WTF U.N.?

[brakada]

I agree on the stand that the UN is an obsolete entity (wow, that one was hard to produce).
It is indeed gulping up to much money in comparison with the results it gets, and I for one think that it is the enormity and complexity of it that makes it so immobile in the face of world politics.

Agreed. Although I would add a wiiiiiiiiiiiiiide variety of interests. After all each country has its own interests and own views on certain issues. Something should definitely be changed.

Always acting to late is not better than doing nothing: the bad has already happened and all you can do is clean up the mess.

Well, here I have to disagree. For example the bloodshed was stopped by the UN in Bosnia. (I know a lot of blood was spillt, but it would have ended a lot worse without the UN. So it's not much better than doing nothing, but it still is better.

The mandates they issue before intervening are also something I just can't understand: most of the time it says that no violence is permitted, only in case of direct violence against UN-peacekeeping forces. How do you expect to stop 2 people from fighting if you're only allowed to stand at the side yelling "Stop fighting, you fools!!".
Give 'em both a slap in the face, that'll draw their attention.

I don't understand that completely either. But I think I might know where the problem lies. Since the peace keeping forces come from a variety of countries, their soldiers share different views and opinions. And if they were entitled to the use of force, some UN troops would help one side, while others would help the other side and in the end there would be UN troops fighting each other. Well, that's just my theory.

And maybe countries acting on an individual basis can act faster if needed. It would be easy to form temporary allegiances with a few other countries that share your views, without having to take your proposal up for accordance to the UN Security council: there's just too many different interests involved to come to a quick decision. You're more likely to end up with a weak compromise, which in terms of taking action is almost equal to nothing...

Well, you know where alliances have lead to in the past. Do the letters W W I and W W I I mean anything to you? they were all started by "alliances" to intervene without asking anybody else if they agree... :wink:

In that view, I respect the USA and France, even though they haven't always made the right decisions. They took action whenever they deemed it nessecary and for the benefit of the international community.

And like the rules here on MS say, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Although there may have been a couple of operations for the good of international community, most of the actions are taken due to superpowers' interests and selfish motives (either to help allies, to get to a certain resource or to strengthen the control in strategic parts of the world. Sad, but true, and this will probably never change.

[Yao]

Thnx for your comments Brakada, most of what you said sounds reasonable.
A few things though: When I say that a peacekeeping force is allowed to use violence, it doesn't mean it would be used partially. It would mean that either of the involved parties would be sanctioned when misbehaving, and that any act of violence, no matter which side commits it, would be stopped with the use of force if nessecary, instead of just condemning it publicly and doing nothing. By the way, in Bosnia there have been reports of UN troops fighting amongst each other, although I've forgotten from which countries the ones involved came... :?

Acting late is al least as bad as doing nothing, because it gives the impression that the international community doesn't give a damn about what happened. It is worse because it usually is used to boast and say: look at us, good samaritans helping those poor people, while that just consumes enormous amounts of money and goods. And even if they help, they should really help: that means not just emergency relief, but building up a country insofar as it will be able to support it's own needs again. But prevention is still always the best option.

About the alliances: tricky, yes. But malign alliances if forged will still come to life, even if the UN forbids it. It's about those ones that are meant to intervene in a situation gone bad with people in need of help. Those ones can be made faster when there's not an enormous obstacle standing in the way (that is the UN). But on the other hand, the UN does have a certain amount of control over her members, so it might help in preventing 'evil' alliances coming into existence.

The one about the USA and France taking action independently I should have put differently. But it still stands, especially for France, that has on several occasions sent its troops to stop the fighting where it had no economical benefit, or at least not substantial, like Rwanda. Even though they really fluked on that one, protecting the genocidaires (Hutu) instead of those who where killed...(Tutsi).

By the way, your name reminds me of one of the quarters of Accra, the capital of Ghana. It is called Adabraka. Good Hotels over there for the backpackers.

[davetlv]

The UN - great in principle, bloody awful in implementation.

The whole security council thing is dated and does not reflect the reality of thw world we live in. How on earth was it possible for Syria to chair it a while back! Yeah i felt much more secure!

As for the general assembly, if you can muster enough votes you can bloody well pass anything.

A discredited organisation which is corrupt on the ground and representing only a select view.

[Galapidate]

The UN - great in principle, bloody awful in implementation.

The whole security council thing is dated and does not reflect the reality of thw world we live in. How on earth was it possible for Syria to chair it a while back! Yeah i felt much more secure!

