|
Post by Leo on Nov 22, 2013 1:22:48 GMT
There is only one real identifiable flaw with the United Nations and that is the veto power of the five permanent members that has been abused for nefarious political purposes by those permanent members historically.
Because of the use and/or threat of veto by the permanent members the actions of the United Nations have been subjected to hypocrisy. Because of the "veto" all nations are not being subjected to the same standards. N Korea, for example, is subjected to severe economic sanctions because it is a rouge nuclear weapon nation while Pakistan, India, and Israel that are also rogue nuclear weapon nations are not. Iran that doesn't even have nuclear weapons is being subjected to severe economic sanctions while we ignore Pakistan, India and Israel.
Even when it comes to the World Court that was established by the United Nations the hypocrisy continues because of the veto power of the five permanent members.
Slobodan Milosevic was subjected to prosecution for war crimes and crimes against humanity by the World Court while President Bush, that authorize 'enhanced interrogation techniques' that were torture under US and International law and that resulted in several cases of murder of POW's that constituted war crimes and crimes against humanity, was not brought before the Court and prosecuted. When the US government failed to prosecute Bush for violations of US Statutory law and the US Constitution (the nation has first opportunity to prosecute) the World Court then had jurisdiction. I don't believe anyone can argue that torturing a prisoner of war to death doesn't constitutes a war crime and yet Bush authorized torture that resulted in murder but was never held accountable by a court of law.
Historically Israel has used chemical weapons and has targeted civilian refugee camps (including one UN refugee camp) in the past and yet not one case has been prosecuted for these war crimes and crimes against humanity because of the veto power of the United States. Israel has authorized international assassination in direct violation of International Law (the US does this as well) and no one has been brought to justice related to it because of the US veto power on the Security Council.
That hypocrisy by the United Nations Security Council permanent members with veto power really is inexcusable and it is that hypocrisy that not only results in the failure of the United Nations to fulfill it's Mission Statement and goals but that actually leads to tyranny by the United Nations. Bravo, bravissimo! I totally agree with all that.
The power of veto by the permanent members must go if the UN is to retain its utility and credibility with the civilised world.
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Nov 22, 2013 2:59:27 GMT
(1) The current prejudice against pre-emptive warfare is probably the direct result of the Iraq War, as regarding which, many people now believe that Iraq never possessed any WMD (although I continue to believe that it did, and may have simply spirited those weapons across the border--perhaps to Syria). To suggest that an innocent country should wait until it is attacked to respond--even though it appears evident that it is about to be attacked--is, effectively, to suggest that it should agree to unnecessary casualties, as well as to an inferior military posture. (2) The fact that territories could not be kept that were acquired through wars of aggression is really irrelevant to the point at hand. (3) I have never been much of a fan of the Geneva Conventions, the World Court, or the UN--to put it mildly. (Yes, the one weakness to my position is the fact that Israel was actually created by the UN--a body that I deeply deplore. As a 1960s-era bumper sticker phrased it, we should get the UN out of the US, and get the US out of the UN.) Allow me to summarise your expressed opinions (as I understand them) -
You negate the estalished facts that (a) the UN inspectors found no evidence of WMD in Iraq pre the invasion, and (b) the ISG's Duelfer Report, consisting of a 1,400-member international team organized by the Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency to hunt for the alleged stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological agents, and any supporting research programs and infrastructure that could be used to develop WMD, which categorically stated that no such weapons were found.
You negate the time-honoured tradition of self-defence, and justify the actions of aggressors ranging from Genghis Khan to Hitler and Stalin.
You negate the established tenet of International Law that the acquisition of territory through wars of aggression are illegitimate and a breach of said law.
You scorn the international instruments of cooperation and justice, as well as the protocols which aim to protect innocents from the depredations of war, and by so doing, you justify the rule of 'might is right'.
What a credit you are to your nation - your compatriots must be so proud!
(1) Your observation, as concerning "the UN inspectors," prior to American intervention in Iraq, cannot vitiate the fact that it is entirely possible that Iraq did possess WMD, and simply made those weapons disappear. (In any event, it is a certainty that Saddam Hussein used WMD--specifically, chemical weapons--upon the Kurds in the late 1980s.)
(2) I have most certainly not "negate[d] the time-honoured tradition of self-defence" (or, as we would say in the US, the time-honored tradition of self-defense); nor do I attempt to justify the actions of any aggressor. (3) I do, indeed, dispute the legitimacy of the principle of International Law; and that, irrespective of the particulars of the case at hand. It is simply a matter of principle. (In order for any "law" to be meaningful, what is required is a law-enforcer; as regarding which, there is clearly none, in the case of so-called "International Law." And any law that is unenforceable tends to engender a disrespect for the law, in general...)
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 22, 2013 22:12:54 GMT
(1) Your observation, as concerning "the UN inspectors," prior to American intervention in Iraq, cannot vitiate the fact that it is entirely possible that Iraq did possess WMD, and simply made those weapons disappear. (In any event, it is a certainty that Saddam Hussein used WMD--specifically, chemical weapons--upon the Kurds in the late 1980s.)
(2) I have most certainly not "negate[d] the time-honoured tradition of self-defence" (or, as we would say in the US, the time-honored tradition of self-defense); nor do I attempt to justify the actions of any aggressor. (3) I do, indeed, dispute the legitimacy of the principle of International Law; and that, irrespective of the particulars of the case at hand. It is simply a matter of principle. (In order for any "law" to be meaningful, what is required is a law-enforcer; as regarding which, there is clearly none, in the case of so-called "International Law." And any law that is unenforceable tends to engender a disrespect for the law, in general...) (1) Those of us that opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2002 and 2003 pointed out that the evidence of WMD's in Iraq was based upon information from the 1980's that was completely invalidated because of the UN's destruction of WMD's in Iraq at the conclusion of the Gulf War. The UN Weapon Inspectors in 2002 and early 2003 (after the previous UN weapon's inspectors had been thrown out of Iraq because they were merely a cover for the CIA) had unlimited access to anywhere they wanted to go including Saddam's private residences. There was no place to hide WMD's in Iraq that the UN Weapon Inspectors couldn't search. No evidence then or since has ever shown that any attempt to hide or move WMD's had ever occurred after the Gulf War so there was absolutely "no intelligence" that would indicate that. In fact there was no creditable evidence that Iraq had any WMD's in 2002-2003 nor could there have been because Iraq didn't have any WMD's at that time. What few remaining WMD's Iraq had after the UN's efforts to destroy Iraq's WMD's were ordered destroyed by Saddam himself in 1998.
In short the War Against Iraq was based upon irrational paranoia or some other political motive and not because Iraq represented any threat at all. This is somewhat the same as the Israeli 6-Day War where later revelations by those in power in Israel at the time (e.g. Mosha Dayan) revealed that it was all about acquiring more territory and not about defending itself from a possible Egyptian attack when Egypt had no intent of ever invading Israel.
(2) All "pre-emptive" strikes are acts of aggression where the aggressor is unwilling to reach a diplomatic solution that will prevent war.
(3) International Law is based upon Treaty Agreements and every nation has a responsibility to live up to the conditions of the Treaties they are a party too. The United Nations Security Council is the enforcement agent for International Law but it has been corrupted by the veto power of the Five Permanent Members. It enforces International Law in some cases and ignores it in other cases based upon political favoritism of the Five Permanent Members. To fulfill it's assigned roles and responsibilities, that all Member states of the United Nations have agreed to by treaty, the veto power must be revoked as it is being used for nefarious purposes.
|
|