Should we quit the UN - Page 2




 
--
 
November 9th, 2011  
BritinAfrica
 
 
I remember when the UN stood by and did nothing in Rwanda.

The United Nations Security Council has explicitly accepted responsibility for failing to prevent the 1994 genocide in Rwanda in which an estimated 800,000 people were killed.

In the first formal response to a report critical of the UN's role, council members acknowledged its main finding that their governments lacked the political will to stop the massacres.

Most of the 2,500 UN peacekeepers in Rwanda at the time were withdrawn after the deaths of 10 Belgian soldiers.

At a council debate, the Canadian Foreign Minister, Lloyd Axworthy, said none present could look back without remorse and sadness at the failure to help the people of Rwanda in their time of need.

"The unchecked brutality of the genocidaires made a mockery, once again, of the pledge 'never again,'" he said, referring to the promise made after the Holocaust.

The council stopped short an all-out apology similar to the one delivered by Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt one week ago in Kigali.

Instead, the 15 council members focused on the lessons to be learned from their failure to act, particularly in Africa where wars continue to rage.
US Ambassador Richard Holbrooke said: "The prevention of another round of genocidal violence in central Africa is one of the core elements of US policy in the Great Lakes, and is one of the United Nations' greatest challenges."
"In the days ahead, how we act to help bring peace to Congo will be the best evidence that we've learned the lessons of our past failures," he said.
Rwanda's UN Ambassador, Joseph Mutaboba, welcomed the report and its recommendations but said the council could do more. "It's never to late to make things right," he said.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, who was head of UN peacekeeping operations in 1994, commissioned the report and was out for criticism for not passing on warnings about the impending genocide.

Mr Annan said he fully accepted the report's conclusions.
November 9th, 2011  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zultra
Only a buffoon would think the UN a Good thing, armed Neutrality is the way to go, no-one will mess with you if you can destroy them overnight.
You better come out of your cave. We live in a world were everything is linked toghether. In order to solve problems that comes with it you need a global institution. The UN is not perfect but for the moment nothing else comes close.
November 9th, 2011  
Zultra
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
You better come out of your cave. We live in a world were everything is linked toghether. In order to solve problems that comes with it you need a global institution. The UN is not perfect but for the moment nothing else comes close.
So you want a single order dictating what other countries can and can't do at will? I guess you like the fact that Hundreds of Thousands of Civilians have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, or perhaps you will think that is a good thing and that you want to live in fear of attack from the Imperalist Institution.
--
November 9th, 2011  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
I remember when the UN stood by and did nothing in Rwanda.

The United Nations Security Council has explicitly accepted responsibility for failing to prevent the 1994 genocide in Rwanda in which an estimated 800,000 people were killed.

In the first formal response to a report critical of the UN's role, council members acknowledged its main finding that their governments lacked the political will to stop the massacres.

Most of the 2,500 UN peacekeepers in Rwanda at the time were withdrawn after the deaths of 10 Belgian soldiers.

At a council debate, the Canadian Foreign Minister, Lloyd Axworthy, said none present could look back without remorse and sadness at the failure to help the people of Rwanda in their time of need.

"The unchecked brutality of the genocidaires made a mockery, once again, of the pledge 'never again,'" he said, referring to the promise made after the Holocaust.

The council stopped short an all-out apology similar to the one delivered by Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt one week ago in Kigali.

Instead, the 15 council members focused on the lessons to be learned from their failure to act, particularly in Africa where wars continue to rage.
US Ambassador Richard Holbrooke said: "The prevention of another round of genocidal violence in central Africa is one of the core elements of US policy in the Great Lakes, and is one of the United Nations' greatest challenges."
"In the days ahead, how we act to help bring peace to Congo will be the best evidence that we've learned the lessons of our past failures," he said.
Rwanda's UN Ambassador, Joseph Mutaboba, welcomed the report and its recommendations but said the council could do more. "It's never to late to make things right," he said.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, who was head of UN peacekeeping operations in 1994, commissioned the report and was out for criticism for not passing on warnings about the impending genocide.