As for the general assembly, if you can muster enough votes you can bloody well pass anything.

A discredited organisation which is corrupt on the ground and representing only a select view.

Well said.

[brakada]

The UN - great in principle, bloody awful in implementation.

The whole security council thing is dated and does not reflect the reality of thw world we live in. How on earth was it possible for Syria to chair it a while back! Yeah i felt much more secure!

As for the general assembly, if you can muster enough votes you can bloody well pass anything.

A discredited organisation which is corrupt on the ground and representing only a select view.

Hi dave, welcome back. I agree totally about the UN. But it definitely still has the most "credibility" when it comes to international interventions. To explain myself: "No matter what the success of the operations is, they are approoved by most of the world. And are often respected by countries, who don't wholly agree. So it's kind of the opinion of the most of the world. The UN definitely need some reforms, which would enable it to act faster when it comes to "tense" situations. And it would definitely need it's own military means. Words are just not effective enough.

But regarding the Security Council: I mean it's made the way, smaller countries can do almost nothing. What could Syria do? Pass a resolution against Israel. Yeah, they wish... :wink: I think even of North Korea was charing the security council, nothing would be different... Like I said part-time members can do nothing in Security Council without the help of the others. It's all about the "big" guys. :wink:

[davetlv]

Its good to be back!

To be credible the UN has first got to show that it is impartial - not only in its processes for making decisions but also, more importantly, in the implementation of those decisions.

As you know Brakada I only speak from personal knowledge and experience, in this situation its how I see the UN and its agencies operating with regards to Israel and the territories.

Let?s take the issue of refugees. The UN has without a doubt done some excellent work with refugees from many countries. The UNHCR clearly works for the benefit of those refugees. However, Palestinian refugees are serviced by a separate body set up in 1950. UNRWA has for the past 54 been managing some 23 refugee camps within the territories and another 32 camps in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria (you?ll note that Israeli occupation only started in 1967). In 1950 there were an estimated 600 000 Palestinian refugees, a similar figure of refugees was created when Jews living in Arab lands were either expelled or forced to leave.

Whereas Israel integrated its refugees, the Palestinians were left in UNRWA refugee camps in Gaza, The West Bank and the aforementioned countries. Whilst Jordan controlled the West Bank and Egypt the Gaza strip UNRWA did nothing to help the Palestinian cause.

This raises the question why the UN needs two Refugee agencies ? one for the Palestinians and one for every other refugee on this planet?

More importantly we need to question if the UN is indeed a fair and unbiased organisation then why does it consistently turn a blind eye into clearly terrorist activities that take place within the camps it controls?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=105001943

[brakada]

Whilst Jordan controlled the West Bank and Egypt the Gaza strip UNRWA did nothing to help the Palestinian cause.

This raises the question why the UN needs two Refugee agencies ? one for the Palestinians and one for every other refugee on this planet?

More importantly we need to question if the UN is indeed a fair and unbiased organisation then why does it consistently turn a blind eye into clearly terrorist activities that take place within the camps it controls?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=105001943

Well, based on your comments the UN seems a fair and unbiased organization. They didn't do shit for the Palestinian cause and they didn't do shit to protect Israel from terrorism, so actually they helped noone. Isn't that fair and unbiased? :wink:

Don't worry, I know what you mean. I don't know why there is a seperate UN organization dealing with Palestinian refugees. Probably just another way for UN money "leaking". I was wondering a couple of times, why the UN never sent peacekeeping troops to Israel or Palestine, or guard the (non-existing) borders. Probably a lot could have been better.

[davetlv]

Well, based on your comments the UN seems a fair and unbiased organization. They didn't do shit for the Palestinian cause and they didn't do shit to protect Israel from terrorism, so actually they helped noone. Isn't that fair and unbiased? :wink:

Don't worry, I know what you mean. I don't know why there is a seperate UN organization dealing with Palestinian refugees. Probably just another way for UN money "leaking". I was wondering a couple of times, why the UN never sent peacekeeping troops to Israel or Palestine, or guard the (non-existing) borders. Probably a lot could have been better.

Obviously the excitement of a politics section has left me incapable of talking clearly. . . I'll try to rephrase.

Whilst doing diddlysquat on the ground for the Palestinian refugees, what UNRWA has become an expert in is allowing their camps to be used as a hot bed of terrorist activity. Whilst not serving the general cause of Palestinian refugees, UNRWA has no problem serving terrorists. Although they are not in this region as peacekeepers, thank god, they should also not be facilitators of war/terror. With a clear remit to help support the genuine refugees, which btw if this would have been anywhere in the world they would no longer be refugees due to various schemes of intergration, UNRWA fail.

