UN Security Council: A Case for Reform

Politics International Politics
1

Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, through their veto and veto-threat, prevent the Council from acting on important matters of peace and security that fall within their national interest. Should the veto be eliminated?

  • No
  • Yes
  • Unsure

0 voters

In light of the events of the past few days there is clearly a strong case for the reform of the United Nations Security Council. The council has failed in its responsibilities to maintain peace and security.

Example 1.

One regional threat, North Korea, has been made into an international threat to serve Washington’s agenda…that is to keep the American public afraid….

North Korea has been reprimanded by the UN SC for doing nothing illegal and for killing nobody. Is a missile test within a nation’s borders really what the Security Council should be spending its time on?
See Resolution here: un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8778.doc.htm

North Korea: Crisis Grows Over Missile-Test Fears

[i]
“Missiles are not illegal. North Korea is not a member of the missile-technology control regime, therefore it pretty much can do as it pleases,” explains Aidan Foster-Carter, a Korea analyst at Britain’s Leeds University.

“It’s just that if you’re going to test a missile, you normally as a matter of courtesy should tell people who are in the way,” Foster-Carter adds. “And in particular, the moratorium was entirely voluntary. It didn’t even have the status of a treaty or a nonbinding agreement or anything between two states.” [/i]
rferl.org/featuresarticle/20 … 278C7.html

Example 2.

On the other hand Israel has retaliated to the kidnapping of a few soldiers with extraordinarily disproportionate brutality, killing scores of civilians (in Occupied Palestinian Territory, and Lebanon) and has destroyed essential infrastructure such as power generators and bridges in clear violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention creating a desperate humanitarian situation for the civilian population (millions of people).

Deliberate attacks by Israeli forces against civilian property and infrastructure in the Gaza Strip violate international humanitarian law and constitute war crimes: Amnesty International

The SC resolution put forward by Qatar was vetoed by The United States.
Ten Council members voted in favor of the text and four abstained ( Denmark, Peru, Slovakia, United Kingdom).
Vetoed draft Resolution: un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8775.doc.htm

The UN SC allows the five permanent members, who hold veto rights, to block resolutions that reflect the will of the majority of council members. mmmm not very democratic…

GlobalPolicy.org has looked at this issue in depth. Towards a Democratic Reform of the UN Security Council

2

You wouldn’t know “…extraordinarily disproportionate brutality…” if it bit you on your ass.

lindasog.com/public/terrorvictims.htm

3

Should The Veto be eliminated? No, The Whole UN itself should be, massive cash sieve & vapid grandstanding platform for rhetoric-filled showboats that it is.
All its vital functions (incredibly, there are a few) should be parcelled out to existing entities, or given to an amalgamation of several UN bodies. The UN Headquarters should be moved out of NY, and set up on an isolated isle somewhere off the coast of Greenland.

However, failing that, might as well keep the veto, for it gives the power states something to do other than wage war, and create mayhem.

4

What exactly will a reform actually accomplish? Seems to me that at this point whatever validity the security council has or does not have is entirely dependent on whether the U.S., Israel, maybe China, and a couple other nations decide to grant the council a little face by letting it particpate in discussions. I don’t see a reform changing that any.

5

[quote=“TheGingerMan”]Should The Veto be eliminated? No, The Whole UN itself should be, massive cash sieve & vapid grandstanding platform for rhetoric-filled showboats that it is.
All its vital functions (incredibly, there are a few) should be parcelled out to existing entities, or given to an amalgamation of several UN bodies. the UN Headquarters should be moved out of NY, and set up on an isolated isle somewhere off the coast of Greenland.[/quote]

I agree. Except that I think the UN HQ should be relocated in either Iran or the Sudan or France.

6

[quote=“Tigerman”][quote=“TheGingerMan”]Should The Veto be eliminated? No, The Whole UN itself should be, massive cash sieve & vapid grandstanding platform for rhetoric-filled showboats that it is.
All its vital functions (incredibly, there are a few) should be parcelled out to existing entities, or given to an amalgamation of several UN bodies. the UN Headquarters should be moved out of NY, and set up on an isolated isle somewhere off the coast of Greenland.[/quote]I agree. Except that I think the UN HQ should be relocated in either Iran or the Sudan or France.[/quote]
There is quite a bit of newly available property available in south Beirut.
Or perhaps Haifa, with its lovely coastal properties would be good.
Mexico City? Seoul? Havana? Salisbury…oops! I mean Harare?

The relocation possibilities are endless…Quito? Auckland? Tripoli? Valletta?

