Canada's position in the Security Council, UN

[Lee]

UN Human Rights Committee... HA!! That's an oxy moron!! Especially since the UN are at the forefront of the pro-death abortion movement!!

If the UN were truly advocates for Human Rights, they'd be protecting the unborn as well as Israeli citizens who are targeted by Palistinian terrorist suicide bombers!!

They would have also gotten rid of the likes of Saddam years ago! Wanna know why they didn't? Cause the majority of UN members are from the Arab world!!!!

 

[Reverend Blair]

So, is there any reason why you have to attack Presidet Bush and the U.S.?

Any reason? I can think of many. Bush's disregard for human life; rampant, unthinking greed; willing to murder for money; actions against the will of the international community; arrogance; violence; unbridled stupidity....How's that for starters?

Want specific examples? Kyoto, land mines treaties, Iraq, Colombia, the fake war on terror, "with us or with the terrorists", cancellation of nuclear treaties, continued use of "daisy cutter" bombs, continued use of depleted uranium munitions.

I'd be very curious as to your response to President Bush and the U.S. if Canada came under attack. Whether it be by a traditional hostile military force or a terrorist organization.

It is extremely unlikely that we would come under attack from a traditional military force. Canada just doesn't piss that many other countries off. Historically the only country that has attempted to invade us has been the US.

If we were to come under attack from a terrorist organisation (and I assume you mean al Qaeda not the FLQ) my response to Bush would be, "You stupid bastard, George. You've gone and made things worse."

Especially since the UN are at the forefront of the pro-death abortion movement!!

Have you got any facts to back up this little accusation?

 

[moghrabi]

UN Human Rights Committee... HA!! That's an oxy moron!! Especially since the UN are at the forefront of the pro-death abortion movement!!

If the UN were truly advocates for Human Rights, they'd be protecting the unborn as well as Israeli citizens who are targeted by Palistinian terrorist suicide bombers!!

They would have also gotten rid of the likes of Saddam years ago! Wanna know why they didn't? Cause the majority of UN members are from the Arab world!!!!

Shouldn't be protecting the palastinainas from the occupiers who kill the pals everyday and the US give the thumbs up. Please get your facts straight.

The palastinans (although I disagree with the method of suicide bombers) have nothing to lose. No voice, no land, no say. nothing. It is only natural to expect people blowing themselves up against the tyrrants.

 

[moghrabi]

They would have also gotten rid of the likes of Saddam years ago! Wanna know why they didn't? Cause the majority of UN members are from the Arab world!!!!

They did not get rid of the like of Saddam long time ago because he was doing their dirty work for them. Hence he was their favorite for many years. The US supported him against Iran and the kurds. Now they are done with him since they have new guys just graduated from the CIA (The new governing counsil puppets), it was time to get rid of him.

Also, The fact is the majority of yhe UN is not Arab. Check your facts again.

 

[researchok]

Shouldn't (UN) be protecting the palastinainas from the occupiers who kill the pals everyday and the US give the thumbs up. Please get your facts straight.

The palastinans (although I disagree with the method of suicide bombers) have nothing to lose. No voice, no land, no say. nothing. It is only natural to expect people blowing themselves up against the tyrrants.

Seems to me there are far bigger problems.

Sudan- a MILLION AND HALF dead and counting.

Mauritania- Hundreds of thousands dead and ongoing slave trade.

Algeria- Hundreds of thousands dead and rebels that have used rape and murder of children as 'policy'.

Iraq- Saddam was responsible for the death of tens, if not hundreds of thousands-- and had no problem using poison gas.

Iran- Sent tens of thousands of CHILDREN to fight Saddam, used as cannon fodder. Has threatened to develop and USE nuclear weapons and currently is persecuting reformers.

Saudi Arabia is facing the genie it let out of the bottle--radical Islamists.

Yemen- Systematically has killed tens of thousands.

Syria- Has killed tens of thousands- including 20,000 in one city, Hama- and imprisons dissenters. Still oppresses Kurd minorities.

FGM continues unabated.

Throughout the region media, educational curriculum and public forums espouse hate and propogate violence and destruction.

The list goes on.

Now, who did you say the biggest problem in the region is? What situation did you say needs urgent UN attention?

