Hello Me again

Recently their has been rash protest about war on iraq. But the countrys who get the protest dosent listen to the world. For Example: i hate to use this country because im an advocate of peace in the middle east and with iraq out we can achieve that but, For example britian protest was outside of Parliment but tony blair dosent listen to it, and he is one of the people who appoint people to the UN! So in essence do you think the world has a say in the UN

Tony Blair has recently backed down on his hardline with Iraq due to widespread protest in Britain.

I'm not sure about other countries, but in America it seems the Protesters are the minority.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81023,00.html

70% supporting war and with only 20% opposing the war?

Also I vote for any elected official on the basis of their decision making, not their ability to listen to protesters, actors, musicians or polls.

It tells you something, however, when an elected official will "defy" his constituency on an issue.

Either Blair is committing political suicide, or he really feels he is doing what is right (i.e. defending his country).

Protestors do not know the whole story.

I'll have to try and find the link, but I remember reading an article a week or so ago about misleading polls. The claim was that polls were getting data and then twisting the words on the final presentation. For example:

Following a U.N. resolution, do you support a war in Iraq?
Do you think all peaceful alternatives have been exhausted?
...become...

70% support a war in Iraq
20% think peaceful alternatives remain
(to borrow numbers from AJE)

Again, I'll have to try and find the links, but essentially it was just covering ways in which certain agencies are putting a slant on polls.

Whatever the true numbers in America, I think it's alarming that European leaders have found it so easy to dismiss the voice of their people... and that we have applauded them for this. If it pleases us so much to watch other nations defy their constituents, what does it say about us, indeed what does it say about the U.N.?

Fair and democratic bodies are irrelevant if the voice of constituents are ignored or rejected. Given the current direction of things, I think our administration officials were correct in saying the U.N. has become, or is becoming, an irrelevant body... but not because it's failing to uphold the charter upon which it is founded. It is becoming an irrelevant body precisely because it is adhering to its charter, while we and whatever nations we can coerce to the "Coalition of the Willing" are set upon undermining its authority.

On a personal note, I have to question any action taken by an administration where they refer to their supporters as a "Coalition of the Willing." I don't see this as anything more than a glorified "go ugly early" strategy being applied to international politics.

these are just people fox polled. this is an opinion poll, from a pro-war news-source, not a scientific poll representative of the populations opinion (it is very likely they only polled a couple thousand people.)

I could probably find a poll from and anti-war source saying 70% oppose war if I looked hard enough! and besides, about half of your precious 70% probably only support a war if backed by the UN. polls can be rigged and quite easily as well. everyone I know does not support this idiotic war at all.

Since you probably think Fox News Spun the results:

CNN: Support or not War with Iraq

it's past all the Fox News polls

Juber: To the extent that the bulk of the UN membership - as well as a majority of the UNSC is opposed to military action against Iraq at this stage, I think that "world opinion" is being represented. I have not heard of a single demonstrator protesting their government's opposition to the American military build-up or threatened aggression against Saddam Hussein. It looks like the only citizens of the world who are not being represented in the UN are those in America, Britain, and Spain who also oppose this war. As Ted Rall said on Real Time last week, Germany, France, and Russia are representing the American people better than George Bush is.

If that is true, America is going to fall apart soon

Seeing as Germany has an unemployment of 11%
France allows Human Rights violaters to visit
Russia can't even help themselves


Anyways, i think the World counts in the UN except in the Security Council because it is obvious the UN doesn't have the stomach for war & responsibility in war. Leave Human Rights & Sanctions to the UN while NATO handles the war stuff since it seems it is the only world organization that can handle war without turning away & gagging at the sight of violence.

Unabomber you must have missed this part of my post.

"Also I vote for any elected official on the basis of their decision making, not their ability to listen to protesters, actors, musicians or polls.”

I agree that polls can be twisted, but I was trying to counter the point that was made, being that we should be listening to "Protesters".

Obviously we can only put so much weight on polls, and we both agree with that. However I think that it is even sillier to listen to protesters. Who knows what percentage of the population they represent? Are they all from the particular town, state or country in which they are protesting in? Are they protesting the war or are they just there to party? Who knows?

Um, we're talking about representation in the UN, GA. Would you care to quote the price of tea in China while you're at it?


