The United Nations

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Really? I thought that the Soviet Union was the main supplier of arms to Iraq all through the Iran-Iraq War.

Since most of Iran's equipment was American, it was, ironically, Israel which supported the Ayatollahs with most of their supplies, supplemented by America during the Irangate deals; after that they bought what they could get from from China and North Korea.

In fact, the USSR was seen as such a bulwark against Iran that Kuwait asked the both the Soviet and US Navies for protection from Iranian attacks on Gulf shipping.

I've never heard anyone suggest that the USSR was backing Iran- interested to hear of anything supporting that view.

Nope - USSR was backing Iran in the Iran /Iraq war. The US wanted to keep the status quo in the region - because we didn't want instability. We technically backed both - but we supported Iraq more. People can disagree with the policy in today's terms - but that that was 80's and a very different time - with a very different enemy.

[Nurvingiel]

I will respond to all the new posts soon, er, probably this weekend. I really enjoy the debate, but to be any use at it, I need to do some research. (Or I could do my assignments... hm...)
For the "Distribution of Resources" question, I will get my old notes from Conservation class. There's some really interesting stuff in there, though in some aspects they are incomplete.
I don't know anything about the Iran-Iraq war, so I think I'll just stay out of that one.
Though I do criticize the UN of today Gaffer, I do support an intergovernmental agency, either a reformed UN or another organization.

[The Gaffer]

Perhaps there's something from this debate which can illuminate the UN discussions.

To my mind, the UN represents a mechanism for Internationalism, where countries get together to discuss their differences and try to work them out without the use of force. Opposed to this is Unilateralism, which might be fine if we had a benign superpower which always acted in the best interests of the world.

If we accept the argument (which I don't) that the 80s were "a different time", and that this justifies the West supporting a mass murderer (who, at this time, carried out his genocide of the Kurds and used chemical weapons while prosecuting a war on Iran), does that not underline the relativism of Western policies? That is, we might claim to be motivated by "spreading democracy" or "freeing repressed peoples", but in fact the evidence is that such motives are likely to change according to political circumstances. So, the West is NOT this benign dictatorship.

Given that, is it not all the more important to have an international forum in which differences between countries can be worked out?

Of course, it is very far from perfect, but it's better than unilateralism.

Further, given the international scale of the problems we (as a species) now face, international relations are all the more important.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
To my mind, the UN represents a mechanism for Internationalism, where countries get together to discuss their differences and try to work them out without the use of force. Opposed to this is Unilateralism, which might be fine if we had a benign superpower which always acted in the best interests of the world.

yeah - the Un represents a body of countries who don't care about human rights or freedom. That is the majority of countries that make up the UN.

The thing is - the UN discusses endlessly. They hardly ever solve any of the worlds problems. They never prevent world conflict.

If we accept the argument (which I don't) that the 80s were "a different time", and that this justifies the West supporting a mass murderer (who, at this time, carried out his genocide of the Kurds and used chemical weapons while prosecuting a war on Iran), does that not underline the relativism of Western policies? That is, we might claim to be motivated by "spreading democracy" or "freeing repressed peoples", but in fact the evidence is that such motives are likely to change according to political circumstances. So, the West is NOT this benign dictatorship.

Yeah - i suppose you are right .. The USA should have sat back and let Iran take over Iraq with the help of the Soviet Union. We all know that the UN didn't do anything to stop it from happening. Was Hussein an evil dicator - yes, was he in the beginning - no. But hey - I'm sure the Soviet Union would have loved for the US to stay out of the conflicts during the Cold War. We should have done anything. You may feel comfortabel living in that world - but I don't. Whether we did everything perfect or not- I think we did far better than any other country in history.

Given that, is it not all the more important to have an international forum in which differences between countries can be worked out?

They never work anything out - except in favor of the human rights abusers who take refuge there and are protected by the impotent UN.

Of course, it is very far from perfect, but it's better than unilateralism.

We didn't act unilaterly. We acted with a set of allies and we just acted outside the UN. That is hardly unilateral. I didn't know we needed to bow to the will of the inempt UN.

Further, given the international scale of the problems we (as a species) now face, international relations are all the more important.

Yes - allies are important - and the US now knows who they are.

[The Gaffer]

Some points of information:
1) Iraq attacked Iran
2) Saddam was a bad bastard right from the start, and was using chemical weapons and committing genocide WHILE we were supporting him.

[LutraMage]

You know, someone once said that democracy is the least worst form of government. I think the UN is the least worst form of international co-operation. It will never be perfect, but its the best we're gona get!

[The Gaffer]

Agreed. It has been pretty bad at times, but it won't get any better if we just withdraw from it.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Some points of information:
1) Iraq attacked Iran

yes - they did attack Iran. The real thing was that they were losing and Iran was being backed by the Soviet Union.

2) Saddam was a bad bastard right from the start, and was using chemical weapons and committing genocide WHILE we were supporting him.