The palastinans (although I disagree with the method of suicide bombers) have nothing to lose. No voice, no land, no say. nothing. It is only natural to expect people blowing themselves up against the tyrrants.

Who the real tyrants are, we already know.

The Palestinians are in the situation they're in because of choices they made. They refused UN partition, they refused to negotiate after 67-- a war started by Arabs- they refused Wye and they chosen the path they are on. Arafaty has authored their destiny. They wanted an Intifadah and they got one.

They have no voice because yet another corrupt Arab leader spoke on their behalf, all the while stealing from them and allowing them to descend into the abyss, because their leader put corruption and deceit before their aspirations. Today, the Palestinians are reaching a point where theyve had enough- and how does Arafat respond? By appointing his cousin in yet another position of authority.

Blaming the US is easy, but in reality, another bite of unreality.

The Arab world did nothing while Saddam was in power. They demostrated by the millions in support of the tyrant.

As in Iraq, the Arab world seems perfectly comfotable in the situation it finds itself now. They say they want reform but complain when the free world agrees and encourages it. Its another plot, its another conspiracy.

Fine. We can wait till it happens on its own.

Good luck.

 

[Andem]

In response to researchok:

The truth is is that the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein. We didn't lose anybody special, in my opinion. The bottom line is that the United States had no right going in there and policing the world. They've probably just made the situation worse; they were not going there to police the region, no. They were going there for oil and power. It was in the personal interest of Bush's friends and family in the oil business and basically big business in general down south.

Sure we can blame the Americans. They have made the situation worse in the region. But it's not really the United States - the people, it's American big business and American power. Unfortunately, the American people have been brainwashed into believing whatever. If the average American knew what was REALLY going on in the region and the US participation and cooperation with several "evil nations", I'm sure we'd be seeing and overthrow of power. Propaganda does wonders.

To be honest, I would rather have someone like Saddam Hussein in power than a lot of the other "tyrants" we've seen in the past. It would probably be my destination of choice before the US led sanctions. Ofcourse they left the entire region in the state it's in.

Let's not forget Israel. I don't need to express in detail, because we all know what Israel is upto. It's not good. They are no better than some of the countries you have mentioned, researchok. They might actually be considered worse because Israel just has more power which is enforced by the US's obligation to please it's largest lobby group -- by supporting Israel financially and military equipment.

This is a neverending debate, really.



Anyways, thanks for the info to everyone about Security Council... Pretty much satisfied my curiousity.

By the way, Hi Lee. Welcome.
(if you'd like, we have a similar thread like the one on talkbc we were arguing about earlier. Join in if you'd like... diversity is key. http://www.canadiancontent.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1204 )

 

[Reverend Blair]

Those are all examples of failures of the SC though Research. Those failures haven't happened out of the blue, they've happened because of SC members playing silly little games. They've happened because we let them happen, even encouraged them to happen.

Sudan is an excellent example. Aid agencies and human rights organisations have been screaming for something to be done for years. A few months ago they were literally begging for the press to do stories on Sudan because they needed to generate public pressure to get any real action.

Palestine is another great example. Arafat consolidated his power base under Reagan and Carter. They gave him the legitimacy that allowed him to be where he is today. France has continued that.

Meanwhile Israel, with the support of the US, has blown up what could be the political leaders of tomorrow and destroyed any opposition that may have served as a challenge to Arafat from the inside.

Take away SC support for both the Israelis and the Palestinians and act only to keep them from killing each other or to facilitate peace talks, and the picture likely changes.

 

[researchok]

Andem-

Well, we agree on a few things-- I do think the US should not have gone into Iraq in the manner they did.

I dont think it's about oil-- if that were the reason, all the US had to do was agree to lifet sanctions and save itself hundereds of billions. The oil would have flowed.

The power argument has some merit, I think. There would be short term gain, for sure-- but by encouraging democracy, there would be no guarantee. Plenty of democracies have made plain they disapprove of US policy and there is no reason to believe that the US would treat new democracies in the region any differently.

Now, the argument re big business and politics I can't disagree with. There has always been and will always be undue influence by big business, regardless of the country. France, Germany, England, all have agendas presented by business lobbies.

