Has the UN lost its way....

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by silverfox, Mar 30, 2007.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. silverfox

    silverfox War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6508909.stm

    You might have thought that as the CORNWALL boarding team were operating under a direct mandate from the UN, that they might have been entitled to something a little more stronger in support from that august body. Instead all that issued is a 'watered down' statement expressing concern. Good job they're not really angry then otherwise who knows what they might have done.... on to the naughty step you go Iran...

    So who in the UNSCR might have put a spanner in the diplomatic works... surely not Russia perhaps?? I mean they can't be harbouring a grudge over the little incident when 4 of their policemen were taken captive in Georgia and when they came to the UNSCR for a similar resolution, got flanned by....guess who.... yes - the US and the UK. What goes around comes around it would seem....
     
  2. The UN is a waste of space. Just ask the Rwandans, Bosnians or any other place they have infected with their self righteous bullshit and ineffectiveness. You can rekly on them for a lot of talk and hand wringing, but when it comes to firm action your local Brownie troop would be a more effective option.
     
  3. I think this initial watering down is precisely for the reasons you provided. I do also think however that given time we will get what we want from the UN. A lot of current UNSC members (and not just Russia) do not want to appear in the Midddle East to be a mere rubber stamp for the US & UK.
     
  4. Jack77 - totally agree. It is amazing the USA are still in it. The UN certainly reflects the nations it serves - including the large number which are self-serving, undemocratic and corrupt.

    IRAN so far has shown the UN exactly what it deserves - total contempt. Leaders like Gaddafi, Milosevic, Hussein etc. only understand and react to one thing - brute force, - which needn't always be ignorant........
     
  5. The UN exists to give tin pot dictators of 3rd world dumps a venue were they can appear relavent and slag us off… other than that, it's about as much use as tits on a bull.
     
  6. Agree 100% - UN is currently a complete joke. EU does not appear to be any more effective either.
     
  7. Well before we all go and write the UN off, just take a moment to examine the alternative........which is? Anyone remember the League of Nations? Apart from the B Movie sounding name, they were the forerunner to the UN and even worse.

    As for tinpot dictators only understanding brute force, that may be true. Unfortunately the nation states which 'support and back' them do not. The UN may be considered a glorified talking shop, but diplomacy is always the right way to resolve things, if a little slow.

    "Speak softly and carry a big stick".

    The other thing worth remembering is who funds the UN? I may be mistaken, but I don't think the USA has paid its "dues" in full to the UN for some time and yet remains the most important player - something not right there.......

    GK
     

  8. Or in the case of our lot, "Speak softly and carry a lollipop stick"
     
  9. Greenking, you ask what is the alternative. Simple. What existed before the League and the UN: Individual nation states exercising diplomacy in their own right and in conjunction with other like minded states.

    It doesn't need the United Nations - unlike the claims of the EU in Europe (which I would dispute) the UN hasn't maintained world peace or anything like it since it came into existence. Scrap it, and some of those dictators, will soon follow.
     
  10. Simple usually means naive (no offence intended). The UN may be inefficient and cumbersome but it is the best answer available to global issues. Remember there is a lot more to the UN than the Security Council (I would, for example, take huge issue with who gets to be Permanent Members).

    Nation states pursuing their own agendas? Global resources becoming more scarce? More war not less............

    GK
     
  11. Greenking, sorry we will not agree on this, anyone who believes the future to solving the issues of the world lies in the UN is being incredibly naive from my perspective.

    China, Russia, Brazil, India, the USA, France will always follow their own star when push comes to shove. There is some hope that regional bodies like the EU, OAU, ASEAN etc may exercise some influence but I wouldn't bet on it.
     

  12. Oh yeah? How many bombers does the UN have… ah yes, they ring up us nasty 'Imperialists' when they need to enforce their Resolutions at gunpoint.


    We need to stop dicking about with this UN crap and set up an 'Anglosphere' - USA, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. When the sh1t hits the fan they are the only countries we can rely on.
     
  13. What a balanced, global view that is!!!! And future membership to your select club will be decided by, say, a Security Council?

    By the way, 'their resolutions'? Who do you think makes them? The UNSC - who sits on that? Who are the 5 permanent members?

    Big picture includes an awful lot more than bombers.......
     

  14. OK Slick lets just do a rough survey of this 'Anglosphere':

    USA - Spanish is the 2nd language here and may overtake English at some point. I believe Bush made an election broadcast in Spanish at the last elections.

    UK - lol

    Canada - large French influence here better watch out for the 'cheese eaters'

    Australia - now recognising that its economy relies just as much on its Pacific location as its previous colonial connection not to mention its own indigenous peoples. OZ has been attempting to wield its military strength in the region for some time which has resulted in regional peacekeeping interventions

    NZ - ditto re the above really with arguably even more emphasis on its indigenous roots

    hmmm doesn't work for me mate :lol: :lol: :lol:
     
  15. It is taking a "global view" that has got us in this mess. When there is a global recession you will really be appreciative of the global market and interlinked economies which suck us all down the same drain.

    It is time for governments to remember who elects them and why - to protect and further the interests of their own citizens - not those of the rest of the world's citizens.
     
  16. Well lets see now, we have USA, UK, France, China and Russia… and who's the ones who end up doing the Policing? Strangely enough, the two that speak English.

    Seems to me we might as well cut to the chase, as we usually end up with the US/UK on one side, our Chinese 'friends' being inscrutable and non commital in the middle, with our Franch and Russian 'friends' saying 'Non' and 'Niet'.

    Sounds to me like the UN is fundamentaly broken.
     
  17. I'm sorry F169, you're right we will agree to disagree. I see your outlook as essentially nationalistic and backward. We are, whether you like it or not, a global society now. The UN, for all it's acknowledged weakness, is the best vehicle we have created to address global issues. If we regress to nationalistic values we will end up with more conflict because 150 odd nations all out for their own individual good is a lot worse than being a part of an albeit imperfect organisation where differing issues can be addressed.

    As for the formation of alliances of nations with essentially similar interests, you give me one example of where that has worked in the past. Even NATO cannot agree on a common policy now. The USA, our acknowledged main ally, picks and chooses, in it's own national interest, when to support us - I cite Suez and the Falklands as prime examples. There are many others.

    Sorry, you are wrong. The way forward is the UN - it's not perfect and never will be but is by far better than the alternative you are hawking.

    GK
     
  18. No Oil Slick, you are, once again, looking at a very narrow snapshot of the organisation to support your theory. Global co-existence is about a lot more than just 'policing'.
     
  19. More to do with our Russian 'friends' arms and nuclear technology sales to Ahmadinnerjacket I suspect
     
  20. The UN is our great hope?

    This would be the UN where we had Arafat, Chirac and Annan cosying up?

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page