UN, Irrelevant?

The Saint

Do you think if the UN does not endorse strikes on Iraq, that as Bush says, it is irrelevant or is he just being arrogant.

bonkey

I would maintain that if the UN toes the US line, it will lose any and all credibility it has outside the western world, and will be viewed as nothing more than another US lackey.

On the other hand, if it doesnt back the US, and the US go ahead with their op anyway, the UN is seriously weakened anyway.

Withing the western world.....hard to judge....bit of both I would say...some will see it as weak, some will see it as not kowtowing to the US.

Personally, I fall into the latter party. Whether or not Bush was correct in his statement, he should never have made it part of his public speeches on the subject, as it completely undermines the UN into a lose-lose situation on the public front.

Or - put another way - I believe Bush *wants* to make the UN irrelevant, and statements like the one which prompted this thread have been carefully chosen to achieve exactly that.

Ideally, he would have liked them to back him, thus giving him added legitimacy, and at the same time weakening the UN further. Now that they wont back him, he has to go to the trouble of seeing who will join him in ignoring them.

jc

gandalf

Personally I fall into the camp that if the UN is irrelevant then it is the US's fault. Bush is now showing that they never wanted weapon inspectors in with the noises coming from Washington today. Either they know something they haven't divulged yet (which maybe they should) or they have already made up their minds to attack nomatter what.

As bonkey says if the UN gives the green light to military action then it will be seen as a weak organisation that jumps to heal when the Americans tell it too.

I have a really bad feeling that alot of Iraqis are going to suffer because of the hawks in Washington.

Gandalf.

Sand

The UN is irrelevant. Its not the US administrations fault it is - it simply takes advantage of the fact.

Want to know whose fault it is? The UNs.... Take a look at the membership of the Human rights commisson over the past few years and tell me its not the most ridiculous, ironic, sad thing youve ever seen.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/2/chrmem.htm

Zimbabwes (one example - several others) proven desire to improve human rights first and foremost amongst its own population have obviously led the UN to get it onto the council so they can really push the human rights agenda forward.

The UN is irrelevant because its a bad joke - the trendy lefties can sneer all they like but the idea of the US getting lessons on human rights from China is moronic. The British Commonwealth is probably the most over hyped but powerless organisation but the UN keeps doing its best to beat it. Some day it will.

As for the UN weapon inspectors, I heard today on the radio a previous chief of the UN weapon inspection teams in Iraq, according to him Saddams letter doesnt given him the completely unfettered access he or any other weapons inspection would require - he dismissed it as a ploy for time on the behalf of a less than a "word-is-his-bond" Saddam. Cant blame the US for being cynical in that light.

mike65

Originally posted by Sand
.... Take a look at the membership of the Human rights commisson over the past few years and tell me its not the most ridiculous, ironic, sad thing youve ever seen.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/2/chrmem.htm

Wot? No People Republic of North Korea?

More seriously its in the very nature of such a body that it becomes de-facto, useless. After all if everyone is a member and everyone has one vote, the need to placate so many diverse opinions
means tough and determined policy is almost imposible to achieve,
even when Saddam invaded Kuiwait it was'nt plain sailing.

Mike.

Lemming

Originally posted by gandalf
Bush is now showing that they never wanted weapon inspectors in with the noises coming from Washington today. Either they know something they haven't divulged yet (which maybe they should) or they have already made up their minds to attack nomatter what.

What I find extremely odd is that the US spent so many years trying to get weapons inspectors into the country, and now they suddenly say "We dont' want to after all" ??

What I find worrying, is that the politicians in washington themselves are pushing for military action. They seem very, VERY eager for war. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't politicians supposed to prevent such action?? And that armed forces are only called in as a measure of last resort, rather than a first?

The whole thing smacks of hidden agendas. And to be honest, I think the US is trying to pull a fast one.

DadaKopf

Sand: was eridacting the world of smallpox irrelevant?

Clearly the UN is far from perfect, and in places, fundamentally flawed, but you're applying 'irrelevance' to one particular site of criticism.

While the UN is toothless in the enforcement of human rights at present, it has recently been adding to its arsenal increasingly powerful instruments to enforce human rights and due to its presence, the authority of international law (to enforce human rights) is edging closer to reality. For all the campaigning done by NGOs and lobbyists, the UN is one of the primary institutions that is bringing this about.

Borzoi

Furthermore, to say they're irrelevant ignores the work of all the peace keeping forces throughout the years. And cheapens the deaths of mombers of those forces - including members of our own Defence Forces.

Flawed it may be, but not irrelevant.

Typedef

The second the USA attacks Iraq without a UN mandate (assuming that is what happens) the UN will be in a position where the US 'should' have action taken against it, because it is acting without a UN mandate.