He did come to power and did kill off a lot of people who he thought were plotting against him and yes - he was committing genocide while we supported him. We took care of him though - and he's NOT committing genocide anymore. At least we took care of him and corrected our mistake - even if we had other reasons for doing it. But I felt we should have finished him after the first Gulf War - with or without allies - but the Congress nor the world would let George Bush do that. he ended up killing more - as the world watched.

As for the UN - I think pulling out of the UN is perfectly fine for the US. They rely too much on us and criticize us every chance they get. They come running to us for our help when they need it. I think the US should just treat the UN as an allie and nothing more. We should not be a member - and just let the UN be what it wants to be - and that is a rogue nation hideout.

[Snowdog]

As for the UN - I think pulling out of the UN is perfectly fine for the US. They rely too much on us and criticize us every chance they get. They come running to us for our help when they need it. I think the US should just treat the UN as an allie and nothing more. We should not be a member - and just let the UN be what it wants to be - and that is a rogue nation hideout.

This reminds me of a huge billboard in Port Angeles Washington that was put up by the John Birch society back in the late 60's saying:

GET U.S. OUTof the U.N.!
Used to think they were just some right-wing whackos, but maybe they had it right all along!

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Snowdog

This reminds me of a huge billboard in Port Angeles Washington that was put up by the John Birch society back in the late 60's saying:

GET U.S. OUTof the U.N.!
Used to think they were just some right-wing whackos, but maybe they had it right all along!

No - it was a probably a group that wants the UN controlled by a bunch of terrorist/dictator states - the direction it has been going in.

[Spock]

(How stupid are we?)

This oughta upset everybody:

How they vote in the United Nations:

Below are the actual voting records of various Arabic/Islamic States which are recorded in both the US State Department and United Nations records:

Kuwait votes against the United States 67% of the time

Qatar votes against the United States 67% of the time

Morocco votes against the United States 70% of the time

United Arab Emirates votes against the U. S. 70% of the time.

Jordan votes against the United States 71% of the time.

Tunisia votes against the United States 71% of the time.

Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73% of the time.

Yemen votes against the United States 74% of the time.

Algeria votes against the United States 74% of the time.

Oman votes against the United States 74% of the time.

Sudan votes against the United States 75% of the time.

Pakistan votes against the United States 75% of the time.

Libya votes against the United States 76% of the time.

Egypt votes against the United States 79% of the time.

Lebanon votes against the United States 80% of the time.

India votes against the United States 81% of the time.

Syria votes against the United States 84% of the time.

Mauritania votes againstthe United States 87% of the time.

U S Foreign Aid to those that hate us:

Egypt, for example, after voting 79% of the time against the United States, still receives $2 billion annually in US Foreign Aid.

Jordan votes 71% against the United States

And receives $192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.

Pakistan votes 75% against the United States

Receives $6,721,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.

India votes 81% against the United States

Receives $143,699,000 annually.

Perhaps it is time to get out of the UN and give the tax savings back to the American workers who are having to skimp and sacrifice to pay the taxes (and gasoline).

Pass this along to every taxpaying citizen you know. And send to your congressman, who should be disgraced but couldn't care less.

Disgusting isn't it?



Wake up America.

[The Telcontarion]

Well what do you know, I actually agree with spock, how ever maybe not for the same reasons. The UN is the devil.

But then you have to understand if the US does not pay for these countries, then the neocons won't have leverage with them to put forward their facist agenda. That's all it's about. And those countries that vote against the US know this, to some extent. I think it's ovbious.

[Jonathan]

Spock, you posted these numbers in the Muslims thread a while ago. I said it then and I repeat it now - I think it's more correct to say that it's not really the Muslim countries that tend to vote against the US, it's the US that often votes against the whole world.
It is true though that for instance Europe and America are on the same side more often than the Arab world and America.

Insidious Rex posted a link in the Muslims thread concerning the verification of how this. I'll post it here.
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/unvote.asp

This is one of those items that seems simple enough to verify at first blush, but proves quite difficult in practice.

First of all, we have to consider what our parameters are:

* Are we measuring the voting records of the named countries across the entire six-decade history of the United Nations, or only from some subset of that period?

* Which votes are we counting — just those of the General Assembly, or also those of the Main Committees and the Security Council?

Even deciding that we're only going to consider the postions various countries took on resolutions presented to the General Assembly during a specified time period still makes compiling an accurate tally difficult, because:

* The majority of General Assembly resolutions are adopted without a vote.

* Unless a recorded vote is specifically requested before a resolution is voted upon, the U.N. makes available a voting summary which provides only a tally of the final vote, not a listing of how individual Member States voted.

Once we narrow our focus to resolutions submitted to a recorded vote, we still have some thorny issues to consider:

* Nearly every resolution ends up with some Member States either abstaining or failing to vote on it. When countries abstain from voting on a resolution which the U.S. either supports or opposes, are those countries to be regarded as voting against the U.S. (because they failed to support its vote), or are they to be considered as neutral parties neither for nor against the U.S.?