Mr Annan said he fully accepted the report's conclusions.
A sniper of the same Paratrooper unit saw it all happen and contacted his command. They were imediately ready to intervene but the UN high command told them to stay put.
When the rebels started to cut the achilles tendons with their machetes the paratroopers overpowerd some of the rebels to take their guns, hid in a mud hut and defended themselves until rpg's and/or granades killed them all.
I heard this second hand. It was a French speaking para unit.
When they arrived in Belgium they teared apart theur UN caps.
It was a sad day for my country but that doesn't mean that the UN is not usefull.
November 9th, 2011  
MontyB
 
 
You want to fix the UN just remove the power of veto and upgrade the Security Council to 30 moving the 5 permanent members onto the council with 25 elected members.

People sit here and blame the UN for inaction when the UN has no capacity to do anything, without its member states (aka our governments) agreement it can not pass laws or go to war, it has no standing army god knows how someone here thinks it has a high command.

What should the UN have done in say Rwanda?
- Despatch its military oh wait it doesn't have one.
- Maybe it could arrest the bad guys and pass new laws to prevent it happening again oh that's right it cant do that either.

So rather than blaming the UN why not blame the countries that make up the UN, whether you keep the institution or not is irrelevant as failure lies with the individual countries and that will exist with or without the UN.
November 9th, 2011  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zultra
So you want a single order dictating what other countries can and can't do at will? I guess you like the fact that Hundreds of Thousands of Civilians have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, or perhaps you will think that is a good thing and that you want to live in fear of attack from the Imperalist Institution.
That "single order" consists of almost all the countries in the world. Decisions needs a majority. Major superpowers have veto rights.
Most civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan are due to local terrorists.
November 9th, 2011  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
You want to fix the UN just remove the power of veto and upgrade the Security Council to 30 moving the 5 permanent members onto the council with 25 elected members.

People sit here and blame the UN for inaction when the UN has no capacity to do anything, without its member states (aka our governments) agreement it can not pass laws or go to war, it has no standing army god knows how someone here thinks it has a high command.

What should the UN have done in say Rwanda?
- Despatch its military oh wait it doesn't have one.
- Maybe it could arrest the bad guys and pass new laws to prevent it happening again oh that's right it cant do that either.

So rather than blaming the UN why not blame the countries that make up the UN, whether you keep the institution or not is irrelevant as failure lies with the individual countries and that will exist with or without the UN.
If one wants a completely overhaul of the UN we must consider some things. The voting is one vote for each country, this means that China, with a population of 1.4 billion has the same voting power as Monaco with a population of 36 thousand. On the other hand , China is not a democracy so voting power lies within the political party while in democracies the government is chosen by its people.
A UN army would be OK, but who's going to be the biggest general? Someone from the US? China? or maybe Zimbabwe?
The US pays 22% of the UN budget but has 1 vote, the same as Nicaragua.
Czechoslovakia had one vote, but they split up their country, now the same people have 2 votes (czech republic and Slovakia).
I don't think that (for now) the veto power is not that bad but that France and the Uk might be better replaced with say India and Brasil.
Those are just a few things that pop up into my mind. I really haven't thought about it.
November 9th, 2011  
Zultra
 
Nope, the Elites will still be running the show, but will just have a whole world with no resistance to play with.
November 13th, 2011  
Alan P
 
The U.N. Over these last few years, are nothing but Toothless Tigers.
November 13th, 2011  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan P
The U.N. Over these last few years, are nothing but Toothless Tigers.
I would suggest less toothless tigers and more scapegoats, it always amazes me when people blame an organisation for its failings when invariably it is the people that make up the organisation that have brought it down.

You want to know why the UN is toothless look to yourselves and your governments as that is the UN and stop blaming the building they are housed in.
 


Similar Topics
Turkey's military in turmoil as top brass quit (Reuters)
Japan defers tax hike plan as PM sets conditions to quit (Reuters)
Calls grow for Japan PM to quit in wake of quake (Reuters)
Palestinians plan fund to help quit settlements (AP)
Finns, Danes to quit S.Lanka monitors