If the UN does not take action then, it will have become significantly diminished as an organisation. If the UN does take action against the US in the event of a non Un mandated attack against Iraq by the US the I don't believe the UN would be irrelevant, on the contrary it would have shown itself to be more then just an appendage of US foreign policy and a real and substantive mechanism for redressing conflicts around the world.

If you don't accept that Iraq poses a threat to the US or it's interests then the US could not in fact lay legitimate claim to a pre-emptive defensive strike against Iraq. []. The corollary follows of course that Iraq if it is not planning a strike against the US Iraq is justified in striking first against the US, when the US is so obviously intent on striking against Iraq, as it would seem today 19/11/2002 that even the Iraqi offer of unhindered return of weapons inspectors is not going to avert war.

Clearly the US is acting as an agressor and whilst the US is an 'allay' of this country that should not stop proplw recpgnising that th US' current administration is walking all over established institutions and should be sanctioned accordingly as the aggressor in a conflict that looks increasingly inevitable.

Sand

Sand: was eridacting the world of smallpox irrelevant?

Irrelevant, no - but it could have been accomplished by any suitably influential and committed group of NGOs, governments etc etc. The UNS primary misson is maintaining world peace, providing a way to arbitrate between countries and to improve human rights. Thats what people most commonly associate the UN with, Its unique sphere of influence/reponsibility.

A fairly convincing argument can be made that the UN has failed in these unique areas - conflicts contiue to churn on whilst the UN wrings it hands and debates to the point of paralysis, arbitrations (especially successful ones) continue in the main to be agreement amongst countries more than anything else and human rights are in the main appalling outside the West and other developed nations - see the thread on humanities that was closed regarding the massacres, gang rapes and tortures that occured in India - apparently with the non-interest of the Indian authorities. The UN even contributes to paralysis on this issue by making the worst offenders the policy makers ffs. Its like asking the crinimals to arrest themselves and turn up to the jail when theyre ready.

And these unique areas are what are of most relevance to the thread - Is the UN irrelevant, due to the US- Iraq goings on, not the spread of disease.

Consider the balklans - the UN stood aside and allowed the massacre of civillians seeking their protection at Srebinica. The US and its allies twice countered Milosevics butchering scum and their ethnic cleansing - the second time applying such pressure that Milosevic fell from power and the Balkans became at least a bit safer.

Now who was more relevant? And who wrung their hands and denounced the terrible evil of the world?

Furthermore, to say they're irrelevant ignores the work of all the peace keeping forces throughout the years.

Ironically enough, their work can be compared to the colonial armies which basically did the same job- keeping ethnic groups which despised each other slightly more than the colonials apart.

and should be sanctioned accordingly as the aggressor in a conflict that looks increasingly inevitable.

The great thing about the UN is that its irrelevant- The US or its allies can veto any aggressor sanctions in the security council, much as its a waste of time to go after Russia in Checnya. In fact, the UN only ever got going to defend South Korea ( Okay the US did ) because commie China werent recognised and the USSR were absent in protest of this.

Turnip

Originally posted by Sand
Ironically enough, their work can be compared to the colonial armies which basically did the same job- keeping ethnic groups which despised each other slightly more than the colonials apart.

Up to 10 million Congolese are estimated to have died as a result of Belgian forced labour and mass murder in the early 1900s. Up to a million Algerians are estimated to have died in the war for independence from France in the 1950s and 1960s. Throughout the 20th-century, the British empire, gassed, bombed and massacred the 'natives' from Sudan to Iraq, Sierra Leone to Palestine, India to Malaya. Churchill can certainly be said to be responsible for the 4 million deaths in the avoidable Bengal famine of 1943 - and earlier British governments are even more guilty of the even larger famines in late 19th and early 20th-century India, which claimed as many as 30 million lives.

So one slight difference between colonial powers and the UN is that the the UN to its credit, does not go around butchering and starving the 'natives' by the million whenever they got any funny notions about self determination.

And what about South Africa? Are you going to argue that apartheid was a good idea after all?

Sand: What is that your alternative to the UN then? Old fashioned colonialism?

Sand

Turnip open a thread on the wrongs and rights of colonialism if youre that interested. Given your record i will have to advise you that Im not italian so at least 75% of your debating tactics are out the window.

Sand: What is that your alternative to the UN then? Old fashioned colonialism?

How about the good ol developed, free nations deciding there are certain common standards - democracy, a tolerable administration of justice and a basic respect for human rights. And how about instead of "aspiring" to these things the nations actually take concrete steps which lead to their adoption - which shock horror may have less to do with passing meaningless resolutions and perhaps, maybe, just fricking maybe deciding that dictatorships and oppression are not tolerable just because theyre doing it to other people. I dont believe Bush thinks like that. But I think that when the US overthrows Saddam ( and they will, one way or the other) theres is a chance theyll actually help to build a secular, democratic Iraq - a greater good wouldnt you think? So if Bush wants to inadvertently do the greater good ( it would have to be sold to him as solidifying american interests or whatever - much like the rebuilding of post war europe was) grand.

