Future Un = League Of Nations?
Confuzor
Join Date: 2002-11-01 Member: 2412Awaiting Authorization
Join Date: 2002-11-01 Member: 2412Awaiting Authorization
<div class="IPBDescription">A repeat of History?</div> <i>I am neither suave in the ways of history, nor are my opinions often stable, so feel free to mock all that is stupid within this topic!</i> <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Having finished grade eleven socials last year, we briefly covered about the formation of the League of Nations, an organization of the same function of the United Nations. It was formed from the aftermath of World War I. While the main focus was on its failures, (and ultimately, its collapse) in dealing with the issues that led up to World War II, I just recently looked at a brief article that surprised me with a list of a few of its achievements:
<a href='http://www.bartleby.com/65/le/LeagueNa.html' target='_blank'>The Columbia Encyclopedia - League of Nations</a>
- One thing that I should note from that article is this section:
<!--c1--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->Its failures were due as much to the indifference of the great powers, which preferred to reserve important matters for their own decisions, as to weaknesses of organization.<!--c2--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
In another article I recently looked at, given by the charismatic sock puppet <a href='http://www.edthesock.com/' target='_blank'>Ed the Sock</a>, (for those unfamiliar with him, think the original Triumph the Insult Dog, accompanied sometimes with meaningful outlooks on the world), he recently gave a rant about the war in his ED-itorial, <a href='http://www.edthesock.com/editorials/editorial58.shtml' target='_blank'>"Wake up and Smell the Misery"</a>. In the article, I'd like to quote this passage:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And speaking of the UN ? if they have lost relevance, as some claim, it?s their own fault. It is a UN resolution that Iraq has been flouting?how can the UN maintain credibility when they don?t even enforce their own edicts? Saddam had enough time to prove he was complying with disarmament orders ? if he doesn?t have prohibited weapons programs, then why didn?t he prove it to the UN?s satisfaction? And if he does have prohibited weapons, then why should we turn a blind eye? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A common used anti-war arguement was that of, "give the UN more time". Of course, the progress really started to roll with UN inspectors only when US forces basically surrounded Iraq from all borders prior to the attack. But even before that, they had <b>several years</b> to disarm. It should also be noted that in recent history, the US initiated Operation Desert Fox, (made by Clinton in the December of 1998), an airstrike done when was done when Saddam blatantly refused to let UN inspectors examine weapons. It was, again, the United States that did all the physical work.
And this time, they're doing the work again, with or without UN thumbs up. Which goes back to the first quote: It's the great powers that reserve important matter for their own decision. Why? Because the UN is, (or appears) to be too weak to do anything... <b>which is what led to the collapse of the League of Nations</b>.
Not that I think the UN is useless, but I consider this as visible decay in the foundation of the UN; whether or not US did the right thing, (in terms of an RPG, I'd classify the intentions of the US actions as "Chaotic Good" <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> ) in attacking Iraq, <b>they broke international law, and the UN can't do anything about it</b>. Then again, you can argue that Iraq did broke international law as well, and the UN could only rely on US to do something about it.
Signs of another League of Nations? Probably. Such is the way of entropy...
Discuss.
Having finished grade eleven socials last year, we briefly covered about the formation of the League of Nations, an organization of the same function of the United Nations. It was formed from the aftermath of World War I. While the main focus was on its failures, (and ultimately, its collapse) in dealing with the issues that led up to World War II, I just recently looked at a brief article that surprised me with a list of a few of its achievements:
<a href='http://www.bartleby.com/65/le/LeagueNa.html' target='_blank'>The Columbia Encyclopedia - League of Nations</a>
- One thing that I should note from that article is this section:
<!--c1--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->Its failures were due as much to the indifference of the great powers, which preferred to reserve important matters for their own decisions, as to weaknesses of organization.<!--c2--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
In another article I recently looked at, given by the charismatic sock puppet <a href='http://www.edthesock.com/' target='_blank'>Ed the Sock</a>, (for those unfamiliar with him, think the original Triumph the Insult Dog, accompanied sometimes with meaningful outlooks on the world), he recently gave a rant about the war in his ED-itorial, <a href='http://www.edthesock.com/editorials/editorial58.shtml' target='_blank'>"Wake up and Smell the Misery"</a>. In the article, I'd like to quote this passage:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And speaking of the UN ? if they have lost relevance, as some claim, it?s their own fault. It is a UN resolution that Iraq has been flouting?how can the UN maintain credibility when they don?t even enforce their own edicts? Saddam had enough time to prove he was complying with disarmament orders ? if he doesn?t have prohibited weapons programs, then why didn?t he prove it to the UN?s satisfaction? And if he does have prohibited weapons, then why should we turn a blind eye? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A common used anti-war arguement was that of, "give the UN more time". Of course, the progress really started to roll with UN inspectors only when US forces basically surrounded Iraq from all borders prior to the attack. But even before that, they had <b>several years</b> to disarm. It should also be noted that in recent history, the US initiated Operation Desert Fox, (made by Clinton in the December of 1998), an airstrike done when was done when Saddam blatantly refused to let UN inspectors examine weapons. It was, again, the United States that did all the physical work.