* Quite often U.N. votes address the issue of whether a single paragraph (or even just a few words) in the draft of a resolution should be changed or omitted. When the U.S. otherwise supports a resolution but seeks to change some of its wording, are other countries to be regarded as voting against the U.S. if they do not also vote in favor of the alterations?

Since we had to start somewhere, we tallied the recorded votes for all resolutions put before the General Assembly so far during the current session, running from October 2003 to mid-April 2004. We counted all votes, whether they involved adopting resolutions as a whole or making alterations to draft resolutions. When countries abstained or otherwise failed to vote, we counted them as voting neither for nor against the U.S. Likewise, when the U.S. abstained from voting on resolutions, we did not include other countries' votes on those resolutions in our totals.

The results of this tally were even worse (from a U.S. perspective) than the message quoted above indicates, with the countries named voting contrary to the U.S. position on U.N. resolutions an aggregate 88% of the time. (Even though India is neither Arab nor particularly Islamic, we included it in our chart because the widely-circulated e-mailed list did.)

Country Times Voted With U.S. Times Voted Against U.S. % of Votes Against U.S.
Kuwait 10 61 86%
Qatar 9 64 88%
Morocco 8 62 89%
United Arab Emirates 8 61 88%
Jordan 9 64 88%
Tunisia 8 63 89%
Saudi Arabia 7 62 90%
Yemen 9 64 88%
Algeria 9 63 88%
Oman 9 63 88%
Sudan 10 60 86%
Pakistan 9 59 87%
Libya 8 63 89%
Egypt 10 63 86%
Lebanon 7 62 90%
India 14 52 79%
Syria 7 59 89%
Mauritania 7 63 90%

However, we also surveyed the U.N. voting records of several countries generally considered to be close allies of the U.S., and those results were none too impressive either. Only Israel consistently voted with the U.S.:

Country Times Voted With U.S. Times Voted Against U.S. % of Votes Against U.S.
Australia 33 26 44%
Canada 31 32 51%
Israel 56 7 11%
Japan 26 36 58%
United Kingdom 40 27 40%
France 36 31 46%

How much significance one should place in these figures is problematic, because most other U.N. Member States have records of voting against the U.S. that are equally as bad as the records of the countries named in the message above. U.N. votes on resolutions are frequently lopsided, pitting a single nation or a handful of nations against all the others, and more often than not the U.S. is the one nation at odds with the rest of the world. Of the 83 resolutions we surveyed for our informal tally, in ten cases the U.S. was the only Member State to vote against them, and in five cases only one other nation joined the U.S. in voting against them. In fact, in over half the total cases (42 out of 83), the U.S. was supported by five or fewer Member States in voting against a U.N. resolution. So it isn't just the Arab/Islamic states who consistently vote against the U.S. in the United Nations — pretty much the rest of the world does, too.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Spock

(How stupid are we?)

This oughta upset everybody:

How they vote in the United Nations:

Below are the actual voting records of various Arabic/Islamic States which are recorded in both the US State Department and United Nations records:

In my opinion this doesn't necesarily means anything. Last time I checked the UN was not a global popularity contest. The voting is against issues, resolutions, not solely out of dislike of the opposing country (although I do see sometimes both can be linked). I may hope the USA is more than merely its foreign policy.

What would actually worry me more is the assumption that because one's country does the humane task of providing other countries with aid, that those countries must also 'repay' their benefactor by agreeing with them. It turns aid into bribes, just as Japan does to get more votes in the IWC. It's a base practise.

There are limits, of course, as everything is relative, but it does give food for thought.

[Spock]

....well the *bump* worked

[The Gaffer]

But it is also instructive to learn that some people don't regard aid as a humanitarian imperative but a utilitarian one. Many of us already knew that of course, but it's nice to get confirmation.

[Butterbeer]

bump?

many ill gotten and ill thought out
Roads contain bumps ... say you the U N is bump free?


(wotcha ya corruption-laZy gaffer!! )

best, BB

[GreyMouser]

Of those 42 cases where the US was supported by 5 or fewer countries, a fair number of them are on issues of birth control, children's rights, women's rights and gay issues where the US finds itself aligned with Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe.

The money for Egypt and Jordan are pay-offs for making peace with Israel; the money for Pakistan was a pay-off for supporting the US against the USSR; now it's a pay-off for their support in the GWoT, laughable as it is.

[Butterbeer]

laughable?


seems un-funny with the innocent children and women folk slaughtered daily in Lebenon.

(though i take your meaning GM )

best BB

[The Gaffer]

I think it also illustrates why the UN is politically impotent: member states mostly regard it as a branch of their own foreign policy. So the people who moan the loudest about the UN because it doesn't do anything are actually part of the problem because they tend to be same people who complain about it not doing what their own particular country wants to do.

I would like to point out that the UN does a LOT of really good technical work in key areas such as education, health and development for poorer countries.