7

Well….I’d like to thank you, citizens of the world’s remaining superpower, for your impressive display of groupthink……

Israel is not a member of the UNSC….(although it is clear that the US acts on behalf of Israel so I guess it holds sort of an unofficial honorary membership)…… What would reform accomplish?..

[quote]The SC resolution put forward by Qatar was vetoed by The United States.
Ten Council members (of the total 15) voted in favor of the text and four abstained ( Denmark, Peru, Slovakia, United Kingdom).
Vetoed draft Resolution: un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8775.doc.htm

the UN SC allows the five permanent members, who hold veto rights, to block resolutions that reflect the will of the majority of council members.[/quote]

If there was no veto this resolution would have passed…and there would be less dead people…‘Ten die’ as Israel hits vehicles
and the UNSC would have done more to fulfill its responsibilities to maintain peace and security…

What’s you point?..you seem to be implying that you know a little about “…extraordinarily disproportionate brutality…”……considering that you are an ex-military man from what is today considered the largest threat to world security by the majority of the world this is not really surprising…… how does it feel that the majority of they world remembers these images when it thinks of the US military……

Get your gun fix and animated icons here: tomeaker.com

[quote=“TainanCowboy…yee haw!! Bang bang!.”]There is quite a bit of newly available property available in south Beirut.
Or perhaps Haifa, with its lovely coastal properties would be good.[/quote]

Ah yes military humor……the same jokes are not of course considered appropriate when discussing the property made available by the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York……

8

[quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“Tigerman”][quote=“TheGingerMan”]Should The Veto be eliminated? No, The Whole UN itself should be, massive cash sieve & vapid grandstanding platform for rhetoric-filled showboats that it is.
All its vital functions (incredibly, there are a few) should be parcelled out to existing entities, or given to an amalgamation of several UN bodies. the UN Headquarters should be moved out of NY, and set up on an isolated isle somewhere off the coast of Greenland.[/quote]I agree. Except that I think the UN HQ should be relocated in either Iran or the Sudan or France.[/quote]
There is quite a bit of newly available property available in south Beirut.
Or perhaps Haifa, with its lovely coastal properties would be good.
Mexico City? Seoul? Havana? Salisbury…oops! I mean Harare?

The relocation possibilities are endless…Quito? Auckland? Tripoli? Valletta?[/quote]

Hell, have 'em move here. At least they could have the actual fights, that don’t involve the people they are hiding behind, and throw bing langs at each other and it would be normal.

TainanCowboy…yee haw!! Bang bang!. wrote:

<Nama sits with tater tots,and popcorn chew>

9

I don’t think that the g-man is a US citizen.

And I’ll speak my mind here on these boards whether my opinion pleases you or not.

:unamused:

10

[quote=“jwcampbell”]In light of the events of the past few days there is clearly a strong case for the reform of the United Nations Security Council. The council has failed in its responsibilities to maintain peace and security.

Example 1.

One regional threat, North Korea, has been made into an international threat to serve Washington’s agenda…that is to keep the American public afraid…. [/quote] Afraid of what. Last time I looked on a map, Korea wasn’t any where near the US. Now, if you want to say "North Korea has been made into an international threat to serve DC’s agenda, that is to keep the American attention diverted from the on going mess in Iraq, the possiblity of having to go to war with the Hamas, Iran and Syria then I could buy your arguement.

[quote]
North Korea has been reprimanded by the UN SC for doing nothing illegal and for killing nobody. Is a missile test within a nation’s borders really what the Security Council should be spending its time on? [/quote] If you posed that question to the Japanese and the South Koreans I just bet you would get a different answer.

[quote]North Korea: Crisis Grows Over Missile-Test Fears

[i]
“Missiles are not illegal. North Korea is not a member of the missile-technology control regime, therefore it pretty much can do as it pleases,” explains Aidan Foster-Carter, a Korea analyst at Britain’s Leeds University.

“It’s just that if you’re going to test a missile, you normally as a matter of courtesy should tell people who are in the way,” Foster-Carter adds. “And in particular, the moratorium was entirely voluntary. It didn’t even have the status of a treaty or a nonbinding agreement or anything between two states.” [/i][/quote]:roflmao: Are you serious? 1)Missiles aren’t party ballons. 2)So what if they aren’t apart of some missile regime. They are a regime, adjective or not. I’m not apart of the NRA, but I don’t have the right to do what I please with a AK-47 even if it is protected under the 2nd admendment. But at the next HH, I will tell Tainan Cowboy that I will be testing my AK-47 as a courtesy so that he can move out the way while I shoot toward fred smith(that is a joke :smiley:)

[quote]On the other hand Israel has retaliated to the kidnapping of a few soldiers with extraordinarily disproportionate brutality, killing scores of civilians (in Occupied Palestinian Territory, and Lebanon) and has destroyed essential infrastructure such as power generators and bridges in clear violation of the creating a desperate humanitarian situation for the civilian population (millions of people). [/quote]No doubt Israel is absolved of it’s involvement of killing and displacing large amount of civilian population, but the Hamas and terriosts don’t get a “get out of jail” card either.