Have you seen the horrors of war first hand, GA? I didn't think so. Neither have any of the chickenhawks in the White House who are trying to send thousands of American kids and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi families to horrific, grisly deaths. Turning away and gagging is an entirely appropriate, human response. Not giving a damn is the reaction of monsters - like those running the Bush administration. And you? Let's see how high your testosterone level is when one of your comrade's guts are spattered in your face. (Assuming, of course, that you're not a total hypocrite yourself and have put your money where your war-mongering mouth is by enlisting. When do you ship out?) The ability to be totally insensitive to war and its attendant mutilation, bloodshed, and body count is no recommendation for anything - especially the advocacy of large-scale violence.

Apologies if that sounds a bit strong, but I find your naively cavalier attitude toward war offensive in the extreme. I have lost friends and classmates to war. I have seen their bodies. I have witnessed the lifelong impact of war on friends, relatives, and lovers who are veterans of the Vietnam conflict. The swagger that I detect in your last post is disgusting. On second thought, I retract that apology.

Wertz, I understand your passion behind this, but I would also like to make sure this doesn't get too personal.

The original topic, if I may:

Okay. I retract my retraction.

To which I would add: If the UN is, indeed, "turning away and gagging at the sight of violence", then the UN is very accurately reflecting the feelings of a world which has experienced the violence of war, unlike the insulated citizens of this country and the privileged members of our leadership who are inciting such violence.

But I'd still like to know when GA is shipping out.

Back to the original question, yes I think the whole world does count in the UN, that's the problem! Countries as insignificant as Cameroon have an affect on what the rest of the world does, that's ridiculous.

CP

Beats me Wertz....i registered with the military when i turned 18 in December

I don't know if i will be fighting in this war with Iraq or World War III or whatever. Whatever war i fight in, i will fight for my country.

I am sorry you lost friends in wars. I know death in wars as well. I lost an uncle i never knew in WWII on the
USS Yorktown during the Battle at Midway. So yes, i know the loss of war

I don't want war as much as the next person but it'll prevent another 9/11, then all power to Bush

I am amazed at your callous disregard for HUMAN life. American's aren't a higher order of people you know. Or do the only countries only count when they're dealing with the U.S. directly?

Please explain to me how saying something about Cameroon disregards human rights, don't tell me what I stand for! And if you would ask me to explain myself before jumping down my throat I would have told you that I agree that the major countries such as the UK, and the rest of Europe, including France, before you say anything about that, and yes Canada. However, developing nations that do not really have the world's interests at heart should not be allowed in. As for AMericans being at a higher order, no I don't believe that, it really amazes me that you can take a sentence of mine and turn it into an elaborate scheme I have to hate all that aren't American and disregard them, clever, but not true in the least.

CP

You're obviously misreading my statement. And your post verifies my opinion anyways. I don't think I mentioned Human Rights anywhere in my post either so chillax.



There you go again. "THey should not be allowed in"? It's a WORLD body. They are a part of this world. You think the U.S. participates in the U.N. purely out of some sort of global good-will? Every country participates out of a certain degree of self-interest. That is all irrelevant as the U.N. makes decisions that affect the whole world and as such the whole world gets to have a say in how those decisions are made and implemented.

Your argument is tantamount to saying that poor people shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I'm assuming you meant "but if it'll prevent another 9/11, then all power to Bush". And that's the point. There is no reason on God's earth why taking out Saddam Hussein should have any impact whatsoever on the prevention of terrorist attacks on the US - if anything, such action may increase the chances.

And, btw, I asked if you'd enlisted, not registered.

Please don't take this too personally, Conserv, but I don't know that it's fair to say that developing nations like Cameroon don't have the world's interests at heart. Rather, it seems, that while the world (all of it) counts in the United Nations, there are those council members (clearly supported by their citizens...) who would rather the world remain sharply divided by borders than take an encompassing world view.

If nothing else, I would say it's by their stark need for cooperation and aid that developing nations have the world's interests at heart... whereas developed and seemingly "realized" nations tend to narrow their vision and become more egocentric.

The world tries to matter in the U.N. but it has to make it past those member states who like to see their size and wealth as abstract advantages in an organization created for global equality.

Oh, forgive me! You said I disregard human life! What I am saying is that Iraq [Would be chairman of disarment] and Syria, terrorist state, and IRan, terrorist state shouldn't have anything to do with global decisions.

CP

That's odd, the example you provided was a poor African country. What exactly is the reason they shouldn't be involved in global decisions that could affect them?

I would think allowing them equal standing is a problem.

Size, power and the economy do matter in the real world dontchya know.

This war happens and you can bet your bottom dollar there will be.

