Has any UN resolution ever....

[C1ay]

caused any "bad guy" anywhere to recant or change their ways? In the context of keeping peace do UN resolutions accomplish anything other than making noise? Me thinks not...

[infamous]

caused any "bad guy" anywhere to recant or change their ways? In the context of keeping peace do UN resolutions accomplish anything other than making noise? Me thinks not...

Truely C1ay; The Un reminds me of those noisy little Chihuahua dogs barking and snapping at your heals with a mouth full of rotten teeth.

[Tormod]

I'm not sure recipients of UN aid in war torn countries feel the same way.

[infamous]

I'm not sure recipients of UN aid in war torn countries feel the same way.

The aid the Un brings to these countries is most certainly needed and appreciated. It's just a shame that the Un couldn't have prevented the war in the first place.

[Buffy]

caused any "bad guy" anywhere to recant or change their ways? In the context of keeping peace do UN resolutions accomplish anything other than making noise? Me thinks not...

Well, of course it depends on what you mean by that. We successfully "contained" N. Korea and Saddam (1991 version), and the Serbs, based on UN action based on force. But interestingly a non-force related change in a bad guy was Libya agreeing to demands on WMD just last fall, see the CNN article here.

 

I think if you searched, you'd find plenty of examples...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[C1ay]

We successfully "contained" N. Korea and Saddam (1991 version), and the Serbs, based on UN action based on force.

Yes, they were contained but did they change their ways or even admit that they were wrong? More to the point though, does a UN resolution, in and of itself, have any noticeable deterrent effect or cause any troublesome world leaders to fear their consequences? The UN simply strikes me as a paper tiger.

[Tormod]

Does any law have any effect unless it is supported and enforced?

[Buffy]

Yes, they were contained but did they change their ways or even admit that they were wrong? More to the point though, does a UN resolution, in and of itself, have any noticeable deterrent effect or cause any troublesome world leaders to fear their consequences? The UN simply strikes me as a paper tiger.

Unfortunately, interpretation of events is extremely subjective, so its easy to see it from your point of view too. I personally think that the deterrence in these examples was very effective, and the UN inspections in Iraq did cause a shut down of Saddam's active chemical and nuclear weapons programs, even though as a megalomaniac, he could never *possibly* admit he was wrong. On the other hand I think that you could come up with an argument for dismissing this and every other example I could probably come up with. I know John Bolton would! :eek_big:

 

Radovan Karadic is hiding in fear of his life for what doom probably awaits him if the UN ever catches him. But on the other hand:

Does any law have any effect unless it is supported and enforced?

No, of course not, and the argument can be made that the veto powers of the big five pretty much cause a stalemate on most contentious issues, so in this respect, the power of the UN is indeed limited. The downside though is that unilateral action like Iraq II has made the US a pariah, so the alternative is no panacea either. I think the UN serves its purpose, short of creating a One-World Government, that the black-helicopter folks rightly rail against.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[infamous]

Does any law have any effect unless it is supported and enforced?

Very good point Tormod. There should be little question about the support the UN received from the world body with regard to the many resolutions offered up against Iraq. However, it was enforcement that the UN seemed unwilling to take seriously.

[alxian]

should the UN have a world class armed forces at their disposal like the example in stealth so that they could have some bite behind their chihuahua barking?

 

it would be funny if all armed countries in the UN would provide forces that they would fight against their home nations if anything warranted such action.

[Buffy]

should the UN have a world class armed forces at their disposal like the example in stealth so that they could have some bite behind their chihuahua barking?.

It does. Its called the US Army. If the Security Council authorizes it, a force is specially formed for a specific conflict, and member states contribute their forces to it. A commander from one of the contributing forces is chosen to marshal and direct the forces to enforce the UN mandate. The security council may or may not weigh in with directives, although in the past it has not done so very often, but its always in the political calculus of action: this is why G.H.W. Bush pulled back from Baghdad in 1991: worried about backlash if either the Arabs as a group or the SC members who were friends of Saddam got cold feet.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Fishteacher73]

One must also realize that we really don't hear about the successes. If it works, ie a resolution early on to shift potential threat rarely makes much news. Only when the efforts fail and tensions escalate do we really start to see the media or informational results from the failure.

We seem to always remember the one bad thing, but the successes are just the expected norm and not noticed.

[Buffy]

And along the same lines as Fish's comment, its important to realize that the most important thing in diplomacy is "saving face" which basically means never having to say you're sorry...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Tormod]

It does. Its called the US Army. If the Security Council authorizes it, a force is specially formed for a specific conflict, and member states contribute their forces to it.

 

Correct - but that means of course that not only the US Army but also all other armies. Like the Norwegian Army. We have a lot of soldiers serving in UN forces in Lebanon, for example.

[Buffy]

Correct - but that means of course that not only the US Army but also all other armies. Like the Norwegian Army.

Yah, but alx asked specifically for "world class armies"..... :eek_big: :)

 

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." -- Attributed to George S. Patton

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[damocles]

alxian

Understanding

 

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

 

should the UN have a world class armed forces at their disposal like the example in stealth so that they could have some bite behind their chihuahua barking?

 

it would be funny if all armed countries in the UN would provide forces that they would fight against their home nations if anything warranted such action.

 

Answer to first?

 

No.

 

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/moral/un.htm and that was in 1995.

 

Since then;

 

http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/bg1748.cfm

 

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0330-01.htm

 

That report is a whitewash. Khofi Annan along with "Black Jacques" Chirac and many others are guilty as hell in conspiring with Saddam Hussein in the looting of his, Saddam's own country(Iraq) for personal gain.

 

We have reported cases of UN peacekeepers raping pillaging and looting;

 

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200522321.asp

 

That organization lacks the self discipline of even a second rate nation state.

 

When the UN has the organizational discipline of say South Africa(a very corrupt nation, but very ethical by African or Middle Eastern standards of governance) then you might trust it, the UN, with very small peacekeeping operations. Look at the shambles they arer making in Haiti.

 

http://www.refugeesinternational.org/content/article/detail/5315/

 

Look to either the Chinese(who are soon to become a a part of the peacekeeping contingent) or the Americans to overhaul that operation in order to protect their interests.

 

http://english.people.com.cn/200410/17/eng20041017_160496.html

 

In the case of Haiti, I would have preferred an OAS solution rammed down the Haitians' throats. A treaty alliance with teeth is preferable to the dictators' social club on the Hudson.

[alxian]

hey buffy lets not be painting my face red here.. ..

 

what i was trying to emply is that the UN turned a blind eye at the US preemptive attack on IRAQ simply because there isn't an army in the world willing to fight the US under the UN banner and certainly not on its own.

 

damocles

 

the acts of the individuals do not reflect those of the organization

 

 

when you can prove the UN ordered its troops to rape and pillage i'll scrutinize it.

 

haiti IMO is a lost cause, the problem with them is the french, they will survive just as african countries survive but africa has more opportunities for growth, haiti will stagnate and rot.