Security council usefull ??

Smoothdrive

With yet another vote on another resolution coming up i wonder..

What is the use of the security council anyway nowadays ??

It's hardly a democratic organisation, we have veto's to go round, only a few regular members..some of them do not even represent a world power..and a few members taking turns.

Well another resolution.

Few countries are for, few are against and as for the rest....we'll try on buy 'm all to our side.

Both France and US have been working hard the last few days putting pressure on the countries that didn't speak up yet..it takes litlle imagination to see what the pressure is.

What's the point of a security council if the majority of the votes is bought and even a majority of the vote's can be veto'ed against by a number of countries who never seem to agree on anything ??

Perhaps the council is useless, time consuming and overrated...pretty soon we can probably add powerless to that list as well...

Anyone see things more positive on the council's part ?

bluelight

No i agree to all of the above but.....what is the choice??

CReating an organisation without the possibility of veto would never be accepted by the empires and...i still feell that the other more than 100 nations get a possibility to claim their rights against the empires in the UN.


Witout the UN everything would be ruled witout exception by the empires.

Henry Kissinger recently said that the world is slowly turning back to what it was in 1800.

With that he meant that the empires get (or more right) take themselves the rignt to rule in a way that was not possible for a long time due to the balance between east and west.

Still....as an organisation UN is justified..if not for anything else...it is good as a means for less powerful nations than Usa Russaia and China to voice their opinion.


Bluelight

raid517

Smoothdrive, you keep going on about this veto. (For most people's information there is a lot of bitterness in other European countries that only France the UK and Germany have the veto). The problem is that your never going to get anyone to give it up, least of all the USA. Why would the USA give up its veto when it regularly uses it to block UN resolutions against Israel, or against rouge states that America supports, or against the possibility of an international court of justice, or against environmental measures - or against any one of a thousand and one other things the US finds its veto useful for?

Dude I am almost tempted to tell where to get off, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Let me clarify this for you. You won't be buying anybody off. Not this side of the millennium - and not this side of reality either. Again your talking like your a player when clearly that isn't the case. Your country has virtually nothing at stake in this. For you at best, this whole matter is pretty much a spectator sport. Here we all more or less know somebody, or know somebody who knows somebody who is directly placing their lives at risk because of this. We have a genuine right to be concerned, or not as the case may be.

It is nice to see that you would have us rush into a war without thinking about it first - and despite several influential people now saying that to go without a second UN resolution might be considered illegal. We appreciate that you would like to watch our troops die as quickly as possible. However before we do, we are willing to explore one final last option. My only hope is that we can convince everyone we are genuinely serious about our attempts. People just aren't prepared to swallow technicalities.

And no one else should have a say right? What a funny 'United Nations' that would be.

How odd it is that you are so keen to sell out Europe’s influence on the world scene. I do not understand this, unless it is the old gripe about the veto that irks you.

Well I don't know. I'm not sure we need another UN hating, French baiting, Saddam slating thread; there are plenty of those already. But what the hey, maybe someone will want to pick up the ball again.

Q

Smoothdrive

Raid you really need to get a reality check urgently..what are you on man ?

"us" sending "you" to war ?? get real man. I can't help it that your country is on a leech and is acting like another state of the US..it bugs you, i can see that, but don't blaim it on countries that do act as indepent countries. US shouts jump UK says "how high"..nothing wrong there..but don't get upset with countries that say "just a minute we'll see who we have available for it."

So you're denying that US and France are trying to bribe (buy) countries to their side ?? countries with large outstanding loans, large development funds offered..that's all something they leave out of it you think ?

I know you like the "Rule brittania" state of mind where you feel that your are part of the US and can put other countries down..but no i'm not bitter about the veto's within Europe, i'm bitter with the veto's around the world. It's nonsense to set up a so called democratic organisation, have a vote and than have several parties with the power to say no and overrule your entire decision.. I can see how the US likes to have this power..and you clarification explains perfectly well how the UN is not helping the situatin in Israel..UN is powerless there already thanks to the veto's. Veto's are not democratical, they're dictorial..just like a certain regime in Iraq.


Raid the only one coming up with hate so far in this thread is you..please spare us your frustrations and set your tone to a decent level..thank you.

raid517

What the hell are you on man? I happen to believe all this 'Tony Blair is Bush's lapdog' hysteria to be complete crap. I may not believe in all of the motives behind why G.W.Bush is in this war, but I believe our PM is a man of deep personal integrity and that he believes he is doing this for the right reasons. I have listened to him in recent weeks - and although I don't always agree with him I genuinely feel he has a deep conviction that something must be done about Iraq. As for calling the UK a 'leech' how dare you say that all of the people waiting in the Gulf right now are ‘leeches’? We have 60,000 people out there many of whom may die. Might I suggest it is those who are prepared to do very little one way or another (whether there is a second resolution or not) who are the 'leechers', for if the security of the world is at risk, it is you who stands to benefit. Personally I wouldn't have opted to speak to anyone in such dirty low down terms, but if you want to start calling it how it is, then I am happy to do so. As I said I will defend the dignity and honour of our troops to the last. Their contribution is anything but 'minor'.

