UN yet again takes no notice of Chechnya

[halldor]

http://www.prima-news.ru/eng/news/articles/2003/4/17/24113.html

[Frodo Lives]

Another example of why the UN is dead body. It should be run by those that care about the lives of others, but alas, it is not.

[Misu]

The UN is too busy bashing the US and Britain for everything that's gone wrong in Iraq to deal with such "petty" matters such as REAL ISSUES.

[Steve]

The UN? Didn't that used to be some sort of organization of nations that did something?

[ethics]

Not only US and UK, Misu, but UN's biggest focus and criticism has been Israel.

UN is a joke in many of their functions.

[Steve]

I am by no means an isolationist, but I would seriously support and advocate for resignation from the UN and relocation off U.S. soil.

[Sacchiridites]

What?!!!
Wait a minute, here. Is Russia doing something like terrorism on a global level? That article ASSUMES that what the Kremlin is saying is what I like to call 'CatShitsKa'. I agree.. human rights...but Russia does things the way they do things for a reason. Alright, communism and lack of democracy and Coca-Cola aside...is this something that is affecting the globe? Ahh, never mind. 'U.S.' is another acronym for.. .. stick nose in business sometimes, not necessarily 'U.N.'  I'm NOT defending them, but I think Russia has a point...they do things the way they do things and we shouldn't force them to air their internal affairs. Who says we have a right to accuse them of NOT trying to resolve internal issues? UN is calling them liars if they make them air their internal issues. Like making Iraq prove they don't have weapons of mass destruction. Um, we don't have a contract with Russia as far as MAKING them prove they're not doing what they say they're doing, I don't think. Russia wants to be left alone. Let's not agitate them all to war. Jeesh. The UN is for harmonizing actions, not for declaring war.

Oh, and the UN DOES do some things like try to bring some decent living conditions back to nations instead of beginning to make mincemeat out of a nation that is NOT trying to stir up international trouble as far as I can see right now. Yeah, they helped the Iraquis for a few bucks. Yes, there's inhumanities abroad. Which are the more important issues right now, though?
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=6679&Cr=iraq&Cr1=

I do NOT want to see the UN go away. I do want to see some changes in their structure to prevent biased-based actions. If the UN goes away, there will NEVER be another globally-involved, globally-caring organization, I don't think. And I LIKE Annan!

All the best,
Cie

P.S. I understand what is going on in Russia, and I don't like it either!  http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2003/04/18042003164344.asp

[halldor]

I think the question is whether one sees the war in Chechnya as an internal issue for Russia alone, or whether it is a conflict with international repercussions, particularly for Russia's neighbours. How is the war in Chechnya different in kind from the war in Kosovo, for example? How is the Former Soviet Union essentially different from the Former Yugoslavia?

[ShinyTop]

Unlike the former Yugoslavia the former Soviet Union is in possession of a huge army and nuclear weapons. While not particularly admirable it is certainly understandable that you not attempt to dictate to a country that can wipe out civilization. But I do think it extremely contemptible that no actions of any kind are being taken.

[halldor]

On the other hand, we are constantly being told by the Western and Russian press that the ex-Soviet nuclear arsenal is hopelessly decayed and rusted, incapable even of being delivered, and that the Russian Federation's armed forces are incompetent and in a state of chaos. So is there really a big difference?

[Robert Harris]

You believe the press? I think the media folks exaggerate and simplify.

I am sure they could deliver some of their missiles to some places, although not enough to -- say -- wipe out the US. And the army does seem run by bumbling and incompetent generals -- but it still can kill, as it is doing in Chechnya.

And while it seems unliklely that Russia could defeat any large modern armed nation -- except France, perhaps -- or NATO, I am sure sure could kill a lot of folks and destroy some cities, and it could spread lots of nuke waste in the atmosphere that would fall out all over the world

[halldor]

Sorry folks, I screwed up on this thread. Managed to delete both Sacchiridites' post and my own reply to it. :(

[Sacchiridites]

Originally posted by halldor
Sorry folks, I screwed up on this thread. Managed to delete both Sacchiridites' post and my own reply to it. :( Here ya go, Halldor....*cringes* and *runs for cover* .Originally posted by Sacchiridites
[B]Um, we don't have a contract with Russia as far as MAKING them prove they're not doing what they say they're doing, I don't think. Russia wants to be left alone. Let's not agitate them all to war. Jeesh. The UN is for harmonizing actions, not for declaring war.

I take some of that back. Russia is a member of the UN, after all. OK, I'm no genius at political matters or history....I'll admit this.

But, under the current political climate concerning nuclear arms (i.e., North Korea) and with Russia, China and the U.S. meeting late in April (within 9 days) to discuss relations, ( see http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2003/04/18042003162039.asp ) I don't think it wise to call Russia to court in this matter of Chechnya at this time. Does anyone else really think we should? Right now? When/If Chechnya it does happen that we call them to Court....look for war with Russia and any other country that is aligning their nuclear arsenals with Russia's. This may be including, but not limited to, North Korea, China, Damascus, and Syria.

Considering Russia's continued vehement opposition to U.S. presence in Iraq, I think that in this game of 'Risk' the U.S. spoiled some nice, cozy nuclear arsenal plans right there in Iraq. They are mad at the U.S. for stirring up that one. Now, we're off stirring up North Korea issues.