And this time, they're doing the work again, with or without UN thumbs up. Which goes back to the first quote: It's the great powers that reserve important matter for their own decision. Why? Because the UN is, (or appears) to be too weak to do anything... <b>which is what led to the collapse of the League of Nations</b>.
Not that I think the UN is useless, but I consider this as visible decay in the foundation of the UN; whether or not US did the right thing, (in terms of an RPG, I'd classify the intentions of the US actions as "Chaotic Good" <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> ) in attacking Iraq, <b>they broke international law, and the UN can't do anything about it</b>. Then again, you can argue that Iraq did broke international law as well, and the UN could only rely on US to do something about it.
Signs of another League of Nations? Probably. Such is the way of entropy...
Discuss.
Comments
This is why not a full assembly of all UN members, but the Security Council is the highest institution of the UN, and this is why the Security Counicl held - and holds - itself in a seldomly breaking lockdown because of the veto rights - nothing different could have prevented an escalation during the hot phases of the Cold War.
After the end of the Cold War and with the rise of the US to a predominant, and in its own perception self-sufficient, power (excuse the generalization, please), however, this deadlock slowly kills the UN. An institution that's effectively doing nothing of large effect is all well and good if any large effect would be cause for a thermonuclear war - in a less pressurized international climate, however, it just means that the UN becomes the toy of the power that can work the most efficiently outside its influence.
In my opinion, this means that the Security Council has to be replaced by a council with no constant membership, descision finding by absolute majority, and members that're elected out of the full assembly. The alternative would be a return into the 'smokeroom diplomacy' of the 19th century, which eventually led into WW1 and set the stage for WW2.
Genesis 12:2 "I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing.
3 I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you."
So anyway...
I think that the UN's purpose at is it currently set up is outdated. It's simply not nimble yet powerful enough of an organization to come to a decision and carry out it's rulings. Fully majority votes, with a standing army, is the only way it's going to get anything done in today's global climate. Conflicts like Vietnam and Korea will probably not happen in the near future. Things like Kosovo and Afghanistan are much more likely, going after the little bad guys; who perform huge atrocities, but don't ever pose a threat to a superpower, and thus, don't ever attract huge attention.
To sum up, change the UN, and give it a standing army powerful enough that any small country with a big bad neighbor can rest easy at night thinking that the UN will protect them should anything happen. That is the only way that it will have any effect at all, to make it a superpower by itself.
Now, compare that to France's stance on the latest resolution, where it was doubtful there would even be the necessary quorum of 9 votes in favour.
France has only ever used its veto ONCE. And the US has the gall to have a major hissy-fit over France proposing to block a US-led resolution, and talks about upholding the will of the UN. Hypocrisy to the <i>n</i>-th degree.
And besides, if the Security Council was unable to come to an agreement, the US still has the right to take the vote to the General Assembly, where all 191 nations would be able to vote. If the USA was so convinced that the world supported them, they could have held out, and they could have taken this option. But, hey, one country, one vote probably sounds too much like democracy for this particular administration's taste, and there is little chance they would have got the necessary two-thirds majority, even if they were allowed to use hanging chads.
The League of Nations was crippled by major powers, including the US, refusing to join. The current US regime is hoping to bring down the UN through non-cooperation, and its spokesmen like Richard Perle (although he isn't actually a member of the government, I believe) have been <a href='http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,918810,00.html' target='_blank'>calling for this openly</a>.