So you're denying that US and France are trying to bribe (buy) countries to their side ?? countries with large outstanding loans, large development funds offered..that's all something they leave out of it you think ?

I don't remember bringing this up. But all sides are doing this. France, Germany, America - it may not be pleasant but its what a lot of people think of as 'diplomacy', there is virtually no one who isn't having their arm twisted as a result of this and are being persuaded to vote one way or another.

We'll I'm glad you recognise the importance of the veto to the US. It has used it in excess of some 200 + times in the last 30 years on a whole range of topics. From Israel, to the environment, to an international UN criminal court and particularly during the cold war when the USSR was a prominent force in the world, the veto has proved exceptionally useful to the US. So America, China, Russia, France, the UK and others have all found their UN veto to be in their interests in the past. It is a very useful tool that prevents one country's national interests being override by smaller less influential countries, which is why the US has used it more frequently than any other nation in the UN.

I think the recent demonstrations in the UK show that we very much do not 'feel ourselves to be part of the US', indeed as many people here will testify from my own personal example, people in the UK are capable of their own very unique chain of thought. We may have many thousands of people in the desert, but many people here remain unconvinced of the case made for war. Still at least for us it isn't a game. We have given something very real - and despite not so much being 'Grand Britannia' any more, we have been prepared to put our necks on the line and commit far more than all the other European countries combined. If you want to play down the significance of this, then so be it. But sniping jealousy is not likely to endear you to anyone. Far better if you pressure your government to make a more active contribution to European defence. Then some of the inequalities that people claim exist in this world, would not be so significant and our American counterparts would not have so much to complain about.

What is you intention here? To launch a sniping attack on the UK's contribution in all this - at more or less a time when no one else appears very prepared (beyond a lot of shouting one way and another) to do anything? We have something is steak here, which is why i am personally so concerned. As much as I would like to be a European, or an internationalist, or a man of the world, when push comes to shove I will show total support and total loyalty for my own. In any case this thread is going down a very onerous path. Where exactly I wonder is your intention to take this? First you say you support action, and then you make disparaging remarks about the only other major contributor in this? I do not understand your position at all.

I don't know where the subject of hate came up. I certainly don't feel hate for anyone. If this is an emotion you are currently experiencing might I suggest that is for you to deal with?

In any case If the UK wishes to pursue a second UN resolution, since she has a lot at stake in this, in terms of British blood that will be spilled - and the fact that this could cause the collapse of the British government should we fail to win a new resolution - then we are fully entitled to do so. In the UK we are concerned with the legality and morality of what we do and before we see many of our servicemen killed we want to ensure that the world knows we are fighting for a just cause. If we do not do this and we are later condemned in the world for our mistakes, it is we who must live with the consequences. This is why it is absolutely imperative that we get it right.

Q

Smoothdrive

Raid, if I were living close to you i'ld invite you for a beer and a chat and we'ld probably get along fine..yet somehow we seem to continue misunderstanding each other here..

I was sniping against the UK indeed, i was countering your sniping against smaller countries "we need someone to answer the phone", "You sending us to war" to wrongs don't make a right, i know..apologies for letting my state of mind interfere with reason there

We benefit ? yeah sure, so do the Iraqi's..gonna be mad at them for standing by also ? Heck they can grab a kitchen knife and help out right ?

We choose to go to war ? no way, so far we choose to support Turkey and to aid UK & US..we could send some special forces of course..but do you really think anyone is going to be impressed by the number of Dutch special forces ? They're well trained but too small in numbers to impress in a war this size..

It is the US and the UK that started this whole thing, the fact that i approve of these efforts does not imply that i "made you do it".
Us and UK are there in large numbers because they can...smaller countries do there bit to the extend that they can...you can make cheap shots about that if you choose, it won't help your case tough.

You didn't bring up the countries with loans indeed..i did..because that is what i meant by "buying votes to our side" basically you agree..so i guess you know what i meant than..i did not imply only one side would use this tactic..i just do see it as another fact making the Council less usefull..few countries can choose, many are bribed into following...

