Lack of action in UN puts it at risk -- SPEAK UP

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 22:07:41 02/19/03 Wed
Author: Richard
Author Host/IP: cpe-gan-68-101-89-178-cmcpe.ncf.coxexpress.com / 68.101.89.178
Subject:

Lack of action in UN puts it at risk

Hi everyone,

This isn't a pro or anti-war post. It is a question as to the future viability of the United Nations.

The text of the last resolution on Iraq (Resolution 1441) said in part:

1. Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

2. Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

3. Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq

4. Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991)

5. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA

6. Decides, . . . to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council;

The UN Security Council approved those words with a vote of 15-0. Having said all that, how does one explain the current debate in the UN right now?

Here's the problem I see we are headed toward. The UN was established to be a forum where nations could air their differences and present their case to the court of world opinion. In this way, it provided a format to avoid armed conflict. If the court decides that a member nation is in violation of its obligations what is the recourse? Does the UN just say, "well, we tried"? What signal does that send to other rogue nations with ill intentions toward its neighbors?

If, after the Iraq situation is resolved, and the UN has proven itself to be rather inconsequential, what will happen to its authority? There is more at stake here than just WMD in Iraq. If the world body cannot unite and enforce its own resolutions, it will risk being marginalized.

Further, the United States spends nearly $4 billion in UN support every year. That is 25% of the UN annual budget. If the US cannot depend on the UN members to uphold their word, why participate? The UN is not a playground for 3rd world nations to jockey for US aid.

I'm reminded of the disaster beset the League of Nations. It was a good idea. It just didn't work due to lack of resolve.

Richard

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]