[quote]Deliberate attacks by Israeli forces against civilian property and infrastructure in the Gaza Strip violate international humanitarian law and constitute war crimes: Amnesty International[/quote] And how about the Palestinians that are setting off bombs. :boo-hoo: Both parties are cupable for their actions in Middle East mess.

[quote]
GlobalPolicy.org has looked at this issue in depth. Towards a Democratic Reform of the UN Security Council
[/quote]Sniff Sniff, could this be the smell of spam under another form???

11

Or perhaps to justify its $40 billion missile defence system……?

Funny you should say that here is a press release from the office of the President of Korea:

The Korean government does not even see the “missile crisis” as an event that should be considered a threat to Korean national security……much less an international crisis….that should be taken to the UNSC ….of course they can not tell the US to back off….that is something that is simply not done……

It is clear to smaller nations that the UNSC which is supposed to maintain peace and security is being used to stoke international tensions……North Korea should be dealt with by the Koreans and the Japanese….

[quote]
In the past, Korea had a period of dictatorship drawing on national security. Claiming a threat from North Korea, a regime of this period would threaten the public and oppress the political parties and citizens in opposition. To create a frightening climate, such a regime used to exaggerate out of proportion a tiny incident between the South and the North and even used to deceive the public by making up something that was non-existent. Indeed, as small incidents were magnified and a confrontational atmosphere was formed, inter-Korea relations were frequently strained. During this period, the public felt they were forever in danger. [/quote]

mmmm…Interesting……sounds like what the US is doing to its own population….

The Missile test was just that a controlled test on North Korean territory…nobody died….…you can’t fire a gun on your own property/farm in the US?

Here is a Mexican view of the North Korean missile crisis (Tranlsated from Spanish…another point of view…god forbid!):

[quote] La Jornada, Mexico

False Notions Regarding Missiles and North Korea

The seven obviously obsolete missiles that North Korea test-launched last week caused a shudder throughout the world’s corridors of power, as if their target had been the White House and the crystal palace of the United Nations. It’s important to get a bit of perspective on this international fuss, which is based on a number of false premises: for instance, that ballistic missiles are the same as nuclear weapons; that the production and testing of the former is somehow prohibited; that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) justifies "preventive attack;” that there exist strict and precise international legislation on these matters or that existing rules are rigorously enforced.

As to the first myth, there is no legal instrument forbidding any nation from developing missile technology. This includes everything from portable rocket launchers to the huge contraptions used for space experimentation and exploration. As long as they don’t land on their neighbors’ heads, every nation has the right to test any projectiles it fancies.

Israel, India and Pakistan withdrew from the agreement and acquired nuclear weapons without anyone sounding the alarm. To make or renounce the projectiles of Armageddon is not a matter of legality, but of a government’s political will. According to Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, some 40 countries meet the conditions necessary for developing nuclear arms and the missiles that can carry them.
The fourth myth, disseminated with particular intensity by the United States government, is that only democracies - notwithstanding all of their baggage and Bush’s electoral fraud - are suited to possessing nuclear weapons. This is obviously false, unless one is suggesting that the Chinese regime, the Pakistani dictatorship or the web of mafias and bureaucracies that govern Russia boast of a democratic character. And the fifth myth is that nuclear arsenals must be restricted to pacifist or peaceful regimes. Is Tel Aviv such a regime? Are Washington or London?
watchingamerica.com/lajornada000050.shtml [/quote]

12

jwcampbell -
Great posts!
You do more to show the idiocy of the lunatic left than I could ever hope to do. :bravo:

13

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]jwcampbell -
Great posts!
You do more to show the idiocy of the lunatic left than I could ever hope to do. :bravo:[/quote]

thank you, I can’t even be bothered to retort.

14

Well….I’d like to thank you, citizens of the world’s remaining superpower, for your impressive display of groupthink……
[/quote]

Groupthink,… yeah, i know not most folks, except thru their posts.
And for the record, I am not an American.
But in the end, that nomer means nothing except: Do you accept diversity, or Shall Only One Voice Reign True?

Though, I suppose If I had’na read The Madson Papers, I’d be a little limp-wristed by now

searching for those holes.