Smaller countries and totalitarian regimes are no different, of course-- they just haev different agendas.

Therein lies the problem of all governments-- they are inherently flawed institutions. No matter how noble the objectives, somewhere down the line, a bureaucrat somewhere, somehow manages to take advantage of his position or will accede to undue pressures from a myriad of sources.

Having said that, at least democracies have mecahnisms to deal with these issues. Do they always work? Of course not. Are they fair? Not unless there is enough public pressure.

Autocratic and totalitarian regimes don't even have that mechanism-- it's governing by the seat of their pants with no accountability, to serve whatever the agenda they have a the moment.

As to Israel, I'm not necessarily a big fan-- but to single them out is patently absurd. They are caught between a rock and a hard place-- and in the great scheme of things in the region, the are bit players.

There is no moral equivalence. The regional school systems, media and cultural climate preaches nothing but hate. If peace were signed tomorrow, it would take 50 years before normalcy would appear.

As for the Israel lobby- AIPAC being the most powerful-, I agree-- they are indeed powerful.

The best tool AIPAC has are daily translations of Arab media, speeches, books, articles and political pronouncements.

Is it any wonder then, why they are successful?

If there is to be any regional peace, there is going to have be serious changes in the region.

Israel can be held accountable for much, but they aren't the problem in the region. Let me put it to you this way. Imagine a football field with a matchbook on one edge. That is the proportional representation of Israel in relation to the Arab/Muslim world.

They, nor the US or western democracies, are the cause of the Arab world's ills, from poor economies to poor educational systems to oppressive regimes to unbrideled religious fanaticism breeding terror-- no matter how hard they want to believe that.

 

[researchok]

Those are all examples of failures of the SC though Research. Those failures haven't happened out of the blue, they've happened because of SC members playing silly little games. They've happened because we let them happen, even encouraged them to happen.

Sudan is an excellent example. Aid agencies and human rights organisations have been screaming for something to be done for years. A few months ago they were literally begging for the press to do stories on Sudan because they needed to generate public pressure to get any real action.

Palestine is another great example. Arafat consolidated his power base under Reagan and Carter. They gave him the legitimacy that allowed him to be where he is today. France has continued that.

Meanwhile Israel, with the support of the US, has blown up what could be the political leaders of tomorrow and destroyed any opposition that may have served as a challenge to Arafat from the inside.

Take away SC support for both the Israelis and the Palestinians and act only to keep them from killing each other or to facilitate peace talks, and the picture likely changes.

GIVE THE MAN A PRIZE.

Youre right, of course, in extermis.

You can come to work anytime-- you get it

Hard part of course, is UN complicity in Sudan's debacle, for example. UN GA routinely brushed Sudan off the table- how do you fix that?

Same thing happened in Rwanda, Nigeria, Sierra Leone- you know the rest of the list.

Even in Kososva, had the French not gone in alone, Milosovic would still be slaughtering thousands.

Sadly there is no evidence that as is, UN intervention works.

So how do we fix it- and can it be fixed?

 

[Reverend Blair]

I think the first thing is a clear set of guidelines so that there is no vote on whether to do something. If a nation is in violation, then action must be taken.

The second is a standing UN force so that action can be taken quickly, without the usual politicking. Using Sudan as an example, the mission would be to first protect the people being attacked, then as that mission was taken over by regular UN forces, to track down the ganjaweed militias, collect evidence, and bring them to trial.

The final thig on my list, but the thing that really has to happen first, is leadership. I think that's where Canada can play the biggest role...we've done it before, taking the initiative and buiding consensus. Somebody has to keep standing up not just in the UN, but in other international bodies, and start talking about changes; putting ideas forth.

We are pretty uniquely placed for such a role because we belong to so many international bodies. NATO, UN, Commonwealth, G8, etc. We also have influence in smaller bodies. Kim Campbell is on a board of former presidents and prime ministers that work to expand democracy, for example. We have a lot of influence all over the place.

 

[researchok]

Rev-

What would be that set of guidelines, and who would make them?

Could Quebec, for example, demand UN action on (perceived) mistreatment?

Would the UN respond to a Texas or California call to police borders?

