Why didn't the UN intervene in the Troubles in Northern Ireland?

Johnny Utah

It seems to me that the UN have no hesitation in intervening in any tinpot dictatorship, especially if the country in question has oil supplies.

However, when the British Army were unjustifiably and illegally killing unarmed civilians in Northern Ireland, the UN and the rest of the world just ignored the problem.

Why didn't they intervene and remove British forces from the country?

hardCopy

Even if the rest of the members wanted to, the UK have a veto

Celly Smunt

republican troll is republican.

Johnny Utah

pmcmahon wrote: »

republican troll is republican.

I don't think hardCopy is a troll....

Celly Smunt

Johnny Utah wrote: »

I don't think hardCopy is a troll....

me either

RichieC

lol, a rather naive view of what the UN is.

wes

Same reason, they couldn't intervene against the US or Soviet Union, it was due the UK having a veto to stop such action.

Somewhere like Libya, where pretty much everyone dislikes Ghadaffi, is much easier, as no one cares enough to help him out.

Latchy

If the republics army had invaded the north as was considered ( they were encamped along the border waiting for the go ahead from Lynch ) then it's most likley that the UN would eventually have had to move in and be peacekeepers.The irony was that the Irish Army had a battalion on peacekeeping duties at the time over in Cyprus who were later called back home in 1974 due to the escalating violence because of the troubles .But you cant remove forces from territory that is ' politically speaking' theirs

Bottle_of_Smoke

I suppose it would have been an admission by the British that NI was disputable.

Interesting to see would it be considered as a solution now if things heated up. During the GE debates it was put to party leaders if the BA would be brought in if the PSNI couldn't control the 'dissidents' - unionists said ''its the police chief's decision"

SF & SDLP said "no way" without answering what they would do.

Alliance gave something so side-stepping I can't even remember it

steddyeddy

The un didnt intervene in many incidents of discrimination of a group of peoples, look at south africa for example.

Jonah42

Probably to do with Britain being on the security council. All decisions made by the council must be unaminous and Britain saw the troubles as an internal affair.

PeakOutput

Johnny Utah wrote: »

It seems to me that the UN have no hesitation in intervening in any tinpot dictatorship, especially if the country in question has oil supplies.

However, when the British Army were unjustifiably and illegally killing unarmed civilians in Northern Ireland, the UN and the rest of the world just ignored the problem.

Why didn't they intervene and remove British forces from the country?

seen as you are trying to compare this with libya I will give you the differences

1. the british army were controlled by an internationally recognised democratically elected goverment

2. they did not threaten to cleanse northern of anyone who dosnt have the same beliefs as them

suicide_circus

No oil in ulster

LondonIrish90

suicide_circus wrote: »

No oil in ulster

Nor Kosovo, nor Bosnia. What is your point?

Saadyst

Why doesn't the UN step in to Burma (Myanmar)? Rwanda? Zimbabwe? North Korea? Iran? Israel? Algeria? etc.

suicide_circus

LondonIrish90 wrote: »

Nor Kosovo, nor Bosnia. What is your point?

I'm trolling, lighten up friend. Xx

steddyeddy

PeakOutput wrote: »

seen as you are trying to compare this with libya I will give you the differences

I dont think he is nesecerily

1. the british army were controlled by an internationally recognised democratically elected goverment

Actually that was sort of a bone of contention in the north. Many people didnt think the british army had a right on Irish soil as they saw it. As regards democracy for a period of time it didnt exist in the north. Due to gerrymandering you could be sure that any democratic process was a contrived one.

2. they did not threaten to cleanse northern of anyone who dosnt have the same beliefs as them

No but a lot of other groups did!

Edit: they british army often skipped the threatening part and went straight to slaughter. They often slaughtered groups who had different views to them. They were engaging in state terrorism in the north.