So why even bother with the non-veto-countries, stick with the regular members and add one combined seat for other European countries, one for other asian countries, one for african countries, one for Arabian countries, one for south-American countries and give every seat or no seat a veto.

The hate came up when you stated that this was another UN-hating etc etc thread..it is not, it is a thread to discuss the use of the UN and perhaps how the UN could function better..not interested ? than stay out of the discussion..

raid517

Well maybe we are at cross purposes, I got the impression you were saying Holland was playing a big role in all this. But at least you have cleared that up for me.

I think if the Iraqis had stood up for themselves a long time ago, there would be no need for any of this. But hopefully if a shooting war does start, they also will choose the right side to be on.

Well ok... Fair enough...

I think the biggest cheap shot of all is calling the British troops in Kuwait who are waiting to die in the name of what you believe is freedom is the biggest cheap shot I have ever encountered. Sometimes I confess I do get tired with the notion that it should always be down to the US and UK to sort out the world's and Europe's problems. At almost every point in the last 100 years or so, when something has messed up in this world it is the US and UK who have been there to sort it out. If we want to have a debate about it, if we feel we need to try to get the UN and everyone on board then that is pretty much our business. We don't need those sitting on the sidelines to tell us we are right or wrong in what we are doing. If we want to concern ourselves with matters of legality and international law then that it up to us. If you want to argue otherwise, why not go to some French or German site, where no matter what way the UN swings they are likely to contribute pretty much nothing one way or another. You should be at least a little thankful that we are working so hard to make the UN a more inclusive place where everyone's views can be represented.

[quote] You didn't bring up the countries with loans indeed. I did. because that is what i meant by "buying votes to our side" basically you agree..so i guess you know what i meant than..i did not imply only one side would use this tactic..i just do see it as another fact making the Council less usefull..few countries can choose, many are bribed into following...

Well I still don't know what you mean. UN or no UN, diplomacy usually means buying someone off somewhere down the line. Even if there were no UN (God forbid) this practice would still go on, though probably even more aggressively than before.

[QUOTE} So why even bother with the non-veto-countries, stick with the regular members and add one combined seat for other European countries, one for other Asian countries, one for African countries, one for Arabian countries, one for south-American countries and give every seat or no seat a veto. {/QUOTE]

Yup there it creeps back in again, the old gripe about other European countries wanting a veto too. Well maybe when you are willing to make a bigger contribution to world affairs that might well happen. Europe is increasingly looking towards forming a uniquely European defence force. Hopefully Holland will be more disposed to play a bigger role in this than it has in the past in other such ventures. It’s always possible I suppose...

Well from many of your other posts I gathered you were against the UN as a concept, but perhaps I was wrong... All I said was that there are other threads here with similar titles. Perhaps you might like to revive one of these? It's just that after a while it all tends to get rather repetitive. Also I assumed you wanted people to at least say something? So why invite a conversation and then say don't comment? My only real comment was that this subject is old. And it is old. Whether you like it or not, Tony Blair has gone back to the UN with a new proposal and is preparing to impose some stiff new conditions on Iraq. I wonder though, is there something you feel you can do to stop this? If not, then I wonder what the point you are making is?

It’s all rather silly if you ask me.

Q

FuNsTeR

one little note Germany does not have a veto it is though a one 15 council members

"Rule brittania"

drop the Rule as the first wordand put a S after it and America as the first word then you have it as it really is

"America Rules brittania "

on that note stuff the UK ... Scottish & European

Smoothdrive

I am not after a bigger power for Holland, i am after true democracy..(besides Holland has enough power in the economical field..don't see the need for a military power).

I'm saying some countries are huge and perhaps own a bigger voice (US, Russia, China) No offense but France or UK is nothing compared to those countries force-wise..but i'll grant at least UK their right since they are allways upfront when it comes to military action...France still puzzles me..but i could lack knowledge about their military intervention actions..i don't know of any case where they were sending large numbers of troops for a common cause.

I'm also saying that the smaller countries do deserve a combined equal voice (so one equal combined voice for the "other" countries) That's fair and democratical in my opinion. If Holland, Belgium, Austria, Italy, Spain and Portugal (just a wild shot) for instance can come to one combined opinion i don't see why that would not be as big a voice as one of the current veto holders..surely those countries combined are both economical and military equal or bigger than some of the current veto holders.

So yes i recognise that some countries are military stronger and claim a bigger voice..and i do not feel Holland should have an equal voice(better mention it too often else you'll jump to that conclusion again i guess)..i do feel there should be coalitions of "smaller" countries that have one combined vote equal to the veto holders.

Not just the European countries mind you..African, Asian, South-American every UN country should have it's say in a coalition which will combined represent one opinion and hold the same strenght in the UN as one of the current regular members .

I'll keep out of the internal UK struggle...on a less serious note ; I've liked all the Scotsmen i've met so Hurray for Funster

The_Neon_Cowboy

I think......it should be ran like the house of reps...
well it should be ran as a democracy.... every country would gets a vote. and each vote whould be weighted by factors such as by population (of the county they represent) ....no vetos magirity wins.... it would work
who knows ... mabe (the leage of the nations) UN needs to be reworked again... mabe some resolution inforcemeant resolutions are in order....

raid517

Oh FuNsTeR I do get tired of all of this division. We all know where your loyalties lie. But I don't think this is about Scottish independence. I'm a Scot. I would like to see it happen. But whether I think it will or not is completely another matter. I don't believe everything Blair say's either. But I trust him more than I trust G.W Bush. In any case did you see him on TV last night talking directly to a small audience of concerned citizens? He has done this three times now and it looks like he intends to keep doing it too. What other world leader has been prepared to do this? Can you imagine G.W. Bush sitting down and talking to a group of concerned citizens and addressing their views directly? Can you even imagine a Tory leader such as John Major doing this only a few years ago? Whatever Bush's motives may be I am convinced Blair believes he is doing this for deeply moral and deeply ethical reasons, not because he thinks he is Bush's lap dog or whatever. You don't put 60,000 troops into the desert and risk their lives purely on the basis that, well what...? I don't really understand your point? He wouldn't do this (nor would any sane human being) if he didn't believe he had good cause to. You might disagree with his reasons, or maybe we all dispute how just the cause is, but saying he is doing it just to win favour from America is just plumb wrong. As I said before we spent pretty much the last 100 years sorting out the world's problems together. That is what the 'special relationship' is supposed to be, some people still believe it accounts for something - and despite whatever short term crisis there may be, it is something that is worth maintaining. The history of the last centaury or so has often shown very few others in the world have been prepared to act when the crunch came and action became necessary. So even if this current situation is uncertain, it is important that we maintain certain relationships so that we can meet any potentially bigger challenges in the future. Even if, as many people in the world now believe, America has become pretty much a rogue state, if the UK can play a small part in moderating some of the US more aggressive ambitions, then it is still a useful function. Don't forget we wouldn't even be talking about the UN if it wasn't for the fact that Tony Blair persuaded Bush to go down that rout. Unfortunately it looks like he may have risks an awful lot and might loose a lot by doing this. It was still exceptionally courageous and exceptionally decent of him to try.

You keep going on about lots of Scots soldiers being sent out to war, but I'm sure if you take a look at the breakdown of regiments that are going from across the UK you will find that the UK as a whole is pretty much represented. I don't think turning every post you make into a statement of your pro Scottish Independence beliefs is particularly relevant, or particularly helpful to the debate. We appreciate your views on this subjected. Indeed I personally can sympathise with them. But if a war is fought it will not be about Scottish Independence, nor is this a subject that is very near the front of anyone's mind who is involved in this matter. Might I suggest, since this is a political forum, that if this is a subject you are interested in, you start your own thread in order to discuss it? The issues being discussed in the threads concerning the war with Iraq undoubtedly have a much wider significance for everyone concerned.

Q

bluelight

Do you deny that Usa does use money as an argument for nations to support their version of this??

How much was it Turkey was offered??

The bases in Germany that they are GOING to withdraw because Germany does not agree?

The loans etc etc that they will give to reluctant countries??




The list below is a couple of weeks old but still proves my point.....whatever France is doing....it can i no way comapre with this.

Actually i do not believe they are buying their votes unless you show me some evidence of thisd being the case...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Times on line

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------





United States must dig deep to pay the price for loyalty

AMERICA faces a bill running into many billions of dollars even before the first missile strike against Iraq as it tries to coax, pressure and, if necessary, buy allied support.

Rewards for backing Bush

Russia
Gives: Support in UN Security Council vote
Gets: Guarantees on $10-$12bn of Iraqi debt and possible oil contracts

Hungary
Gives: Facilities for training the Iraqi opposition
Gets: Enhanced international status and financial support

Bulgaria
Gives: Vote on UN Security Council
Gets: US support for entry to EU and increased military co-operation within Nato

Chile
Gives: Vote on UN Security Council
Gets: Strengthened position in talks on US trade tariffs

Jordan
Gives: Access for US air defence, radar and special forces Gets: $1bn in direct aid and military assistance

Egypt
Gives: Arab support to campaign
Gets: $1bn and promise of increased US support for Middle East peace process

Israel
Gives: Behind-the-scenes assurances they will not retaliate Gets: $12bn in direct aid and loan guarantees. US promises of defence