Would the Basques demand war crimes trials against the French and Spanish?

And those are a few examples in democracies.

Can you imagine a 'democratic' vote by UN autocratic and despotic regimes to send troops to countries they don't like?

It isnt so simple.

I think a democratic world governing body that has the powers you envision, ought to be restricted to democratic governments-- and I'm not talking about Saddam's 99.9999% 'reelection government either. At least that would be a fair starting point.

Of course, Canada can play an important role- but as in everything, Canada can't be all things to all people.

Right now, the UN isn't working-- and Canada, nor anyone else, can change that.

 

[Reverend Blair]

The guidelines would have to require serious problems, disasters in the making. Genocide, conflict leading to the formation of refugee camps, the threat of starvation and disease due to conflict, illegal invasions of sovereign states, and so on.

I don't think that internal non-violent political squabbles require the intervention of the UN. I do think that by installing clear guidelines we can avoid the abuse of UN forces because there would be no vote. It would be a matter of countries that are in serious contravention of the rules facing action.

I also don't think that Canada can be all things to all people. It does occupy an odd place on the world stage though and has shown a talent for showing initiative in matters like this in the past. The trick is not to be all things to all people, it is to convince the right people to do the right things.

The UN may not be working very well, but it is the only game in town. It can be changed, just like anything can be changed. It won't happen over night and it won't happen at all if we all toss our hands in the air and say, "It's broke, doesn't work anymore," and walk away from it.

 

[moghrabi]

My questions been answered.

 

[researchok]

The UN may not be working very well, but it is the only game in town. It can be changed, just like anything can be changed. It won't happen over night and it won't happen at all if we all toss our hands in the air and say, "It's broke, doesn't work anymore," and walk away from it.[/quote]

Genocide, conflict leading to the formation of refugee camps, the threat of starvation and disease due to conflict, illegal invasions of sovereign states, and so on.

Fair enough-- but who gets to decide what is 'genocide'? That in itself is a loaded question as is what constitutes a refugee camp and why there are refugee camps. As I said earlier, to give autocratic regimes to use a democratic process for their own benefit and as a weapon' against other real democracies has proven to be a fundamental flaw.

Also, by saying that internal divisions that are non violent may be inviting violence. I need to think about that a bit more. Also, how much violence is 'enough' to merit intervention?

I agree that Canada is uniquely placed to have a impact-- no one would argue that-- but there still remains a larger issue of reform within the UN. No one is walking away from the UN, but clearly, it isn't working very well in the political arena.

 

[American Voice]

The truth is is that the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein. We didn't lose anybody special, in my opinion. The bottom line is that the United States had no right going in there and policing the world. They've probably just made the situation worse; they were not going there to police the region, no. They were going there for oil and power. It was in the personal interest of Bush's friends and family in the oil business and basically big business in general down south.

Sure we can blame the Americans. They have made the situation worse in the region. But it's not really the United States - the people, it's American big business and American power. Unfortunately, the American people have been brainwashed into believing whatever. If the average American knew what was REALLY going on in the region and the US participation and cooperation with several "evil nations", I'm sure we'd be seeing and overthrow of power. Propaganda does wonders.

To be honest, I would rather have someone like Saddam Hussein in power than a lot of the other "tyrants" we've seen in the past. It would probably be my destination of choice before the US led sanctions. Ofcourse they left the entire region in the state it's in.

Let's not forget Israel. I don't need to express in detail, because we all know what Israel is upto. It's not good. They are no better than some of the countries you have mentioned, researchok. They might actually be considered worse because Israel just has more power which is enforced by the US's obligation to please it's largest lobby group -- by supporting Israel financially and military equipment.

This is a neverending debate, really.

I don't think the case was made for the joint Anglo-American intervention in Iraq, but that is not to say that there wasn't a case to be made. I suspect the Baath Party regime was near collapse, and had that occurred it may have had some serious repercussions. In the vacuum that the fall of Saddam would have created, with a probable civil war commencing thereafter, an incursion from Iran to sieze Basra and the Shaat al Arab would have been very likely. Turkey, as they continue having ambitions to do, would have moved into the north. Amid so much chaos, the instability in Saudi Arabia may have erupted into full-scale revolution, disrupting the supply of oil from the region, sending fuel prices soaring, and leading to a severe global economic crisis. And, of course, the threat to Israel: Iran possesses two-stage solid fuel rockets, and their moving into Iraq would bring Israel within effective range. I'm not saying I think the ayatollahs would attack Israel, but the Israelis would find the threat unacceptable. I think there was good reason for the occupation of Iraq, but that's not how the case was made. As is all too often the case, it isn't what they do that is so objectionable as the way they do it.