The UN has been outta the picture since at least the mid 70’s. Me, and most of my mates graduated just in time to serve, in one form or another, in all those 90’s actions.
Peacekeepin’ is a joke.
Trying to make the piece, is more like it!

15

Thank you both for your eloquent well reasoned reply……

Can a press release from The Office of the President of Koreareally be considered left wing propaganda?

The press release clearly shows that the South Korea government would prefer to deal with the North Koreans in way that does not create more tension. But Washington’s fear agenda forces Korea to act, on the international stage, in a way that it considers contrary to its national interest.

[quote]Press Release:
How to Perceive Missile Test-Firing by North Korea


[July 09,2006]


Office of Senior Secretary for Public Information

In the past, Korea had a period of dictatorship drawing on national security. Claiming a threat from North Korea, a regime of this period would threaten the public and oppress the political parties and citizens in opposition. To create a frightening climate, such a regime used to exaggerate out of proportion a tiny incident between the South and the North and even used to deceive the public by making up something that was non-existent. Indeed, as small incidents were magnified and a confrontational atmosphere was formed, inter-Korea relations were frequently strained. During this period, the public felt they were forever in danger. Fortunately, with the end of the Cold War, a democratic government was established and inter-Korea relations were improved, thus effectively ending an exploitation of national security concerns by any regime.

Ensuring that the public would not feel unsafe is the President’s responsibility

Nonetheless, something completely opposite is now taking place. Some in the opposition parties and the media are stirring up the crisis and criticizing the government for not making a fuss. In general, they are the ones who benefited in the bygone era of dictatorship drawing on national security. They attack that the government’s responses are lukewarm and that the public is insensitive to national security. Are they incapable of adjusting their thoughts even though the world has changed?

What is more difficult to fathom is the behavior of those who often consider themselves being democratic and progressive. Their statements and writings make us suspect that even their thoughts are incapable of casting off the phantom of the bygone era. Alternatively, is it due to their old habit of always criticizing whatever the government did?

The President’s concern of foremost priority is the safety of the public and a next priority is ensuring that the public would not feel unsafe. A concern about how the public opinion would respond comes after them. Political and media controversies surrounding the missile test-firing should be seen in this context.

Was the missile test-firing by North Korea indeed a crisis at the level of South Korea’s national security? A possible launching of Taepodong was a well-publicized fact. Nonetheless, the Defense Ministry did not make any call for a national emergency. In fact, not just Korea but all the nations involved chose not to call for an emergency. For it was not aimed at any particular party. Even if someone for a political reason wants to drum up this incident towards a national emergency, it is merely a political maneuver and cannot be made into an emergency situation in terms of national security.

The position of South Korea is even more so.
Nothing positive would come out of increasing tension on the Korean Peninsula or worsening inter-Korea relations and it does not help in any way resolve the nuclear or missile problems. There is no point in making a political calculation or using this incident as an excuse for a further strengthening of armaments.

There is no reason to particularly make a fuss in early morning as Japan did. On the other hand, there is an obvious reason to act otherwise.
It was that we should not cause the public to feel unsafe by making an unnecessary fuss. Accordingly, we responded gradually without raising a voice.

Matters of national security should not be used for a political argument any more.[/quote]

The UNSC was used to increase tensions on the Korean Peninsula to serve Washington’s agenda. Last time I checked almost 300 Lebanese civillians had been killed… the UNCS cannot act because of the Veto.

16

Thank you both for your eloquent well reasoned reply……

Can a press release from The Office of the President of Koreareally be considered left wing propaganda? [/quote]

No,but if it includes a promotional ad for Disney it could be a considered a trailer.

Look, North Korea is a regime,period. What’s your point on coming on this board with such a blanat attempt to corral us into suddenly believing that N.Korea is a victim of international bulling? Okay, so perhaps their missile testing is ‘legal’ and they are ‘suppose’ to have the right to do it. But what about them not allowing the UN in their country to monitor nuke developement. Or humanitarian aid to reach the millions of people who are starving? Or their refusal to acknowledge kidnapping Japanese and S. Koreans ? Get back to me when you wanna deal with some real issues.

17

You
girl
GO!

:bravo: :bravo:

Someone’s pissing fire this AM. :laughing:

18

[quote=“Namahottie”]No,but if it includes a promotional ad for
Disney
 it could be a considered a trailer. [/quote]

Are all Americans so contemptuous of their allies? Considering how Bush treated Blair at the G8 I would say yes.