I agree with the previous poster that the only solution would be for the UN to be strengthened by having more legal powers, and the ability to muster its own troops.
But the USA would never countenence such a threat to its or NATO's power - indeed it refuses outright to recognise the authority of the International Criminal Court created last year. And I can't imagine any permanent member giving up its veto easily.
Let me, however, make a little remark on this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The USA has cast 73 vetoes, 38 of them criticising Israel. For most of these there were 14 votes in favour against the US's sole veto.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We're on diplomatic ground here. Very often, the US government just decided 'to take the blame' in controversial situations, and thus allowed its allies to vote positively to keep their international relationships unharmed. Had these been 'true' votes, you would've seldom seen a unity of 14 members.
France has only ever used its veto ONCE.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No country has been obstructing the will of the world. First it is difficult to determine every countries' goals. Second, they could oppose the U.S. and its allies in the UN. What is the relevance of the amount of times the U.S. or France used its veto powers? The Soviet Union did it all the time to prevent action being taken against its intrests.
Is this a subtle grammatical point or because I'm unfairly singling it out?
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Mar 23 2003, 01:46 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Mar 23 2003, 01:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The USA has cast 73 vetoes, 38 of them criticising Israel. For most of these there were 14 votes in favour against the US's sole veto.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We're on diplomatic ground here. Very often, the US government just decided 'to take the blame' in controversial situations, and thus allowed its allies to vote positively to keep their international relationships unharmed. Had these been 'true' votes, you would've seldom seen a unity of 14 members.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quite possibly - but wouldn't that involve the US revealing upfront that they would be vetoing it, which is what France is being criticised for? I suppose everyone else would just know that the US would be bound to veto it, and would plan their vote accordingly. Indeed the countries tabling the resolution in the first place would be doing so knowing that it couldn't possibly get past the US. The existence of vetos will be bound to distort any vote, just as France's threatened veto would have distorted this one.
<!--QuoteBegin--Soviet~Dictator+Mar 23 2003, 02:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Soviet~Dictator @ Mar 23 2003, 02:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What is the relevance of the amount of times the U.S. or France used its veto powers?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's become relevant because the British and US governments have been talking nonsense about "unreasonable" vetos. If they think vetos are unreasonable, why are they so eager to use them? You have got to work within agreed legal frameworks, or take sensible steps to change the frameworks themselves. You can't just start crying when others use your own approaches against you.
And yes, the Soviet Union/Russia is the most veto-happy permanent member, with 117 to its name.
Is this a subtle grammatical point or because I'm unfairly singling it out? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because of the latter. I'm renowed for hating national generalization - comes with being accused of being responsible for the death of six million jews because of one such.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Mar 23 2003, 01:46 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Mar 23 2003, 01:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The USA has cast 73 vetoes, 38 of them criticising Israel. For most of these there were 14 votes in favour against the US's sole veto.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We're on diplomatic ground here. Very often, the US government just decided 'to take the blame' in controversial situations, and thus allowed its allies to vote positively to keep their international relationships unharmed. Had these been 'true' votes, you would've seldom seen a unity of 14 members.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quite possibly - but wouldn't that involve the US revealing upfront that they would be vetoing it, which is what France is being criticised for? I suppose everyone else would just know that the US would be bound to veto it, and would plan their vote accordingly. Indeed the countries tabling the resolution in the first place would be doing so knowing that it couldn't possibly get past the US. The existence of vetos will be bound to distort any vote, just as France's threatened veto would have distorted this one.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree, I just wanted to point out that it wasn't 'the US' running against the rest of the world in all those cases.
I get similar cringes when I read that Britain is attacking Iraq - it's nothing to do with me; I've voted against this dodgy New Labour party every opportunity I've ever had. "Not In My Name", as the protestors say. I shouldn't slur the USA in the same way.
I would say UN = dead. I dont think this will start anything big. I think the Big 8 will keep the world peaceful.
Just any countries that get in thier way though <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif'><!--endemo-->
<a href='http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/data/vetotab.htm' target='_blank'>The table</a>
<a href='http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membship/veto/vetosubj.htm' target='_blank'>The subjects</a>
The second URL is interesting because the votes are also provided (plus since 1990, link to the draft resolution in question).