 

[researchok]

One more thing-- the first actions against Serbia were 'illegal'-- that is, non sanctioned.

Were they wrong?

 

[researchok]

I don't think the case was made for the joint Anglo-American intervention in Iraq, but that is not to say that there wasn't a case to be made. I suspect the Baath Party regime was near collapse, and had that occurred it may have had some serious repercussions. In the vacuum that the fall of Saddam would have created, with a probable civil war commencing thereafter, an incursion from Iran to sieze Basra and the Shaat al Arab would have been very likely. Turkey, as they continue having ambitions to do, would have moved into the north. Amid so much chaos, the instability in Saudi Arabia may have erupted into full-scale revolution, disrupting the supply of oil from the region, sending fuel prices soaring, and leading to a severe global economic crisis. And, of course, the threat to Israel: Iran possesses two-stage solid fuel rockets, and their moving into Iraq would bring Israel within effective range. I'm not saying I think the ayatollahs would attack Israel, but the Israelis would find the threat unacceptable. I think there was good reason for the occupation of Iraq, but that's not how the case was made. As is all too often the case, it isn't what they do that is so objectionable as the way they do it.

You raise some excellent points, Andem.

I would tend to agree with you for the most part--including the premise that US rationale was wrong at the time. Like yourself, I do find the rationale used objectionable.

Now, having said that, the case you made for intervention in Iraq would be even more critical. Under current realities, there would have been no way that the UN would have voted to intervene. They couldn't even agree on Serbia-- until France stepped in with both feet, UN be damned.

 

[Lee]

So, is there any reason why you have to attack Presidet Bush and the U.S.?

Any reason? I can think of many. Bush's disregard for human life; rampant, unthinking greed; willing to murder for money; actions against the will of the international community; arrogance; violence; unbridled stupidity....How's that for starters?

Want specific examples? Kyoto, land mines treaties, Iraq, Colombia, the fake war on terror, "with us or with the terrorists", cancellation of nuclear treaties, continued use of "daisy cutter" bombs, continued use of depleted uranium munitions.

I'd be very curious as to your response to President Bush and the U.S. if Canada came under attack. Whether it be by a traditional hostile military force or a terrorist organization.

It is extremely unlikely that we would come under attack from a traditional military force. Canada just doesn't piss that many other countries off. Historically the only country that has attempted to invade us has been the US.

If we were to come under attack from a terrorist organisation (and I assume you mean al Qaeda not the FLQ) my response to Bush would be, "You stupid bastard, George. You've gone and made things worse."

Especially since the UN are at the forefront of the pro-death abortion movement!!

Have you got any facts to back up this little accusation?

Do you have any evidence to prove your accusations?

 

[Reverend Blair]

Fair enough-- but who gets to decide what is 'genocide'? That in itself is a loaded question as is what constitutes a refugee camp and why there are refugee camps.

The quick and easy answer would be the NGOs. They are they ones who have traditionally called attention to genocides and serious humanitarian problems caused by war. They were the first to speak out on the Iran/Iraq war and the gassing of the Kurds, they were the first to draw attention to Sudan.

The longer, harder answer is that there would need to be a commission set up to examine such things. It should be composed of people from NGOs though

If such a system existed, the questions about Serbia would not. The UN would have acted before France. Same with Iraq. The UN would have stepped in, with teeth, twenty years ago.

It takes the politics out of of it and makes it about the rule of law, just like in any society. When a crime is committed in Winnipeg we don't hold a meeting of politicians with their own agendas to gather their private posses, we send the cops. What we are really talking about here is enforcing laws that have been around for a long time. Most go back to the Second World War, many go back to the first.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Lee asked,

Do you have any evidence to prove your accusations?

Yes