UN currently operates in helping nations that are being 'bullied', like East Timor, Palestine, and about a dozen African countries.

The reason the UN 'fails' is because its member-states fail, no more, no less.

As for commenting on the UN 'military', there isn't one. Any force deployed by the UN is a totally volunteer force donated by member-states. The entities that are REALLY dropping the ball are not the UN organs, but those states that should be more proactive under UN legislation.

I'm pretty sure the three largest peacekeeping nations currently are Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Fiji. Why aren't the bigger players stepping up? For shame.

It should also be noted that the UN is, by far, the most successful institution of its kind, ever. Period. I'd be pretty careful tossing around words like 'fail' when its still technically a fledgling institution when it comes to world history. So far to me it looks like it succeeds a whole lot more than it fails. But I guess that depends on what ideology you believe the UN is supposed to subscribe to.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Sep 19 2004, 10:07 AM
As long as the nationalities on the sec coucil and the general memberships can dictate terms to the UN, it does not function as it should.

The UN should be an above nations and thier goals, and do things for the good of countries that are being bullied by other nations, or nations that are being destroyed from the inside. Instead its caught up in useless arguments by the larger nations who's members are more caught up in protecting the economic or physical good of thier country.

Thats the prime reason that the UN fails.

Sorry, but what you're asking for is an impossibility.

In order for the UN to be above it's member nations and their goals they would need to be separate from them. They would need to be independant in their decision making and more importantly, to take any action, they would need to have a forceful and independent military. Right now all the UN can do is authorize collective military action by it's member states to carry out it's decisions, and there is no way the members sitting on the security council would have it any other way.

There is no way that the US (among others) would ever, ever, ever authorize an independant decision making body to have a sigificant military, never mind actually funding it's existence. The only reason the UN got off the ground in the first place is because the sec council nations knew that their veto would prevent any action.

So yes, the UN as it stands righ now can be often less than effective at times from the perspective of any on nation's interest, but it's far from useless as many like to claim, and it's better than the only realistic alternative which is no international body at all.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Now why would the UN be ineffective? Wouldn't have anything to do with countries unilaterally doing what they like after having their evidence laughed at by the UN? Nawwww, when the world's most powerful nation decides to go its own way, against the wishes of the majority of the world, it does nothing but build confidence around the world in the effectiveness of the organization.

Frankly, I would welcome the US going into Sudan. It would prove to the world that going into Iraq was not about Oil and profiteering for already rich American companies. If the US went in and took out the tyrant in Sudan it would show a little display of consistency in their efforts to rid the world of despots. It would also wipe away some questions in regards to the motivations of those in power and show they are on the up and up and really care about the whole world and not just those have economic advantage. To me it would bring some much needed credability to the motivations of the Bush Administration.

I'm not sure if anyone has noticed, but the strategy documents that have been drawn up by the Bush Administration, and by the PNAC, the African or South American continents are barely mentioned. Why? Are third world countries not a concern to the US, and do they not also deserve democracy to be brought to them? I would think that spreading the democratic way of life to the third world would be much easier that enforcing it with the military into countries with an established tradition of government? Comments?

[transplant99]

Wow. You definitely had no credibility with me before, but its flippant comments like this that really show where you're arguing from. That one sentence is completely loaded, and pure opinion. 'The UN as it exists is USELESS'. There are a lot of people that would disagree with you. UNICEF alone assists in easing the lives of millions of children. You sir, do not know what you're talking about.

Ooooh...i have no credibility with you anymore. Im crushed.

yes it an opinion....one that as you stated just 8 days ago should be allowed because "this is an opinion board".

Your words...not mine. Or does it only apply to those that agree with you?

Sure UNICEF helps out a bunch, is that what we were talking about in this thread?

Im talking about them as a governing body in settling disputes of worldwide interest, and even moreso, per country interest.

And much to your chagrin..this opinion is in fact based on "facts" as you like to throw around.

Example 1 Iraq...17 resolutions and didnt do a damn thing to truly enforce them except "debate them" over and over again. Much like they are doing with Sudan..in the meantime, more people die everyday while they figure out how to make the diplomacy more effective.

here's a hint...it aint working.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by transplant99@Sep 19 2004, 11:01 PM
Sure UNICEF helps out a bunch, is that what we were talking about in this thread?

We're talking about the UN. You said 'the UN as it exists in useless'. Now you're saying different.

Thanks for proving my point.

[FlamesAddiction]

I think people expect too much from the UN and don't realize what it actually is.

It's not supposed to be an all powerful military entity or global government. It is really nothing more than a forum for all member countries to be able to discuss global issues. The only power it gets is when member countries decide to give it power. The more powerful the country (or bloc) taking on an initiative within the framework of the UN, the more power the UN will have. It's only as effective or ineffective as it is allowed to be.

If the U.S. (or any other country) wanted, it could easily make the UN just as powerful., but why would they?

[transplant99]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Sep 19 2004, 07:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Sep 19 2004, 07:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-transplant99@Sep 19 2004, 11:01 PM
Sure UNICEF helps out a bunch, is that what we were talking about in this thread?

We're talking about the UN. You said 'the UN as it exists in useless'. . [/b][/quote]
Yes, in regards to dealing with war-torn, dictator ruled countries...as in Sudan...you know, that country in the very title of this thread?

Follow the bouncing ball.

Good spin on your part tho. I thought you were the guy clammoring for people to debate THE POINTS in front of them

Wow...more hypocrisy. Stop while you are behind.

[Cube Inmate]

Funny section in that article:

"In an 11-0 vote Saturday with four abstentions — China, Russia, Pakistan and Algeria — the Security Council said it would meet again to consider sanctions against Sudan's petroleum sector or other punitive measures if the government doesn't act quickly to stop the violence and bring the perpetrators to justice."

So in essence, they've resolved to meet again to consider imposing sanctions if things don't fix themselves soon. Are they sure they don't need another resolution to authorize them to act on the first resolution? I mean, holding another meeting without voting on it first would be kind of rash. :tdown: