Top 10 UN Slogans

[rossid]

10. If an impotent, bloated bureaucracy can’t solve it, then its best left festering.

9. You can’t spell “unethical” without U.N.

8. Genocidal dictators, beware our non-binding resolutions.

7. Bringing peace to our world (actual results may vary).

6. Tomorrows corruption today!

5. Raising pointless squabbling to an art form.

4. We take bribes so you don’t have to.

3. Try our world famous cheese fries.

2. If troubles around, we’ll be nearby doing nothing.

1. If this is an emergency, please hang up and dial America.

[RevZeek]

What's sad is how true those really are... :(

[Glennjamin]

Yeah, the UN was a good idea when it started... now it's a "toothless tiger" to quote my mum.

*****
DISCLAIMER: The following may come across highly cynical... I guess that's the way I am.

I was born in Australia (British colony 1788-1901), and grew up in Ghana (British colony 1821-1957)...

Don't get me wrong. I think America (British colony 1620-1783) is a great country. Great people. Many of my best friends are Americans. And most of them are :D GOMERS! :D It just seems to have inherited the role of 19th-century imperialists, and with that, its share of political foot-in-mouthism... read on...
*****

Being an Aussie, I heard a lot about East Timor, and the troubles under the Indonesian government during the 1970s. Apparently none of that made it to US TV news at the time. Partly because Khmer Rouge was also big news. Partly because the Indonesians were using American bullets and American guns to kill Timorese... read more here (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB62/)...

Ah, 1970s US policy...

#1 in this list slightly disturbs me...

1. If this is an emergency, please hang up and dial America.

America has a handy veto in the UN... anyone remember 1984?

In 1984, Nicaragua responded in a way appropriate to a law-abiding state by taking its case against the United States to the World Court in the Hague. The court ordered the United States to terminate the 'unlawful use of force' -- in lay terms, international terrorism -- against Nicaragua and to pay substantial reparations. But Washington ignored the court, then vetoed two UN Security Council resolutions affirming the judgment and calling on all states to observe international law.
Source: http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20040806.htm

Those weren't my words... that was Noam Chomsky, referring to a case that my brother told me about when he was doing a semester of International Law when he was at uni. In case you're wondering, the US still hasn't paid up the estimated billions...

Ah, the 80s, when Rumsfeld went to chat to Saddam, and a slap on the wrist... "you can buy our pesticides, with our agricultural loans, but he he, don't try making chemical weapons..." "thanks for buying Bell helicopters... yes, crop-dusting is the way to go... now don't go putting guns on... Kurds might not like that..." at the time, the US was officially neutral in the Iran-Iraq conflict.

Iran had submitted a draft resolution asking the U.N. to condemn Iraq's chemical weapons use. The U.S. delegate to the U.N. was instructed to lobby friendly delegations in order to obtain a general motion of "no decision" on the resolution. If this was not achievable, the U.S. delegate was to abstain on the issue. Iraq's ambassador met with the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Jeane Kirkpatrick, and asked for "restraint" in responding to the issue - as did the representatives of both France and Britain.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Also in the same decade, the CIA were over in Afghanistan, training local freedom fighters how to use car bombs against the nasty Russkies. Some British SAS were also there, secretly fighting with the Afghans. A few Saudis, one rich civil engineer in particular, came over to help their Afghan brothers... I won't mention names here... but he was very good at building roads and training camps, and the CIA were grateful for monies received. :rolleyes:

Ah, 1980s US/British policy...

OK... that was my cynical rant... apologies to any I've offended... that wasn't my intent.
Next week, I might get onto my own backyard, and look at Aussie foreign policy... ;)

Here's a foretaste...

The broad feeling is that the Pacific states will welcome help from Australia, the region's superpower. What they won't stand for is being told what's good for them.

Fiji's Prime Minister, Laisenia Qarase, warned if Australia made financial relief too much of a political tool, it might be rejected. "We also have the right to choose whether we accept the aid as an independent and sovereign state," Mr Qarase said.

Papua New Guinea's Prime Minister, Sir Michael Somare, also warned outsiders against interfering in his country's unique affairs.

"Take PNG - you cannot run 1,000 tribes and put them as a government, you cannot run the societies that we have run. We've made a success of it," he told the forum.
Source: British Broadcasting Corporation (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3154033.stm)

PNG was run by Australia for some years after the Second World War.