Mexico
Gives: Vote on UN Security Council
Gets: Improved immigration regulations

Angola
Gives: Vote on UN Security Council
Gets: Future co-operation with US companies in developing offshore oilfields

Guinea, Cameroon
Give: Votes on UN Security Council
Get: Development aid and increased international status

Turkey
Gives: Key military facilities for US invasion from the north and a regional ally
Gets: At least $26bn in direct aid and loans

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







Bluelight

FuNsTeR

raid517 my post was not about independance ... it was about ripping the pyss out of Rule Brittania as we rule sod all a fact

ps did you see jack straws interveiw on itv news 24 ... he came over as if the UK goverment is in fear over the US doing as it pleases

one scot to another

my snipe on the other thread was about that neon cowboy spouting pysh about us scots always hiding when the real fighting is to be done ... do you go along with his his ridiculous opinion ??

neah didn't think so either


oh aye OFGTF!!

bluelight

Well it is never gonna happen.None of the superpowers would accept it ever.It would in practice mean that China and India would be the two biggest nations of the UN with the biggest power.

There are maybe other ways to make things run smoother.I agree with you that the veto system is weird but it is so far the only way to make things run at all.

If Russia and France puts in a veto now.....whats the big deal.......

Usa has done so some 60 out of 70 times when it comes to Israel....


The most important thing as isee it with the UN is that it is a place where things are put on the table for everyone to see..

Bluey

raid517

Well we agree and disagree, I am all for a much more aggressive policy towards European defence. I Think Europe needs to play a bigger role in its own defence instead of looking all the time for the US and the UK to do it for them. Personally I would like to lean much more towards Europe and have a fully independent defence force, but until Europe is more prepared to play a part in its own defence too, we must look towards where we can do the greatest good.

Well for a small country we sure have done our fair share of good in the world. Its nice that you remember that.

Do you think you could ever get all of these smaller countries to agree when it really mattered. There is an old English saying that too many chefs spoil the broth (soup) so if there was ever any 'new deal' it would have to be sure that it didn't make doing things any more difficult than it already is. If you can come up with a way to fix that, then you would have solved many of the problems the world now has.

Again such a voice should be won on merit. How do you propose such merit should be earned? By good deeds in the world? Or by size alone? Where would these other countries qualify in that regard?

Well Funster, like everyone in this, has his own agenda. Although sadly I feel the battle to which he refers to may have to be fought another day... Right now it seems there are more pressing matters at hand...

Anyway it is nice to see you have softened your tones. I think you will find that if you just speak a little more calmly and a little more thoughtfully about things that you will find me a very approachable and amicable sort. Don't trash our efforts for peace, nor our preparedness for war, nor mock the motivations behind our actions in either respect and I think we can perhaps meet on some common ground. It doesn't seem like too much to ask.

Q

raid517

Well I don't believe in rule Britannia either. I do believe this country and all the people in it have done a lot of good in the world, particularly in the last 50 years and should be recognised for this.

Maybe the UK government shares many people's fears about the direction America appears headed in. But it is possibly better to be there by her side as a moderating influence rather than have the US set itself against the whole of the rest of the world. That is why Tony Blair has spent so much time flying around the world and trying to bring them closer to the US position. It may not be the best solution, but it is better than a world that is irrevocably divided.

Don't worry about the NeonCowboy, he and ByteMe are generally very good company for each other. I think that is all that needs to be said on that subject.

Anyhoo.. even if you are against war, or doubt the motives, once it starts you have to decide if your in or your out. And since its our forces that will die over there, I would have to say I would be very much in. Its too late then to change anything, so rather than wish defeat on our troops I will hope they kick Saddam’s ass all the way up and down the Euphrates river. I may not always agree with the motivations for this war. But if it starts there is no doubt about what I would like the outcome to be.

Q

Smoothdrive

I didn't change tone..i changed subject does miracles for our conversations at least

I can see my system work..one vote available for 5 or 7 countries..they debate and vote amongst themselves first and the outcome will deicde their vote in the UN..

In the other system suggested, every country one unique vote..there would be too many members to hear everyone at meetings for starters (seeing flashes of the senate in Star Wars now ), and how do you weigh a vote ? population ? Economics ? Geografical ? Military power ? it's goint to be tough to make that system acceptable for all.

I do feel the UN needs it's own military force..the UN is too dependant on US & UK forces to reinforce it's decisions when needed. Perhaps every UN member should donate half it's armed forces to UN control or something..every country get the same input and losses that way in case of a military action by the UN.

And i know of course non of the powers that be will accept this..i'm just dreaming of a better world.

FuNsTeR