Notorious97

PeakOutput wrote: »

2. they did not threaten to cleanse northern of anyone who dosnt have the same beliefs as them

Didn’t declare that is what they were up to, but what they were actually up to is not too far from it to be honest. Treating some of the population as 2nd class citizens with the conditions that existed within the 6 counties at the time was terrible, the BA shot them, and the British Government oppressed them from London.

Back on topic though, i agree it is most likely because of the UKs position on the UN council.

sensibleken

whatever about Northern Ireland. what about West Meath, the partition of that once great kingdom is far more unjust

Celly Smunt

sensibleken wrote: »

whatever about Northern Ireland. what about West Meath, the partition of that once great kingdom is far more unjust

wait a minute...people from westmeath want to be from meath?

SamHarris

Humanatarian crisis/ violence against civilians is only one of the many factors that are taken into account when intervention carried out, or not. You see it now with congressmen in the States asking if it is in their national interest to help the Libyan rebels, the fact that there is a real danger of near genocide is not in question. Other factors include the difficulty of the mission - I am thinking of Somalia when the UN pulled out after the black hawk down mission or the US in Lebanon after the Marine base bombing.

Oil is rarely sufficient either - whoever wins in a conficlt is certain to continue trading their oil. Stability is a greater factor.

sensibleken

pmcmahon wrote: »

wait a minute...people from westmeath want to be from meath?

the people of westmeaths opinion matters not. long ago it was all part of the one kingdom so logically* that should be the case in future. that land rightfully belongs to the king of tara.

*may not actually be logical

SamHarris

steddyeddy wrote: »

I dont think he is nesecerily



Actually that was sort of a bone of contention in the north. Many people didnt think the british army had a right on Irish soil as they saw it. As regards democracy for a period of time it didnt exist in the north. Due to gerrymandering you could be sure that any democratic process was a contrived one.



No but a lot of other groups did!

Edit: they british army often skipped the threatening part and went straight to slaughter. They often slaughtered groups who had different views to them. They were engaging in state terrorism in the north.

I don't think the scale was anywhere near enough - comparing it to even a day in Libya or say Srebrenica. The acts of individual soldiers, or groups of soldiers, unless incredibly widespread cannot be dealt with in the same way as the leader's of countries promising a bloodbath.

Bottle_of_Smoke

SamHarris wrote: »

I don't think the scale was anywhere near enough - comparing it to even a day in Libya or say Srebrenica. The acts of individual soldiers, or groups of soldiers, unless incredibly widespread cannot be dealt with in the same way as the leader's of countries promising a bloodbath.

So you're saying northern ireland was an exceptionally lovely place to live during the troubles?





The name's Man, Straw Man

Manic Moran

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

So you're saying northern ireland was an exceptionally lovely place to live during the troubles?

The name's Man, Straw Man

I seem to recall that in the 80s it had the lowest overall crime rate in Europe.

A couple more bombings than the average, but less of everything else. Who's going to carry out a mugging when there is a chance of a squad of soldiers or some provisional vigilante group strolling around the corner?

NTM

Guill

Scale.

munchkin_utd

non question to be honest.

the UK is on the UN security council with a veto, so the question of a motion to be meddling in internal uk affairs would never arise.
EVEN if it were tabled by some dodgy crowd like Lybia or another member of the UN.
It'd be vetoed by the UK anyhow.
So there was NEVER going to be the chance of a sniff of a successful UN intervention EVER.

Now, was there a problem big enough for the UN to think about, leaving aside that a motion was never ever going to pas the uk veto?

The north was never out of control in relative terms in the first place.
There was 2 1/2 times as many killed in srebrinica in a week than the north in 30 years.
And BY THE WAY ....
the all protecting un WAS in srebrinica for all the shaggin use they were there!!

Faith+1

steddyeddy wrote: »

The un didnt intervene in many incidents of discrimination of a group of peoples, look at south africa for example.