Robin Cook, in parliament today, in his resignation speech said it all.

So get ready, Bush is taking the US to new all-time low with a whole new level of terrorism.

Here's another sad bit o' information off the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_ea...ast/2855697.stm

It appears the case for resolution 1441 was based on those forged documents.

As far as my view on this whole thing. well Robin Cook in the UK explains it all.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/events03...c/cook17mar.ram

Everything would surely work out better if only those serving in the military made foreign policy decisions, eh?

There are plenty of reasons to disagree with American policy towards Iraq, however, I'm very rarely seeing those reasons mentioned. I'm seeing people say that we are happy to send people into the slaughter, and I'm seeing people say that we are really excited to push our weight around the Middle East. If people really believe these things, then they really do need to pay attention to what is going on around them, and not just listen to the ramblings of conspiracy buffs.

That 'he wasn't in the military' crap is the same old and lame liberal retort to any and all miltary policy that wasn't initiated by another liberal.

There would be precious little in this life that could ever be discussed if only those with first-hand experience were permitted to talk.

Get this back on topic NOW.

I suggest everyone freshen up on the Rules and Guidelines. We do not tolerate attempts to inflame anyone of any political persuasion here.

I used Cameroon as an example because as a poor country, they would be more inclined to do what they want for them, not the world, and since every country will have their wants and needs slightly more than that of the world's, there will always be a problem.

CP

Why would a poor country place it's interests at the center any more than a rich country? Some people would argue that the U.S. is by far the most "self-centered" country on the U.N. Should the U.S. seat be removed because of it?

How can a global body function when you qualify membership on entirely western principles of establishment?

The UN will never work. I said in my post that: If selfishness will occur from all countries, how could the institution work?

CP

The same way the U.S. government works. Checks and balances. Obviously the system isn't the same, but the principle of balancing interests remains the same. Compromise is the foundation of international co-operation; either that or force. And I think we can all agree that if force was used to solve ALL international disputes the world would be a miserable place.

The UN would of worked if their largest players wasn't trying to shoot the whole process in the foot from the get go.

Coming forth for Resolution 1441 based on lies and old information, and then constantly undermining the whole inspection process trying to sabatage any form of progress.

Mr. Blix states it perfectly:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_ea...ast/2867913.stm

"He suggested that Washington was "doubtful from the beginning" about the process. "

France, Germany, and Russia and several others could see right through those lies, so could most non-Americans.
Even several in Parliament in the UK could as well, just not the majority of Americans.

Too busy listening to their propaganda president instead of looking at the facts.

Saddam may very well have weapons of mass destruction, but since the inspection progress was halted and we can hope is Saddam doesn't use them ( which Blix believes he won't even if he does have them ) and that we hope we can trust the American "finds" in Iraq.

It would of been much more credible to have the weapon inspectors find them, because many across the world will believe they were planted.

Count on the UN? Sure, the world counts on the UN ... counts on it to be an ineffectual debating society and somewhat effective provider of charity. It's good for that but not much more.

I would reiterate that the world does count in the UN, but the UN can only function with the cooperation of member states... a luxury it does not have. It's a shame and a disgrace that those countries who would love most to cooperate, and see through the vision of the United Nations, have to be undermined by the very countries that should serve as leaders of the world.

What we have is the house that could have been built upon the rocks, but was instead built upon the sand. With each double standard employed by member states, the organization is undermined and further eroded in it's purpose and effectiveness.

Instead of abiding by the international rules set forth by the United Nations, many member states (the United States included) choose rather to set themselves above the law and use the UN rather as a tool for personal gain. It is for this reason that the UN has not been truly effective -- or likely ever will -- but this certainly doesn't imply that the world doesn't count in the UN.

I dont believe the world really counts in the UN,I mean what has the U.N. actually done for anybody in the last 10 years? When a country wants to go to war with another country,has the majority of voting members ever persuaded the invading country to not invade? Sure they tell the invader what you are doing is wrong, but in the end the invading country will do what they feel they need to do. So i guess my answer would have to end in a question-What good is the U.N. if nobody is going to listen to them anyway?

You mean aside from maintaining vital peace-keeping forces through the Baltic region (and elsewhere), bringing the War Criminals from Bosnia to justice, and dispensing billions of dollars in aid to millions of people all over the planet?

Joe, Clinton went over the UN's head & went straight to NATO to get Slobodon Milosevic out of Kosovo & the UN never lifted an eyebrow to the slaughters in Rawanda

So why can't Bush go over the UN's head & go straight to whoever wants to join in?

