The U.N.: Threat or Menace?
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Saturday, March 28, 2026 17:52
VIEWED: 3813
PAGE 5 of 6
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just haven't kept up with the news. The UN will try a while longer to get voluntary cooperation from Sudan. They are already preparing to go to the next step, which is to intervene without agreement.
I follow AP, BBC, and the Washington Post, and all I've seen in the last week was a UN threat to hold the rulers of Sudan "personally responsible" and an offhand remark by the French Foreign Minister hinting, weakly, that deployment should be discussed.
Quote:
But French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy hinted that deploying anyway should be considered.
"Do we go there, in spite of them?" Douste-Blazy told a Paris news conference. "That's not on the table, nobody has asked the question like that. But it's a real question."
http://wtop.com/?nid=387&sid=597700
Meanwhile, the Sudan government is sending more troops to Darfur and bombings of civilian villages are reported by aid agencies.
If you got more than this on actual UN action, I'd be glad to see it.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer,
Well put. This is precisely the problem. The actual response I expect to see from the UN is that they will turn tail and run the when the bullets fly their way, which will probably be soon, since the Sudan has threatened to kick them out. As I said, talk much and carry no stick at all.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
And their gender work. Stuff like CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women). The United States is one of a few countries not party to this convention (along with Iran, Nauru, Palau, Qatar, Somalia, Sudan and Tonga).
What interested me was that we signed the convention in 1980, but never ratified it (I assume Congress was supposed to do this). Wonder why?
I was also amused by some of the countries which did sign and ratify the convention, promising:
-to incorporate the principle of equality of men and women in their legal system, abolish all discriminatory laws and adopt appropriate ones prohibiting discrimination against women;
-to establish tribunals and other public institutions to ensure the effective protection of women against discrimination; and
-to ensure elimination of all acts of discrimination against women by persons, organizations or enterprises.
These dedicated countries include; Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, Nigeria, Pakistan, North Korea, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. A complete list can be found here: http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/states.htm
Maybe the hypocracy level was just too much for even the US Congress to go along with.
Quote:
Other work on gender equality and and empowerment of women which can be found through Women Watch. And UNIFEM (the United Nations Development Fund for Women).
When the UN acts as a humanitarian agency, or acts as sort of a super-NGO to provide assistance, it does it pretty well, in part because of the cachet the UN name brings to the table.
When it trys to act as a meta-government; either passing laws that member States agree to support and then ignore at will, like the CEDAW, or in preventing genocide or other governmental crimes perpetrated by a member State, its record is dismal.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer:
The US and the UK didn't start getting concerned bout the situation in Darfur until Oil deposits were found.
Seems to me we've got one guy with their heart in the right place but nothing to back it up, and another with no heart but the abillity to do something, and we're arguing about which one is better.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Geezer:
The US and the UK didn't start getting concerned bout the situation in Darfur until Oil deposits were found.
But the US and UK aren't the UN. It's the UN which is supposed to prevent genocides. That's what everyone here told me when the US and UK liberated/invaded Iraq. We were supposed to let the UN handle the problem. Unfortunately, the UN can't even agree if killing 200,000 people and displacing 2 million more is genocide. They have to get permission from the government committing the genocide before they can enter Darfur and try to stop it. That's just crazy.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But but but...
The UN is composed of nations, the US and the UK are two of those nations, it's a bit cynical to say what you just said no? If the US and the UK aren't the UN what is? The sky? Pico the Ostrich?
The UN has it's heart in the right place, but it just can't seem to do anything any more, conversely those that have the power to act seem interested in anything but those of the UN.
Like I said now we're arguing over who's better.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
But but but...
The UN is composed of nations, the US and the UK are two of those nations, it's a bit cynical to say what you just said no? If the US and the UK aren't the UN what is? The sky? Pico the Ostrich?
The UN has it's heart in the right place, but it just can't seem to do anything any more, conversely those that have the power to act seem interested in anything but those of the UN.