I then looked up Nauru on wikipedia... the kingdom was annexed by Germany along with part of New Guinea during the late 19th Century... then came under Australian rule after the First World War divvying-up of German colonies. Though independent since 1968, it has no currency of its own, using the Aussie dollar, and its national sport is Aussie Rules football... :p :)
This is what I found about Nauru... (you can read the whole page here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauru))

Nauru is currently involved in an Australian lawsuit against the United States over a failed underground agreement. Nauru claims that agents representing the United States government offered billions of dollars worth of economic recovery to the island in exchange for new legislation limiting the efficacy of overseas money laundering and tax evasion as well as the establishment of a Nauruan "stooge" embassy in China to function under United States control as a means of secretly ushering defecting North Korean scientists and officials across the border, including Kyong Won-ha, the scientest supposedly responsible for much of Pyongyang's nuclear program. This initiative was termed "Operation Weasel." When news of this agreement surfaced after Nauru faithfully followed through with the necessary legislation and the preliminaries of the embassy (which rightfully drew suspicion from China as it was staffed entirely by westerners), the United States responded that the agents who made the deal with Nauru never had the authority to make such a contract, and Nauru has not yet received the promised aid. Nauru's case against the United States is still pending, but preliminary judgments favor the island nation over the superpower.

[ICarlson99]

Noam Chomsky? :rolleyes: Nevermind.

[Glennjamin]

Noam Chomsky? :rolleyes: Nevermind.

His was the most concise quote I could find at the time...

The fact that the US still owes money on charges of international terrorism stands...

[ICarlson99]

Owes money to whom? According to an "international" court that has no authority? Courts have no authority without force, like it or not.

If the US vetoes a UN Security Council Resolution, does that mean the resolution should be recognized? If the US is a legitimate member of the UN then the "official" UN position is that the "court" decision is NOT recognized.

This is part of the joke of the UN, every resolution is political, so the countries that support those being "condemned" vote against it - it's completely pointless. That a country like Luxemborg has the same power in the general assembly as the US is a joke. Not because the US is "better", but because it plays a significantly larger role in the global economy. Something negatively affecting the US has far greater impact on the world than something negatively affecting Luxemborg. Sorry, that's just reality.

[Glennjamin]

Owes money to whom? According to an "international" court that has no authority? Courts have no authority without force, like it or not.

Owes money to the Nicaraguan government, apparently...

If the US vetoes a UN Security Council Resolution, does that mean the resolution should be recognized? If the US is a legitimate member of the UN then the "official" UN position is that the "court" decision is NOT recognized.

It's interesting, isn't it... that the UN can tell countries to do... until it tries to tell the countries with power what to do... the reality is that no "world government" or any approximation of such can really work...

This is part of the joke of the UN, every resolution is political, so the countries that support those being "condemned" vote against it - it's completely pointless. That a country like Luxemborg has the same power in the general assembly as the US is a joke. Not because the US is "better", but because it plays a significantly larger role in the global economy. Something negatively affecting the US has far greater impact on the world than something negatively affecting Luxemborg. Sorry, that's just reality.

The UN has turned into a joke... I'm just saying it's not the only joke out there... sorry if I'm cynical...

As an aside, the 5 largest players in the worldwide arms trade are also the 5 permanent members of the UN's Security Council...

[ICarlson99]

Owes money to the Nicaraguan government, apparently...


I bet we give them way more in annual aid than the "fine" anyways.


It's interesting, isn't it... that the UN can tell countries to do... until it tries to tell the countries with power what to do... the reality is that no "world government" or any approximation of such can really work...
[/QUOTE

Agreed

[QUOTE]The UN has turned into a joke... I'm just saying it's not the only joke out there... sorry if I'm cynical...


The only appropriate attitude towards the UN is one of cynicism :)


As an aside, the 5 largest players in the worldwide arms trade are also the 5 permanent members of the UN's Security Council...

Well, they're the 5 largest players BECAUSE they're the 5 largest countries (which is why they're permanent members)

Out of curiosity, what's your source for that last statement?

[Glennjamin]

The only appropriate attitude towards the UN is one of cynicism :)

My attitude towards a lot of things is cynicism :rolleyes: :)

Well, they're the 5 largest players BECAUSE they're the 5 largest countries (which is why they're permanent members)
Russia, USA, United Kingdom, China, France...

They're the 5 most powerful WWII allies...

The 5 largest countries are Russia, Canada, China, USA and Brazil. #6 is Australia :D Dangit we missed out by one place :p

Out of curiosity, what's your source for that last statement?

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council – France, Russia, China, the UK, and the USA – together account for 88 per cent of the world’s conventional arms exports; and these exports contribute regularly to gross abuses of human rights.
In the last four years the US, UK and France earned more income from arms exports to Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America than they provided in aid.
Source: http://www.controlarms.org/latest_news/media_briefing.htm, also reported on the Oxfam charity site...

According to this site, http://www.iiss.org/news-more.php?itemID=1700, the US Congress figures put China just out of the top 5 moneymakers...

Interestingly enough it appears that the US is the biggest customer of the United Kingdom's military trade...

[RevZeek]

*snip*
Don't get me wrong. I think America (British colony 1620-1783) is a great country. *snip*

1607-1783 :D Jamestown was here before Plymouth

Just an FYI from your resident history nerd! :p

[Glennjamin]

1607-1783 :D Jamestown was here before Plymouth

Just an FYI from your resident history nerd! :p

Thanks, RevZeek... my US history is sketchy when it comes to the "good ol' days" :p

[truster]

It's interesting, isn't it... that the UN can tell countries to do... until it tries to tell the countries with power what to do... the reality is that no "world government" or any approximation of such can really work...