Additionally there is confusion on who is a refugee - whilst the UN guidelines say one thing for the world in general, where it comes to the Palestinians it says something completely different (I will try a bit later to find suitable link to explain what i mean!)

As far as the confilict in this region the UN are totally discredited - under no circumstances should they ever be allowed to act as peace keepers here. Personally i don't have a problem as such with the idea of an international forc one in this region, i'm just not convinced the UN is the right one - NATO, although tough on Israel, might actually prove more effective in the long term as they dont have a 54 year history of allowing terrorists run free under their control here.

[brakada]

Whilst doing diddlysquat on the ground for the Palestinian refugees, what UNRWA has become an expert in is allowing their camps to be used as a hot bed of terrorist activity. Whilst not serving the general cause of Palestinian refugees, UNRWA has no problem serving terrorists. Although they are not in this region as peacekeepers, thank god, they should also not be facilitators of war/terror. With a clear remit to help support the genuine refugees, which btw if this would have been anywhere in the world they would no longer be refugees due to various schemes of intergration, UNRWA fail.

I think that UNRWA is mostly there for humanitarian reasons. To monitor the terrorist activities in the given conditions they would require at least an armed police force if not a military force, which they don't have. And in the mess that is evident in those camps it's very hard to maintain ANY order or control. And it's not the UN that directly supports terrorism, or terrorist activities. It would be almost like claiming that Israel supports terrorists because it gives them new reasons to attack Israel. (PLEASE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT I AM EXAGURATING A LOT) :wink: Most of the people in those camps are still innocent civilians, which struggle to survive from day to day.

Additionally there is confusion on who is a refugee - whilst the UN guidelines say one thing for the world in general, where it comes to the Palestinians it says something completely different (I will try a bit later to find suitable link to explain what i mean!)

IMO even the Israelis don't know exactly who are the refugees and who are the terrorists and that's why there is way too much collateral damage being done. I think Sharon uses too much "collective punishment". In the WWII in Slovenia (which was occupied by Germany, Italy and Hungary) there were a lot of partisans. The Germans/Nazis used the collective punishment, ie. they burnt down an entire village, where the families of those partisans lived or they took entire families to concentration camps, but their actions only ignited more people to join the partisans. I am NOT comparing Israel to Nazis or anything, I just wanted to provide an example of how ineffective collective punishment is.

As far as the confilict in this region the UN are totally discredited - under no circumstances should they ever be allowed to act as peace keepers here. Personally i don't have a problem as such with the idea of an international forc one in this region, i'm just not convinced the UN is the right one - NATO, although tough on Israel, might actually prove more effective in the long term as they dont have a 54 year history of allowing terrorists run free under their control here.

I agree that the UN was totally discredited, but maybe it would have been different if a peace keeping force was present. As for your comment on NATO, its just plain :BS: Come on, how can an organisation ran by USA and its allies be tough on Israel? And NATO is more appropriate for military interventions than peacekeeping missions and NATO has far too much bias, to be accepted by the Palestinians and the Arab nations. That's why I think that a UN force, formed by European, African and South American soldiers would be the most appropriate. Or maybe the European Intervention Force, when it comes to life, but I'm sure we'll have to wait a whole lot of time, before that happens.

[davetlv]

I'm not talking about UNRWA monitoring general terrorist activity, i'm demanding that they dont allow their facilities to be used time and time again for such activity. In doing so they fail to offer humanitarian need and support for those use genuinely need it. Thus failing in their remit.

I have said this before, and i will say it again. I do not support Sharon and his government. I dont approve of collective punishment. But there is a difference between collateral damage and collective punishment. If a bomb factory is situated amongst kindergardens and residential areas, there is, unfortunatley a greater risk of collateral damage. If these terrorist actually cared about the people they say they are fighting for, then they would locate their bases outside of civillian areas - just like they used to back in the 70's and 80's. But then way should they, its better press for them is civillians get killed then just plain old terrorists.

As far as NATO is concerned, i'm not convinced they are run by the US, certainly a vast number of europeans would disagree with that. The US does not always get its way within NATO - but thats not the arguement.

As for not be accepted by Arab nations, well thats too frigging bad, they washed their hands on the Palestnians in 1948 and should have no say in this region today. This is not an Israeli-Arab conflict, its an Israeli-Palestnian one. The Arab nations have had plently of opportunity to help solve this crisis and instead they have made it worse - they are as discredited as the UN are.