Anyway, moving along……

Agreed……Despotic regime with 1+ million soldiers and Nuclear weapons….

well it appears you missed the point…
North Korea needs to be dealt with by nations in the region…I think the South Koreanswould know how to deal with the NKs better than the US……don’t you think?..…Look around the world……What have the USAs polices of bullying/preemptive attacks/violence achieved?..Do you think the world is safer now?..what, can you tell me, has taking NK to the UNSC achieved?..I can tell you nothing….except This and to delegitimize the UNSC in the eyes of the less powerful of the world……the majority!..

At this time Lebanon is being bombed 30 years back in time……the USA Vetoed a resolution that would have put a stop to this disproportionate action…10 of the 15 members of the UNSC voted for the resolution … 350 Lebanese are dead and 35 Israelis are dead……this is the real issue…. America holds the cards in the UNSC on the Lebonon crisis …… The UNSC has not convened again to deal with the Lebanon crisis because of veto-threat from the US……. but it has sparked the debate to reform the UNSC again….

More here:
In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all Report of the Secretary-General

19







news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5207478.stm

Where is the UNSC?..……the Security Council’s purpose is to promote international peace and security and defend international law…… the Council’s membership and institutional structures reflect outdated geopolitical realities and political thinking, shaped by the world of 1945. The five permanent members, with their vetoes and many special privileges, now arouse widespread criticism as a self-appointed oligarchy.

globalpolicy.org/security/re … theses.htm

20

[quote=“jwcampbell”][quote=“Namahottie”]No,but if it includes a promotional ad for
Disney
 it could be a considered a trailer. [/quote]

Are all Americans so contemptuous of their allies? Considering how Bush treated Blair at the G8 I would say yes.[/quote] No we’re just contemptuous with silly BS. Man I bet you get pissed off when Greenpeace boats get hosed by large ships while they wave their ‘hippy’ flags…:unamused:

[quote]Agreed……Despotic regime with 1+ million soldiers and
[color=darkred]Nuclear weapons[/color]
….[/quote]And I’m suppose to buy your arguement that they are ‘suppose’ to be allowed to test their missiles? Hmm, did you forget that the war isn’t actually over btw North and South Korea?

[quote]well it appears you missed the point…
North Korea needs to be dealt with by nations in the region…I think the South Koreanswould know how to deal with the NKs better than the US……don’t you think?..…Look around the world……What have the USAs polices of bullying/preemptive attacks/violence achieved?..Do you think the world is safer now?..what, can you tell me, has taking NK to the UNSC achieved?..I can tell you nothing….except This and to delegitimize the UNSC in the eyes of the less powerful of the world……the majority!..[/quote]

Well Lets read a little shall we about North Korean

[quote]
The North has perhaps the world’s second-largest special operations force, designed for insertion behind the lines in wartime. While the North has a relatively impressive fleet of submarines, its surface fleet has a very limited capability. Its air force has twice the number of aircraft as the South, but, except for a few advanced fighters, the North’s air force is obsolete. The North deploys the bulk of its forces well forward, along the demilitarized zone (DMZ). Several North Korean military tunnels under the DMZ were discovered in the 1970s.

Over the last several years, North Korea has moved more of its rear-echelon troops to hardened bunkers closer to the DMZ. Given the proximity of Seoul to the DMZ (some 25 miles), South Korean and U.S. forces are likely to have little warning of any attack. The United States and South Korea continue to believe that the U.S. troop presence in South Korea remains an effective deterrent. North Korea’s nuclear weapons program has also been a source of international tension (see below, Reunification Efforts Since 1971; Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula).[/quote]
Currently there are 12,000+ US soliders on the 38th parellel keeping the Yahoo leader of North Korea from doing something stupid and who has the 4th largest army in the world. Mind you the US is at war in TWO countries, and our troops are feeling the strain… SO, again give me a break about the US bullying people. We have our unethical ways about involvement with other countries, like everyone else but we are trying to keep peace in some form. Sorry it doesn’t fit yours, next presidental election is 2008. Or you could run for Congress this year.

[quote]
At this time Lebanon is being bombed 30 years back in time……the USA Vetoed a resolution that would have put a stop to this disproportionate action…10 of the 15 members of the UNSC voted for the resolution … 350 Lebanese are dead and 35 Israelis are dead……this is the real issue…. America holds the cards in the UNSC on the Lebonon crisis …… The UNSC has not convened again to deal with the Lebanon crisis because of veto-threat from the US……. but it has sparked the debate to reform the UNSC again….[/quote]

I thought you were trying to ‘educate’ us on North Korea, but since that’s not working you’re gonna guilt us with what’s going on in the Middle East. Shit, call my shrink.

And as for the pictures of the bombings, let’s not get too baised. Lebanon hasn’t been throwing rocks at Israel.