• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Reminding everyone why the UN and Intl' Law are good things

Not to mention China on the Arm's Control Board along with Syria for a short period of time. Because massing ballestic missiles across the Taiwan strait really makes you a great canidate for the Arm's Control Board. :roll:
 
superskippy said:
Not to mention China on the Arm's Control Board along with Syria for a short period of time. Because massing ballestic missiles across the Taiwan strait really makes you a great canidate for the Arm's Control Board. :roll:
Click to expand...

Not to mention their export of nuclear weapons technology to Pakistan and quite likely Libya and North Korea.
 

The corruption extends all the way to the secretary general's office as stated by the committee investigating it.
 
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
The corruption extends all the way to the secretary general's office as stated by the committee investigating it.
Click to expand...

NO it doesn't. Prove it. I have followed the investigation very closely, and besides the fact that it isn't finished yet, the closest they've come to the secretary general's office is his son.
 

I really don't think that denying access to members that aren't democratic is the way to solve the problem...the first step is having a place to talk to them. I don't think there is any corruption (well at least no more than any other large, international council). So why would I care if that's not your biggest problem? By the way, I think we need to get rid of the veto power. It's just too problematic. Not only with the Taiwan situation, but also with the fact that Darfur wasn't classified as genocide because China had some sort of business arrangements with the government. Of course, China isn't the only country that abuses it.
 

HIS own SON is involved! Many members of his staff are involved. Not to mention the sex scandal. You're telling me that Koffee Annan simply "didn't know" that everyone around him was corrupt and exploiting the program?! What the hell was he doing for 12 years?!
 

No, his son is accused of being involved (innocent until proven guilty...ring any bells?) because Cotecna was paying him consulting fees. Cotecna hasn't even been charged with being involved yet, and there's no evidence that Kojo Annan has done anything illegal. And which of Kofi Annan's staff members are you talking about?
 
Kelzie said:
Not only with the Taiwan situation, but also with the fact that Darfur wasn't classified as genocide because China had some sort of business arrangements with the government. Of course, China isn't the only country that abuses it.
Click to expand...

China is arguably the biggest abuser of the security council veto. They blocked a one-year extension of the Haiti peacekeeping mission because Haiti has diplomatic relations with Taiwan. China threatened to block the Liberia peacekeeping mission unless Liberia changed relations from Taipei to Beijing. The same is true with Macedonia!

China has VERY close relations with Sudan. Interesting that China's closest friends are Sudan, Cuba, Pakistan, Libya, North Korea and Burma! I wonder why France is so eager to join that club of friends?
 

Abuse is abuse as far as I'm concerned. No one country should have that much power.

New market for french wine maybe?
 
Kelzie said:
Abuse is abuse as far as I'm concerned. No one country should have that much power.

New market for french wine maybe?
Click to expand...

The Chinese will find a way to copy that too. They already have pretty impressive vinyards in Shandong Province.

As for the Security Council, I believe it should be expanded with Japan, India, Germany and Brazil getting permanent member seats. I think it should take TWO of the nine permanent members to cast a veto to block any action of the Security Council and China should LOSE its veto rights until it becomes a democracy!
 

What about Canada? Australia, Denmark, etc..I think there should be a lot more "permanent members"...not that Canada and Australia are even members in the first place....
 
Kelzie said:
What about Canada? Australia, Denmark, etc..I think there should be a lot more "permanent members"...not that Canada and Australia are even members in the first place....
Click to expand...

Those countries can be elected in. However, permanent seats should, and are, reserved for major international players. Canada, Australia and Denmark, as wonderful as those countries are, are small players on the global stage. Of the five current members, four are democracies. Adding Japan, Germany, Brazil and India would add four more major democracies to the list of permanent members. Taking away China's veto rights (but not permanent seat) until it democratizes would mean that all veto wielders are governments that are responsible to their people through elections.
 
The UN is supposed to be inclusive, not fair. Not even the United States wants it fair. They make a country that came up with the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (India) look like a rogue nuclear state.
 
jakurus said:
The UN is supposed to be inclusive, not fair. Not even the United States wants it fair. They make a country that came up with the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (India) look like a rogue nuclear state.
Click to expand...

The original intent of the UN was NOT to be inclusive, but was to be an instrument of the Allied Powers to keep the peace after World War II.
 
Yeah.... right during the beginning of the Cold War and prominently involving the USSR and China.

The conflict between the West and the USSR dashed all hopes of it being a totally cooperative organization.

Not to mention that both sides pushed for more members to help their cause and then by the 50s everyone had decided that every country had a right to be part of the general assemebly.

The original intent resembles something more like the Allied Powers, or what NATO became minus Russia and China. The UN quickly diverged from that intent.
 

Most of what you say is correct, except that universality didn't come into play until the 1960s when decolonialization was at its height. There is still one significant nation that is NOT a member of the United Nations.

As for China, they weren't a problem until 1971 because before that time, the China seat was held by Chiang Kai Shek and his Chinese occupiers of Taiwan. That illegitimate regime lost its control over the China seat in favor of the ChiComs that year.
 
One of Kerry's dumbest ideas was that we should give the U N more influence over American security decisions.
Wasn't the U N running those safe havens in Bosnia.Didn't they turn over 8,000 people they were promising to protect to be murdered by the Serbs .Now we have Darfur 300,000 dead and 2 million displaced and the UN and Europe doing very little.
Now,lets be clear about this,Darfur is in Europes sphere of influence. Its the E U and the U N that are responsible, Not the USA !
THe USA should stay the hell out !
 
and how was Iraq in our sphere of influence.....
 
Nkguta80 # 69
Iraq ia a missguided foreign adventure. Darfur is the U N's chance to show the USA what it can do.Maybe how it would have handled Iraq.
So far its been a miserable failure.
 
Because politics have always ruined wars?
 
What? I don't follow.

There are many liberal schools of int'l relations theory that say we should not intervene in another's internal conflicts.

That is, of course, something that sounds good in some cases, and bad in others, and it's mostly bullshit.
 
Can we all just agree that the UN is essentially a useless organization. It's a paper tiger with no teeth. All they really do is talk and hand out food, isn't that what we have canada for? :lol: It was a great idea, but i think it's far from being a success.
 
Darfur was the U N's chance to show what it could do. It failed miserably,the Europeans didn't even want to admit it was that bad.These are people senator Kerry wanted us to trust our security to ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…