As far as the EIF is concerned, here we could have agreement!

[brakada]

I'm not talking about UNRWA monitoring general terrorist activity, i'm demanding that they dont allow their facilities to be used time and time again for such activity. In doing so they fail to offer humanitarian need and support for those use genuinely need it. Thus failing in their remit.

I get your point, but my point was that I do not know how could the UNRWA stop that. Should they just put a sign on the camp entrance:
DO NOT USE THIS REFUGEE CAMP FOR TERRORIST ACTIVITIES!!
Without a police or a military force such control is unattainable. I agree that it is wrong that such activities run in refugee camps, but I think that there are other reasons for the current situation. You would probably agree that the most poor Palestinians live in the worst possible conditions...and poverty and desperation probably offer the "best" conditions for terrorism to develop. Desperate people, who have nothing to loose are easier to be convinced that if they blow themselves up and kill a few "infidels" they will recieve eternal grace and blahblahblah. So, something should be done to improve general living conditions in Palestine.

I have said this before, and i will say it again. I do not support Sharon and his government. I dont approve of collective punishment. But there is a difference between collateral damage and collective punishment. If a bomb factory is situated amongst kindergardens and residential areas, there is, unfortunatley a greater risk of collateral damage. If these terrorist actually cared about the people they say they are fighting for, then they would locate their bases outside of civillian areas - just like they used to back in the 70's and 80's. But then way should they, its better press for them is civillians get killed then just plain old terrorists.

Well, there is a lot of collective punishment, too. If the houses of terrorists families' and relatives' houses are being torn down with a bunch of neighbouring houses, that my friend I regard as collective punishment. I agree that the terrorists exploit civilians and civilian locations, but there are methods with which "collateral" damage could be minimized: evacuating the area, precision attacks and so on. Israel is (like the USA in Iraq) only trying to keep the number of their own victims as low as possible, but this is IMHO not always the best thing to do (although it is good in short-term, it can not bring a long-term solution).

Recently I developped an interesting theory, which could path the way to friendship and peace. Well the thing is, Israel could provide some sort of "safe zones" (guarded by Israeli military or police forces) in the Palestinian or the bordering regions, where they could in cooperation with Palestinians provide educational and health services for the Palestinians. Because this would be co-operational, Israel could prevent any extremist stuff being passed on to the children and because most of the personnel would be Palestinian, I doubt such zones would be terrorists' premium targets. I don't know if the Palestinians or the Israelis would be willing to accept such zones, but I think this would be the best way to start improving conditions in the region and it would probably cost a lot less than the military operations, implemented by Sharon.

Knowledge is the key to everything. :wink: But that's just my theory.

As far as NATO is concerned, i'm not convinced they are run by the US, certainly a vast number of europeans would disagree with that. The US does not always get its way within NATO - but thats not the arguement.

well, I'll rephrase: I was trying to say that no decision in NATO can be taken without the approval of the USA, and they definitely have the most influence inside NATO, so I doubt that NATO would be any tougher on Israel, than the US are...

As for not be accepted by Arab nations, well thats too frigging bad, they washed their hands on the Palestnians in 1948 and should have no say in this region today. This is not an Israeli-Arab conflict, its an Israeli-Palestnian one. The Arab nations have had plently of opportunity to help solve this crisis and instead they have made it worse - they are as discredited as the UN are.

Arab nations have probably discredeted themselves even more than the UN. The UN never looked at Palestinians as their brothers... :wink: I still think the peace keeping force should be approved by the UN, and that is why I think the opinion of Arab / Muslim countries matters.

As far as the EIF is concerned, here we could have agreement!

We'll just have to wait then, won't we? :wink:

[Yao]

Recently I developped an interesting theory, which could path the way to friendship and peace. Well the thing is, Israel could provide some sort of "safe zones" (guarded by Israeli military or police forces) in the Palestinian or the bordering regions, where they could in cooperation with Palestinians provide educational and health services for the Palestinians. Because this would be co-operational, Israel could prevent any extremist stuff being passed on to the children and because most of the personnel would be Palestinian, I doubt such zones would be terrorists' premium targets. I don't know if the Palestinians or the Israelis would be willing to accept such zones, but I think this would be the best way to start improving conditions in the region and it would probably cost a lot less than the military operations, implemented by Sharon.