The UN on the other hand is a talking shop. Hands across the world singing kumbyeya my lord, kumbyeya.....

If youre waiting for the UN to save you from a dictatorship, then you can rest easy knowing youre descendants will keep up the family tradition of waiting for the UN to save them for decades to come.

DadaKopf

Sand: Turnip asked you what your alternative to the UN is.

I'd also like you to answer the question.

You can deem the UN irrelevant all you like, but what to you suggest to maintain world peace and enforce human rights?

Turnip

By the way, I'm in favour of an invasion of Iraq. Although I have reservations.

Originally posted by Sand
How about the good ol developed, free nations deciding there are certain common standards - democracy, a tolerable administration of justice and a basic respect for human rights.

Recent history has shown that the developed nations have yet to get the hang of living up to these common standards you mention. East Timor is a pretty good example. The Palestinian/Israeli situation is another.

The UN does as much as the powerful nations allow it to in accordance with their interests. That's the brutal reality. But if the UN wasn't there, (and some of its agencies work better than others), things would be much much worse globally.

What did you say the alternative was again?

bonkey

[QUGiven your record i will have to advise you that Im not italian so at least 75% of your debating tactics are out the window.[/B][/QUOTE]

And if you use this tactic again, you wont be posting here again.

Goading ppl in this manner is no better than what Turnip did.

He received his public warning.

Consider this yours, and everyone elses.

jc

Sand

Sand: Turnip asked you what your alternative to the UN is.

And if you read you would notice I answered.

You can deem the UN irrelevant all you like, but what to you suggest to maintain world peace and enforce human rights?

You imply that the UN enforces world peace and enforces human rights by asking whats the alternative. I believe the UN doesnt and is in no danger of doing so in any meaningful way anytime soon.

The moral of Bushes speech was shockingly blunt in UN circles - if the UN wont do anything about Saddams dictatorship, the US will. i.e the US would be an agent of change in overthrowing a corrupt, sadistic regime.

The US is often criticised as supporting the corrupt regimes of the middle east- even i criticise them for that. Is the UN any better in its desire to uphold the status quo ( read maintain peace- at any price), even if that status quo includes brutal regimes such as Saddams?

Personally, If the US wants to bring down Saddam then grand, the world, and Iraq will be a better place for it. I just hope that they and other developed nations keep up a head of steam by continuing to actively support democratic forces against oppressive regimes.

Recent history has shown that the developed nations have yet to get the hang of living up to these common standards you mention.

Ive a little more faith in them than China on the UNs human rights council- call me cynical...

And if you use this tactic again, you wont be posting here again.
Goading ppl in this manner is no better than what Turnip did.

Noted. I retract what I said, I merely considered it to be a throw away remark to shut down any trolling into a argument about colonialism - apologies for any hurt feelings.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand

Personally, If the US wants to bring down Saddam then grand, the world, and Iraq will be a better place for it. I just hope that they and other developed nations keep up a head of steam by continuing to actively support democratic forces against oppressive regimes.

And who's to prevent the US and 'other developed nations' from acting against regimes which are not oppressive? The US has shown by its words and its deeds that it acts primarily in its own interests and not in the interests of justice and democracy. When it suits its own interests to promote justice and democracy in Country X it has done and will continue to do so, but where it suits its interests to trample on or collaborate in the trampling on of justice and democracy in Country Y it has done and will continue to do so.

Any international organisation can only be as effective as its members (in particular the most powerful members) allow. Because the US is so preeminently powerful it doesn't really need to build multilateral support for its actions and can thus choose not to need the UN. The UN is thus irrelevant when it comes to the actions of the US as long as the US feels like it.

I suspect that Bush's UN speech was part of a strategy to kill two birds with one stone: to get his invasion of Iraq and to prove the 'irrelevance' of the UN. If the Security Council mandates a military invasion of Iraq, all well and good. My guess (and I suspect that of the US) is that it won't, in which case they invade anyway and prove that the UN can't back up its own resolutions.

DadaKopf

Sand, though this comment is slightly off the topic, I think you should consider this: simply because the UN is incapable of acting efficaciously at this present time does not mean that the establishment of binding international laws to govern the actions of states is, in itself, a doomed idea. This is how I see your argument.

As shotamoose points out, the America has a big slice of the pie as far as power goes and for a long time, the US has consistently endeavoured to make the UN irrelevant by using this power to dilute and stonewall progress.