Agreed wholeheartedly.


The UN has turned into a joke... I'm just saying it's not the only joke out there... sorry if I'm cynical...


Yeah, again, agreed. The UN was a good idea, but it seems to me that in the UN charter it is stated *somewhere* that each nation is still sovereign and that they CAN refuse to follow the UN resolutions... where it says that, I have no idea, that's just what my gov't teacher told us...

[Glennjamin]

Yeah, again, agreed. The UN was a good idea, but it seems to me that in the UN charter it is stated *somewhere* that each nation is still sovereign and that they CAN refuse to follow the UN resolutions... where it says that, I have no idea, that's just what my gov't teacher told us...

Don't know if they've changed this, but last time I checked the UN charter...

A joint military action by UN forces doesn't need the OK of the Security Council as long as the country being invaded ever fought against the Allies in World War II.

:eek: what the? :eek: :confused:

[truster]

:eek: what the? :eek: :confused:




hmmmmm...

[labrousse]

1607-1783 :D Jamestown was here before Plymouth

Just an FYI from your resident history nerd! :p

1607-1776.

That's when we declared independence, remember?

[Glennjamin]

1607-1776.

That's when we declared independence, remember?

1783 was when the War ended.

[Gandalf]

Yeah, but once we declared independence, from our perspective we were no longer a colony, but a free nation fighting to expel a foreign occupying force. It took a few years to do it, but we ceased to be their colony when the Declaration was signed in 1776.

[Glennjamin]

Yeah, but once we declared independence, from our perspective we were no longer a colony, but a free nation fighting to expel a foreign occupying force. It took a few years to do it, but we ceased to be their colony when the Declaration was signed in 1776.

Yeah... maybe so... I see 1776-1783 as a big grey area... with Australia it's a lot clearer, what with our not having a war. We probably had a few years as separate colonies saying "Why do we pay each other import taxes? We'd be better off as one country." Britain said "Mmm... OK." A Constitution was written, and voila. New country.

We kept Queen Victoria as head of state, but much like British Parliament centuries before, cunningly wrote out all the monarch's actual power... :p

[Glennjamin]

One problem with defining a nation's "independence" is whether there's an international body to "decide" :p :rolleyes: In the absence of such a body, it's just up to individual countries to recognise each other as being sovereign. Such was the case prior to 1919, when the League of Nations was formed.



In the case of Australia, both "parent" and "child" nation recognised independence at the same time... 1st January 1901. In matters of official foreign policy, however, it could be argued that Australia was not in fact fully independent until the Second World War, when it declared war against the Empire of Japan before the United Kingdom did so. In the First World War, Australia had said "Right, if Britain's at war, then so are we..."

In the case of the United States, there's a gap of seven years between 1776 (declaration) and 1783 (official end of colonial presence, and acknowledgment by Great Britain of the colony's independence).

Another case of a large declaration-recognition gap is Liberia, in West Africa. Founded as a US colony in 1822, it declared independence in 1847, and acted as such, without any conflict with the "mother country". However, it wasn't officially recognised as a separate nation until 1862, 15 years after declaration.


CASE STUDY
Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic
aka Western Sahara (former Spanish Colony of Rio de Oro)

1976 End of Spanish colonial presence. SADR declaration of independence. Moroccan forces invade the north, while Mauritanian forces invade the south.
1979 Mauritania withdraws and Morocco occupies the entire country. A UN resolution :rolleyes: urges Morocco to withdraw from Western Sahara.
1982 SADR admitted as a full member of the Organisation of African Unity.
1991 UN-monitored ceasefire.
1994 Voter registration starts, but the process is stopped by Morocco.

Various referendums planned (voting on either full independence or becoming a part of Morocco) have been delayed / postponed over ten times over the past two decades. Morocco and France (which supports Moroccan claims on the territory) suggest a "third option", where the SADR becomes a state of Morocco with limited autonomy.

The SADR is currently recognised by 50 other nations (23 of which are in Africa)... nonetheless it remains unrecognised by the United Nations, United States, United Kingdom, and any other "important" :p countries and organisations. More nations (including many in Francophone Africa) have recognised it in the past, but cancelled relations in the 1980s and 1990s... probably due to diplomatic/business relations with France.

Question... is SADR (Western Sahara) an independent nation? What defines independence? An international organisation's decree? Other countries' say-so? A signed piece of paper?
Discuss... :rolleyes:

[coldcupofjoe]

I feel a that a nation is a nation whether or not other countries recognize it as such AS LONG as that nation has a government of some type and some way of making money as in resources to export or something of that ilk or a standing army. I believe a nation has to be able to stand on its own two feet whether by force or becuase its inexpendable. If a nation cannot survive on its own its not a nation.