You're right, the U.N. isn't entirely effective. It failed in Rwanda; although that is largely due to the fact that nobody on a national or international level really seemed to care. But why are you focusing on the failings? The U.N. has also accomplished a tremendous amount of good.



Santiso, Carlos. "Promoting Democratic Governance and Preventing the Recurrence of Conflict: The Role of the United Nations Development Programme in Post-Conflict Peace-Building" Journal of Latin American Studies, Volume 34, Number 3 (August 2002)

The U.N. also helped to stage the World Congress Against the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children. (Which is more widespread than most people think...)

The U.N. has also set up several World Conference's on the Status of Women which have suceeded in bringing about Women's Rights discussions in many places where the concept was absent.

And like I said it provides valuable AID all over the world.

In answer to your question though (which is perhaps best explored elsewhere) the U.S. signed the U.N. charter, and as such is bound to it as spelled out in the U.S. constitution.

Joe, the UN also failed in Kosovo, so Clinton had to go over their head & go straight to NATO for assistance.

I see a pattern:

The UN doesn't want involved in anything that has to do with genocide
i.e.: Rawanda & Kosovo

The UN failed... the UN didn't do enough...

Just a quick reminder:

The UN has no standing army. They can't just march around and enforce world peace. They can't function without action taken by the international community. Is the UN failing or are the member nations failing? And which member nations are most at fault?

The average citizen can have their views of the UN, but I find it rather funny (though incredibly hypocritical) when our leaders who deal with the UN accuse them of short comings and being irrelevant when they are, in many cases, the very reason for those short comings and failures.

Did the UN fail in Rwanda and Kosovo? Or did our leaders fail by not going to them and pushing for military action? The UN is an organization, but it is not entirely some separate legal entity. When America looks at the actions and inactions of the UN, America is often looking into the mirror.

The UN and it's member nations are one and the same. If the UN had not allowed UN inspections in Iraq to be discontinued we would have no war today.

Part of my post you cited...

...seems pretty applicable here.
You say the UN never should have allowed the inspections to have been discontinued in the first place. I think it arguable when taking into consideration that U.S. intelligence agencies were trying to infiltrate the inspections process and, when unable to succeed at that, have legitimate inspectors dish information out to them. Iraq dispelled the inspectors on accusations of spying, I think. Time revealed this to be true and also revealed the U.S. to be the culprit...

Was the U.S. not undermining the UN in this regard?

Abs, I think you might be mis-understanding the original inspectors' situation.

The orginal inspection team was made up of people from various member nations who were working with various intelligence agencies as their sources of information. The process was pretty successful, since the inspectors were working with intelligence to get up to date info on suspected sites.

The problem arose that the inspectors were not careful with how they divulged the information given to them by the intelligence agencies (CIA included here). Therefore, "team" members leaked the classified info to the Iraqis and (more importantly from a US point of view) to their home intelligence agencies, giving those other agencies insight into the workings of US intelligence and who their sources were.

Therefore, the intelligence agencies stopped giving information to the "team" and started giving information to individual inspectors who they trusted to be careful with the info. The Iraqis objected that now individual inspectors were getting knowledge directly from intelligence agencies. After accusing them of "spying" (in other words, working directly with foreign intelligence agencies as individuals), Iraq expelled them.

The process worked precisely because the inspectors worked with intelligence agencies, but when they individualized the information exchange, the end came.

All of this did not undermine the UN, whose mission in this case was to find Iraqi WMDs (which they had success with while using intelligence agencies). It allowed the UN to be actually carry out its stated goal in Iraq--disarmament.

When Iraq expelled the inspectors, the UN did nothing for 4 years and now here we are. The US's role (as a member nation) was to enforce the UN resolutions, which it tried to do (and had some success with). The fact that the UN did nothing after the expulsion does not speak well for either the US government or the UN as a whole.

Perhaps. But let's not forget that the inspections were discontinued so that Operation Desert Fox could be executed. Inspectors were withdrawn by Richard Butler on US recommendation (without consulting the Security Council) - apparently for their safety.

You could just as easily say of the most recent inspections, that if the US had not again forced the UN inspections to be discontinued, we would have no war today. Say what you will about the world counting in the UN, the world can apparently be overruled by one corrupt US administration - which does not speak very highly of their effectiveness.

amlord: You are apparently also mis-understanding the original inspectors' situation. To reiterate, the inspectors were not "expelled" in December 1998 - they were withdrawn on US recommendation by Richard Butler. It would be good if we could make an effort to stick to facts here, not propaganda. I'm unable to tell, though, whether you're using this false informatin to argue that the world does or does not have a voice in the UN. Clarify?