The UN is indeed composed of nations. They are:
Afghanistan -- (19 Nov. 1946)
Albania -- (14 Dec. 1955)
Algeria -- (8 Oct. 1962)
Andorra -- (28 July 1993)
Angola -- (1 Dec. 1976)
Antigua and Barbuda -- (11 Nov. 1981)
Argentina -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Armenia -- (2 Mar. 1992)
Australia -- (1 Nov. 1945)
Austria-- (14 Dec. 1955)
Azerbaijan -- (2 Mar. 1992)
Bahamas -- (18 Sep. 1973)
Bahrain -- (21 Sep. 1971)
Bangladesh -- (17 Sep. 1974)
Barbados -- (9 Dec. 1966)
Belarus -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Belgium -- (27 Dec. 1945)
Belize -- (25 Sep. 1981)
Benin -- (20 Sep. 1960)
Bhutan -- (21 Sep. 1971)
Bolivia -- (14 Nov. 1945)
Bosnia and Herzegovina -- (22 May 1992)
Botswana -- (17 Oct. 1966)
Brazil -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Brunei Darussalam -- (21 Sep. 1984)
Bulgaria -- (14 Dec. 1955)
Burkina Faso -- (20 Sep. 1960)
Burundi -- (18 Sep. 1962)
Cambodia -- (14 Dec. 1955)
Cameroon -- (20 Sep. 1960)
Canada -- (9 Nov. 1945)
Cape Verde -- (16 Sep. 1975)
Central African Republic -- (20 Sep. 1960)
Chad -- (20 Sep. 1960)
Chile -- (24 Oct. 1945)
China -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Colombia -- (5 Nov. 1945)
Comoros -- (12 Nov. 1975)
Congo (Republic of the) -- (20 Sep. 1960)
Costa Rica -- (2 Nov. 1945)
Côte d'Ivoire -- (20 Sep. 1960)
Croatia -- (22 May 1992)
Cuba -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Cyprus -- (20 Sep. 1960)
Czech Republic -- (19 Jan. 1993)
Democratic People's Republic of Korea -- (17 Sep. 1991)
Democratic Republic of the Congo -- (20 Sep. 1960)
Denmark -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Djibouti -- (20 Sep. 1977)
Dominica -- (18 Dec. 1978)
Dominican Republic -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Ecuador -- (21 Dec. 1945)
Egypt -- (24 Oct. 1945)
El Salvador -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Equatorial Guinea -- (12 Nov. 1968)
Eritrea -- (28 May 1993)
Estonia -- (17 Sep. 1991)
Ethiopia -- (13 Nov. 1945)
Fiji -- (13 Oct. 1970)
Finland -- (14 Dec. 1955)
France-- (24 Oct. 1945)
Gabon -- (20 Sep. 1960)
Gambia -- (21 Sep. 1965)
Georgia -- (31 July 1992)
Germany -- (18 Sep. 1973)
Ghana -- (8 Mar. 1957)
Greece -- (25 Oct. 1945)
Grenada -- (17 Sep. 1974)
Guatemala -- (21 Nov. 1945)
Guinea -- (12 Dec. 1958)
Guinea-Bissau -- (17 Sep. 1974)
Guyana -- (20 Sep. 1966)
Haiti -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Honduras -- (17 Dec. 1945)
Hungary -- (14 Dec. 1955)
Iceland -- (19 Nov. 1946)
India -- (30 Oct. 1945)
Indonesia -- (28 Sep. 1950)
Iran (Islamic Republic of) -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Iraq -- (21 Dec. 1945)
Ireland -- (14 Dec. 1955)
Israel -- (11 May 1949)
Italy -- (14 Dec. 1955)
Jamaica -- (18 Sep. 1962)
Japan -- (18 Dec. 1956)
Jordan -- (14 Dec. 1955)
Kazakhstan -- (2 Mar. 1992)
Kenya -- (16 Dec. 1963)
Kiribati -- (14 Sept. 1999)
Kuwait -- (14 May 1963)
Kyrgyzstan -- (2 Mar. 1992)
Lao People's Democratic Republic -- (14 Dec. 1955)
Latvia -- (17 Sep. 1991)
Lebanon -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Lesotho -- (17 Oct. 1966)
Liberia -- (2 Nov. 1945)
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya -- (14 Dec. 1955)
Liechtenstein-- (18 Sep. 1990)
Lithuania -- (17 Sep. 1991)
Luxembourg-- (24 Oct. 1945)
Madagascar -- (20 Sep. 1960)
Malawi -- (1 Dec. 1964)
Malaysia-- (17 Sep. 1957)
Maldives-- (21 Sep. 1965)
Mali -- (28 Sep. 1960)
Malta -- (1 Dec. 1964)
Marshall Islands -- (17 Sep. 1991)
Mauritania -- (27 Oct. 1961)
Mauritius -- (24 Apr. 1968)
Mexico -- (7 Nov. 1945)