There was discrimination in SA?

walshb

But it does make you question the real motives behind Britain's bombing of Libya? Across the water they were happy to do nothing when catholics/nationalists were being badly oppressed. Nothing. So, now we're meant to believe that they give two sh1ts about Libyans?

And, for centuries they have oppressed and conquered.

One of the worst acts of human evil IMO was the Holy Cross incident where
young children were pelted with urine on their way to school. Pure
evil. On "British soil" this was happening. Didn't bother the brits in the slightest. Oh, but a bunch of Libyan rebels want
to overthrow Gadaffi and the Brits make it out that it's about human rights?

arybvtcw0eolkf

Faith+1 wrote: »

There was discrimination in SA?

Yup, 'twas all there in black & white!.

The Waltzing Consumer

Patrick Hillery did go to the UN after Bloody Sunday asking the UN to intervene. It did not succeed.

sanbrafyffe

if there was ever war again which i dont think ever will be it will be the un this time that will come in........god the loyalists wont like that:D

KerranJast

Saadyst wrote: »

Why doesn't the UN step in to Burma (Myanmar)? Rwanda? Zimbabwe? North Korea? Iran? Israel? Algeria? etc.

The UN were in Rwanda. They ballsed it up bigtime.
Zimbabwe is too out of the way. It's really a matter for their neighbours.
North Korea & Iran are big trading partners with China and Russia respectively, both of which have vetos over UN actions.
Israel is backed by the US which has a veto.

Notorious97

So basically as long as one of the permanent council members has friendly relations with a country who has unrest going on with in it, the UN is a pile of w*nk

Latchy

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Patrick Hillery did go to the UN after Bloody Sunday asking the UN to intervene. It did not succeed.

If Lynch had given the go ahead in 69 to invade the bogside their might have being a different scenario ( and no doubt a bloodbath ) and UN might have come on board but it was a massive decision for anybody to have to take and so leaving the situation to the British to sort out was probably the best option although many might say not .

macroboy

because the ...no wait...yeah thats right they should have bombed belfast..
of course they should have...what was i thinking
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

KerranJast

Notorious97 wrote: »

So basically as long as one of the permanent council members has friendly relations with a country who has unrest going on with in it, the UN is a pile of w*nk

Yep. It's pretty hard to get consensus on military action. I'm surprised Russia didn't veto the Libya action considering they make a ****load of money selling them arms.
Then again if I were suspicious I'd say a war is good business for them and they could have found some way of funneling weapons through other African states to Gaddafi.

stovelid

In fairness, IIRC, I think the UN commission on Human Rights did find Brtain guilty of tirture re: treatment of suspects in NI prisions during the 70s?

Or maybe it was the European one? Maybe somebody can clarify.

johnmcdnl

Latchy wrote: »

But you cant remove forces from territory that is ' politically speaking' theirs

but they can go in to remove the forces of Ghadafi which are political speaking the troops of Libya...

explain the difference here

Dudess

Manic Moran wrote: »

I seem to recall that in the 80s it had the lowest overall crime rate in Europe.

A couple more bombings than the average, but less of everything else. Who's going to carry out a mugging when there is a chance of a squad of soldiers or some provisional vigilante group strolling around the corner?

NTM

Try putting that contradiction-rich point to people who suffered during the Troubles...

Hannibal

Latchy wrote: »

If Lynch had given the go ahead in 69 to invade the bogside their might have being a different scenario ( and no doubt a bloodbath ) and UN might have come on board but it was a massive decision for anybody to have to take and so leaving the situation to the British to sort out was probably the best option although many might say not .