I would say the world has been overruled by one despot in Iraq for a dozen years. The fact is the UN is set up so any single nation with veto powers can overrule the world. If the last attempted resolution on Iraq had needed a mere majority vote the US may well have won. The fact is the UN is set up so the US, Germany,Britain, Russia,France and China can overrule the world. There is no nation on earth thatsuccumbs to the UN, when they feel their overall security or well-being is jeopardized by UN mandates. Not Isreal, not Britain,not the US, not Iraq,not France.... Yes the UN is a highly ineffective organization, does some decent things when it comes to charity. When it comes to establishing peaceful relations among nations it does a poor job.

hugo, I couldn't agree with you more. The UN is totally ineffective when it comes to peacekeeping and security. When 5 countries have veto power it is all but impossible to find situations where not a single one of them uses or threatens to use their veto because it is in their own best interest. Not that there's anything wrong with that either. You wouldn't expect otherwise, which is why the security council doesn't work.

I disagree with those who blame the UN failure on the US. The failure lies in the structure itself. To continually harp on "corrupt US administration" is disingenuous. I don't think you can find many instances of nations voting against their own interests in the UN.

Some people want to blame all the problems of the world on the US. Worst of all, a good number of them live here. Being such a huge, powerful and prosperous country means that we will be involved in some way in most of the problematic issues in the world, but it doesn't mean we caused them.

So, in response to the original question raised in this thread I'd say, yes the world has a 'say' in the UN. Every member nation has a 'say'. That 'say' isn't worth much when it comes to world security issues though.

I imagine you are right about not finding many instances of nations voting against their interests at UN meetings. Which, as you alluded to, is part of the problem in the UN structure.

As far as people "blaming all the problems of the world" on America, I'm not sure they're meaning to lie the blame soley at America's feet, especially not those living in America. As posts spread throughout the forum will show, I'm one of the people who regularly points out mistakes and issues of our government. But I'm doing so because there are fewer and fewer people every day who are willing to question the policies and actions here in America. It seems the majority is willing to look the other way and place the blame somewhere it doesn't belong... like squarely with the UN over the Iraq war.

I think it's dangerous when we have officials, who should be most aware of our questionable actions and policies, attempt to lie the blame only with the UN and call for a separation from that international body. A country that can't cope with self examination and criticism is destined, I feel, to become an ignorant and dangerous body -- both to the world and themselves.

In one of my last posts, I said "When America looks at the actions and inactions of the UN, America is often looking into the mirror." This applies for all the nations taking part in the United Nations. The world counts in the UN, but countries have to be willing to set aside their pride and arrogance for the good of the international community, of which they are all a part of and of which they may all benefit.

Wertz, you're just plain wrong.

Iraq expels US inspectors
Arabic News: Iraq Expels Inspectors

Iraq expelled the US inspectors, THEN the UN pulled out the rest of the inspectors. What did I say in my original post that was untrue?

Here is a chronology of events, from the BBC (in case you don't trust US sources )

I argue that the world DOES have a say, but that the UN is ineffective if it cannot (or in this case, will not) enforce its own resolutions. The world said with Resolution 1441 that Iraq must disarm immediately. That was not a US resolution, but a UN one. The world spoke. Now we are enforcing the "serious consequences".

To keep from straying too far off in my response, I'd remind you, amlord, of another thread (3 things you should know...) which details the fibbing and fabrication that was entailed with Resolution 1441. And considering it was this fabricated "evidence" that suggested

All these claims which brought about Resolution 1441 collapsed under scrutiny. Taking this into consideration, why should 9 out of the 15 Security Council members sign off on "serious consequences" for unsubstantiated claims?

Is it ineffective to refuse support of a resolution brought about by lies and deception? The call was for Iraq to disarm of weapons they were accused to have in forged and uncredited dossiers from the U.S. and U.K. As such, there really was no case that Iraq had taken up pursuit of WMDs since the last inspection teams. It seems rather reasonable for the UN to continue inspections, as the majority of Security Council nations appear to have supported, rather than endorse a war built upon imaginary foundations.

In this case, it appears (IMO at least) the U.S. and U.K. undermined the UN inspections process by going to war without conclusive intelligence to support their claims.