Knowledge is the key to everything. :wink: But that's just my theory.

Your last remark is absolutely true, but as for the 'safe zones' not being a terrorist target...I'm not convinced about that. As Hamas and some other groups are constantly trying to destabilize the peace process (if we can still call it that at this moment), I think they might actually make a really good target in their view. What's better to show what you think of it than destroying an initiative whose aim is to create a solid basis for future development and understanding? If I were a terrorist, that would be my ideal target. And they've shown not to hesitate to kill women and children...they might want to spare their own, but could still easily try and target for any Israelian involved or Palestinians of they are considered traitors to the cause.

Correct me if I'm wrong though...

And the thought behind it is pretty OK IMO. But as long as Sharon is in power...I'm not betting on such an initiative to come to life.

[brakada]

Your last remark is absolutely true, but as for the 'safe zones' not being a terrorist target...I'm not convinced about that. As Hamas and some other groups are constantly trying to destabilize the peace process (if we can still call it that at this moment), I think they might actually make a really good target in their view. What's better to show what you think of it than destroying an initiative whose aim is to create a solid basis for future development and understanding? If I were a terrorist, that would be my ideal target. And they've shown not to hesitate to kill women and children...they might want to spare their own, but could still easily try and target for any Israelian involved or Palestinians of they are considered traitors to the cause.

Correct me if I'm wrong though...

Well, since it's an argument based on speculations, I guess I can still correct you. :wink: I think that terrorists wouldn't target Palestinian children and schools (I think the terrorists never "even" attacked schools or hospitals in Israel; and correct me if I am wrong), or even if they did, it would probably (my guess again) cause them to loose support amongst Palestinian population, thus a new Palestinian leadership could arise. And it would definitely be a better step towards peace than the current military campaigns. If not all, I guess at least some people's hatred would disappear or milden.

And the thought behind it is pretty OK IMO. But as long as Sharon is in power...I'm not betting on such an initiative to come to life.

Well, you're right about that one. Well he's old and let's hope he dies soon. The same goes for Arafat, though.

[mylexicon]

hi Civic, Good to have you back.

As for the U.N. If they are that worthless, why is Bush trying to pass thorugh a new U.N. resolution about Iraq? I mean, I know that the U.N. is a bit corrupt and never acts in time, but I still think that the world situation without U.N. would be a whole lot worse.

You know for a long time i used to hate the U.N. and think that it was really
worthless, but now my eyes have been opened.

The U.N. is the tool that all nations use in order to justify going to war. One
day Saddam is compliant with U.N. resolutions. The next day we're kickin
his ass. Thanx U.N., without you guys we never would have had legal justification
to kill Saddam and his sons. All we have to do is just watch the U.N.
resolutions. When we find someone we hate screwin up, we'll bomb them
and technically we will have acted within the provisions set forth. Man the
U.N. really has made life better for us; and best of all we never even pay our
dues.

America uses it to attack terrorists and dictators. Europe used it to attack
Milosevic. Arabs blame it so they can attack Israel. Germany blamed
its predecessor (LON) to try to take over the world. ETC.

<--------- This is U.N. supporter with his/her eyes now open.

[brakada]

You know for a long time i used to hate the U.N. and think that it was really
worthless, but now my eyes have been opened.

Finally!!

The U.N. is the tool that all nations use in order to justify going to war. One
day Saddam is compliant with U.N. resolutions. The next day we're kickin
his ass. Thanx U.N., without you guys we never would have had legal justification to kill Saddam and his sons. All we have to do is just watch the U.N. resolutions. When we find someone we hate screwin up, we'll bomb them and technically we will have acted within the provisions set forth. Man the U.N. really has made life better for us; and best of all we never even pay our dues.

America uses it to attack terrorists and dictators. Europe used it to attack
Milosevic. Arabs blame it so they can attack Israel. Germany blamed
its predecessor (LON) to try to take over the world. ETC.

<--------- This is U.N. supporter with his/her eyes now open.

And this is hislexicon with his eyes wide open: If you had bothered to read a couple of my other posts in this topic, you yould have seen, that it's not just going to war what the UN is about. Where were most of the Cold War crisis solved? Inside the U.N. Do the abbreviations UNICEF and UNESCO mean anything to you? I thought not. What about the UN humanitarian help? You're probably going to throw at me the Food for Oil program, which was corrupt, but there were 10s if not 100s of humanitarian missions, which easened the life of many poor people around the world. So the U.N. is definitely not all about politics and going to war.