I think there's an underlying irony in what's happening right now. With the US, once again, so publically flaunting global hegemony and explicitly attempting to convince everyone of the urgency of the 'no alternative' scenario, Bush is generating as much opposition as he is support at state level. While this won't actually count for much this time around, it might perversely act as a progressive movement within the international community to push through further reforms in the UN as regards the efficacy of its various instruments and may, perhaps, foment a curtailing of US dominance. But I'm probably just being naive.

It's always going to be difficult to construct an international organisation based on democracy and equality when the members of that system are themselves so undemocratic and inequitable. It's like asking a successful thief to draw up laws to prevent theft. But, ironically, I think it is possible - just not for a long time. You have to convince the thief that it's not in their best interests by presenting them with tangible alternatives, or if that fails, punishment.

I think the possibility of reform is emerging with greater demands for global justice at grassroots and NGO levels (which the UN is now taking seriously), and provided there are at least some committed members in the UN General Assembly etc., the realpolitik that the big states are so fond of might just be forced to take a turn in the right direction, if there are tangible alternatives or more ethical side-constraints on every state's liberty.

While the UN is, undoubtedly, irrelevant right now as regards US unilateral action on Iraq, I think the UN is still maturing and ripening into the human rights enforcer it was intended to be.

Sand

And who's to prevent the US and 'other developed nations' from acting against regimes which are not oppressive?

You imply that the UN can. It cant. Given the cold war and the strategies employed by all sides in it, this is not proven, to be kind about it. Thus the UNs irrelevance is demonstrated.

The some of the few things that stop the powerful nations going after non oppressive regimes are trade ( everybody wins) and bad press (Vietnam Part Two is *always* dug out for every war it seems, watch the press this time round again) - especially when sons and daughters start coming back in body bags. See the attempt at country building/ war lord pacification in Somalia. The neutered resolutions of an alliance of well meaning fools and tyrants with wholly opposing world views arent all the important.

I think you should consider this: simply because the UN is incapable of acting efficaciously at this present time does not mean that the establishment of binding international laws to govern the actions of states is, in itself, a doomed idea. This is how I see your argument

Laws ( and democracy in general) is based on the idea that were all equal - that credibility of that ideal becomes stretched when youre comparing the United States Government and say the Government of Ireland. Sure, we could have some international laws - but when push comes to shove if the most powerful nation doesnt want to play by the rules- they just throw their weight around until the rules are changed- at least for them.

So yeah, I guess Id see international law making as being doomed - countries tend to act in their own self interest but that doesnt nessarily mean they wont do something for the greater good. It was in the US interests to promote a strong, democratic and properous Europe in the aftermath of WW2 ( they could just have withdrawn into isolationism again) as allies against Communism.

Hopefully the US and other western nations will begin to see that it is in their interest to not tolerate regimes like Saddams just because theyre far away or theyre just oppressing other people. 9/11 may demonstrate that west cant just assume theyre harmless. Bushes Axis of Evil was heavily criticised but i dont see any problem with describing the regimes holding power in Iraq, North Korea and Iran as evil. We certainly wouldnt tolerate any such regimes in Western Europe - Id certainly hope not, but then again these days can you be sure?

Might be a bit of a reach to hope the US and Europe will actually get round to toppling those sort of regimes - but its a tad more realistic than the UN becoming the sort of world power nessassary to be relevant - let alone becoming relevant in ending these regimes

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand

And who's to prevent the US and 'other developed nations' from acting against regimes which are not oppressive?

You imply that the UN can. It cant. Given the cold war and the strategies employed by all sides in it, this is not proven, to be kind about it. Thus the UNs irrelevance is demonstrated.

You missed the point. The UN can only do what it's members want it to do. Most of the time, countries will desire some kind of multilateral institution to try and achieve shared goals. Something like the UN is just about inevitable in such an interdependent world. The only countries that don't want a UN are those with a lot to hide or those so preeminently powerful as to almost need no allies. The behaviour of the US vis a vis the UN shows that it qualifies on both counts.

Sand

You missed the point. The UN can only do what it's members want it to do. Most of the time, countries will desire some kind of multilateral institution to try and achieve shared goals.

Youre saying pretty much what Im saying - The UN is irrelevant. It only gets to put its name on the front of "good things" tm, whenever the US and the other real, relevant powers choose to let it. Thats why its better to hope that the Western nations will overthrow oppressive regimes, rather than the UN ever will.

And its not even totally about power. An police force composed of crinimals is never going to be serious about stopping crime - Why should we belive the UN to be any different given the terribly ironic composition of its panels on various matters? Why should it be accepted as the just and the right good guys when it can only go as far on human rights say as China, Zimbabwe and co choose to let it?

Then ask yourself why the US should accept the UN as the good guys given the above?