To be honest if Lynch invaded the Irish Army would have been slaughtered, they were poorly equipped and not battle trained.
The IRA were a guerilla group fighting against one of the worlds best armies, in order to maintain action a guerilla group has to be invisible. If they went out onto a battlefield = GAME OVER

Latchy

johnmcdnl wrote: »

but they can go in to remove the forces of Ghadafi which are political speaking the troops of Libya...

explain the difference here

Well that was was a joint decision by the UN council as a humanitarian issue to protect civilians whom we are led to believe were being slaughtered by Gadafis forces ( yes we know it's really as much about oil to ) .It could be argued that the slaughter in Derry on bloody Sunday could have gave the right for UN intervention to prevent all out war on the island of Ireland but it was as much about political manoeuvrings behind the scenes that prevented that as anything else

Britain would have first protested to the Dublin goverment on it's right to intervene in their affairs and then to the United Nations but it would not have being in British interests to attack the south nor the Republics interests for another savage war in the country although some historians /republicans might argue otherwise .

Dotsey wrote: »

To be honest if Lynch invaded the Irish Army would have been slaughtered, they were poorly equipped and not battle trained.
The IRA were a guerilla group fighting against one of the worlds best armies, in order to maintain action a guerilla group has to be invisible. If they went out onto a battlefield = GAME OVER

The army and many civillians would have being slaughtered on both sides . It was very much about logistics and strength and there would have being the possibility of both IDF/IRA joining up ,that was the most likley scenario but even then it would not have being feasible to want to take on the much larger and stronger British army ,even though some might have being up for it .


.

KeithAFC

Would of been a bigger slaughter house.

SafeSurfer

SamHarris wrote: »

I don't think the scale was anywhere near enough - comparing it to even a day in Libya or say Srebrenica. The acts of individual soldiers, or groups of soldiers, unless incredibly widespread cannot be dealt with in the same way as the leader's of countries promising a bloodbath.

And Srebrenica happened after the no fly zone over Bosnia was imposed.

Son Of A Vidic

SafeSurfer wrote: »

And Srebrenica happened after the no fly zone over Bosnia was imposed.

The poor people in Srebrenica had a Dutch UN contingent 'protecting' them, could they have asked for worse?

But to answer your question OP, you do realise it is the UN you are talking about?

Predator_

Johnny Utah wrote: »

It seems to me that the UN have no hesitation in intervening in any tinpot dictatorship, especially if the country in question has oil supplies.

However, when the British Army were unjustifiably and illegally killing unarmed civilians in Northern Ireland, the UN and the rest of the world just ignored the problem.

Why didn't they intervene and remove British forces from the country?

Because the UN is a puppet of the Brits, amongst others.

Seaneh

pmcmahon wrote: »

wait a minute...people from westmeath want to be from meath?

I certainly don't...

Xivilai

Latchy wrote: »

If Lynch had given the go ahead in 69 to invade the bogside their might have being a different scenario ( and no doubt a bloodbath ) and UN might have come on board but it was a massive decision for anybody to have to take and so leaving the situation to the British to sort out was probably the best option although many might say not .

As far as I know, the whole idea of that plan was to get across the border and open up routes for evacuation of Catholics/Nationalists to the Republic during the violence. I don't think there was any real 'invasion' plans because that would have been extremely stupid

Latchy

Xivilai wrote: »

As far as I know, the whole idea of that plan was to get across the border and open up routes for evacuation of Catholics/Nationalists to the Republic during the violence. I don't think there was any real 'invasion' plans because that would have been extremely stupid

Invasion was just a term or word that was bandied about after the situation had died down but that's what the headlines would have being around the world had Irish soldiers stepped over into NI and although the plan to open routes for Catholics /Nationalists to flee back to the south was good in theory ,it's also likley that there would have being some engagement with Loyalist /British forces and then your into a whole new ball game

Cybertron85

No valuable natural resources in Norn Iron.

sheesh

I can imagine that it was down to the US. GB is a close ally but the US is also full of Irish people. Getting involved in that sort of conflict would mean that you make enemies with one side or they other.


As it worked out it probably was the best option in terms of keeping the numbers of dead and injured down.

Libyia is a strange one I assume that part of the reason is to maintain oil supply but also to show the arab world that the west can be a force for good too.