The former Yugoslavia has a few complaints of their own. These subjects are on the docket of the International Court of Justice as I write. They've been caught up in the bureaucracy ever since admitted to Court.
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipresscom/ipress2002/ipresscom2002-10_yugo_20020322.htm
Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. Belgium)
Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. Canada)
Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. France)
Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. Germany)
Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. Italy)
Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. Netherlands)
Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. Portugal)
Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. United Kingdom)

From Information Department: Mr. Arthur Witteveen, First Secretary, 22 March 2002......In its Applications, Yugoslavia pointed out that the above-mentioned States had committed "acts . . . by which [they] have violated [their] international obligation[s] banning the use of force against another State, not to intervene in the internal affairs of [that State]" and "not to violate [its] sovereignty"; "[their] obligation[s] to protect the civilian population and civilian objects in wartime [and] to protect the environment"; "[their] obligation[s] relating to free navigation on international rivers"; "[their] obligation[s] regarding fundamental human rights and freedoms"; and "[their] obligation[s] not to use prohibited weapons [and] not to deliberately inflict conditions of life calculated to cause the physical destruction of a national group". Yugoslavia requested the Court to adjudge and declare inter alia that the States referred to above were "responsible for the violation of the above[-mentioned] international obligations" and that they were "obliged to provide compensation for the damage done".

Today's Yugoslavia is no longer a member of the UN. The resulting Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia, and the Republic of Slovenia are. Wonder why?
The Russian Federation ISis a current member of the UN.
"The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was an original Member of the United Nations from 24 October 1945. In a letter dated 24 December 1991, Boris Yeltsin, the President of the Russian Federation, informed the Secretary-General that the membership of the Soviet Union in the Security Council and all other United Nations organs was being continued by the Russian Federation with the support of the 11 member countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States." List of UN Member States, Source: UN Press Release ORG/1317 (26 September 2000)Updated 13 March 2003

So in essence, the U.S. DOES have an agreement with Russia, I take it back. Duh!

Peace,

Sacchiridites

Cie

[halldor]

Thanks, Cie. Hey, no reason to run for cover - this is a discussion, not a war, thank goodness :)

I don't think it wise to call Russia to court in this matter of Chechnya at this time. Does anyone else really think we should? Right now? When/If Chechnya it does happen that we call them to Court....look for war with Russia and any other country that is aligning their nuclear arsenals with Russia's.

All I wanted to say was that if the Western nations don't call Russia to account in the matter of Chechnya, what message will the Russian leadership draw from such a refusal to confront the issue?

[Frodo Lives]

Originally posted by halldor


All I wanted to say was that if the Western nations don't call Russia to account in the matter of Chechnya, what message will the Russian leadership draw from such a refusal to confront the issue?

It comes down to 'Give them an inch, they take a hundred miles'. Things don't get better on their own, if they don't do something, then nothing will get done and things will worse. As they say, A stitch in time saves nine.

[Sacchiridites]

The same message we've been giving for years through organizations like the U.N. : "We don't want war."

[halldor]

Or perhaps the message is: "You can commit any atrocities you like, we're going to turn a blind eye".

What message do N. Korea, Syria, Iran, Cuba, Libya and others read from this?

[Sacchiridites]

Originally posted by halldor
Or perhaps the message is: "You can commit any atrocities you like, we're going to turn a blind eye".

What message do N. Korea, Syria, Iran, Cuba, Libya and others read from this?

I believe that's an interpretation, not a message from the U.N. What message do those countries get? That's up to their perception, of course. In essence, though, each has some power of voice. That's the beauty of the UN. To me, it says, 'hey.. get in there and vote.. because we can manipulate the UN efforts." And that's it. That's democracy for you. Those with hidden agendas DO get away with some things. The good does win in the end, I believe. UN doesn't work for people who don't embrace the concept or value the system. This has me deeply perplexed. Why are some member states even there?

In any event, why is it that always the 'Western' states have to take some action? Everyone cried out about Iraq and how slow everything was and blamed the U.S. and the 'Western' states for 'letting it happen'. Then, when we did 'do something', for example, Kurds tried to blame further atrocities in the region on the U.S.

In favour (15): Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, Poland, Sweden, United Kingdom, and United States.Against (21): Algeria, Armenia, Brazil, China, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, India, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Russian Federation, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, Venezuela, Viet Nam, and Zimbabwe.Abstentions(17): Argentina, Bahrain, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Guatemala, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Thailand, and Uruguay.

I think it would be better to ask those AGAINST what is wrong with them and how THEY can continue to let this happen. Blaming 'Western' States does nothing but create more dissent. Why isn't anyone criticizing those other 'in favour', 'against' and 'abstinents' and pushing them to take some action autonomously from the UN?

Seriously, the UN could use some reform, yes. But it should NOT go away. I'm going to make some suggestions. They're probably naive and silly, but, here goes:

~Kick out some member states! Maybe discontinue UN participation privileges of those states that have only voted AGAINST and consistently, blatantly BLOCKED UN efforts on the matters of humanitarian aid, no matter where in the world. Somehow put more stringent statutes on a matter.

~Don't allow the member state vote if the issue is in their country.

~Instead of just voting down a UN solution/resolution, a member state should be accountable for bringing another proposed solution as well. One shouldn't be allowed to comment unless one has a contribution to the GOOD of the effort. It just opens up the floor for criticism...very unproductive.

~Do not let ANY member state abstain (unless of course, they are the member state in question.) Make all accountable to the serious matters at hand. That's WHY they joined the UN.

~Make the votes secret. Then that way, the 'offending' country has NO idea who is voting what or who will do what, which alleviates some political pressures to vote one way or another. That's the way it's done at most democratic polls....secretively, without fear of repercussion, political/economical/personal/government. Simply numbers.

Peace,
Cie