Micronesia (Federated States of) -- (17 Sep. 1991)
Monaco -- (28 May 1993)
Mongolia -- (27 Oct. 1961)
Montenegro -- (28 June 2006)
Morocco -- (12 Nov. 1956)
Mozambique -- (16 Sep. 1975)
Myanmar -- (19 Apr. 1948)
Namibia -- (23 Apr. 1990)
Nauru -- (14 Sept. 1999)
Nepal -- (14 Dec. 1955)
Netherlands -- (10 Dec. 1945)
New Zealand -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Nicaragua -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Niger -
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't, I believe it's the US and the UK, oh and you, that thinks it falls on the US and UK alone to tell everyone else what to do.
But if you think The US and Uzbekistan are equal on a world stage who am I to argue.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I don't, I believe it's the US and the UK, oh and you, that thinks it falls on the US and UK alone to tell everyone else what to do.
But if you think The US and Uzbekistan are equal on a world stage who am I to argue.
I'm not sure why you got on this US and UK riff with me. My issue is with the UN as a whole. I don't particularly care who gets them off the dime, I'd just like them to actually take some action that reduces the bodycount in Sudan, rather than just wringing their hands.
If the US or UK proposed action to stop the killing which didn't require Sudan's approval, I'd be fine with that, regardless of what you think their motives might be. I'm looking for the killing to stop, and (based on their statements) I very much doubt that either the US or UK would commit any troops, to keep the Islamic world from getting even more upset.
Remember also that such a proposal would have to get through the Security Council, which includes China, Sudan's #1 trading partner. And if China isn't quite equal to the US on the world stage, it's pretty close.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer,
Well said.
The problem, IMHO, is that not enough people, or not the right people are talking. The UN will never send enough troops, which is good, because the UN shouldn't be world cop, and if it could send enough guys, they would almost certainly screw the world up far more than they do right now.
China won't send boots to defend Sudan, so it's a safe bet that the structure of the UN is all that's giving China a strong say in the matter (they have veto power.) In the world stage, I agree, China is at least close to the US in power. I also agree that the US won't commit boots to central africa. It's proven that time and again. The us only seems interested in the ME and if a nation isn't part of the whole water-way connection, then it seems off limits.
As I said before, we do have the same problem here, I remember Sam Brownback getting up in the senate and ranting about darfur, and then he and a democrat, i think it was lautenberg, i'm not 100% certain, put for a resolution, and then the senate agreed to condemn the genocide, but not do anything about it.
I think that I suggested an idea earlier, the darfur rebels need a place where they can negotiate directly with members of the international community, in a place where no one else, such as china, has veto power. Then they can use their own oil as a bargaining chip. Darfurians could say "if you help us out, we can sell you out at discount rates" and maybe the US or Russia or Brazil or whereever would say "sure"
But at the moment, only Kartoum gets to speak for anyone in the Sudan, and it's anti-darfurian, and it only speaks in a venue where if china says "no" then it's a no-go.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME