Saudi Arabia turns down Security Council nomination, demands reform of the UN
40 replies, posted
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24580767[/url]
[quote]Saudi Arabia has turned down a non-permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, accusing the world body of "double standards".
The Saudi foreign ministry said the UN needs to be reformed first.
It said the Security Council had failed in its duties towards Syria as well as in other world conflicts.
Saudi Arabia has previously expressed frustration at what it sees as an international failure to act on Syria, where it staunchly backs the rebels.
The announcement came hours after Saudi Arabia was elected for the first time to one of the 10 rotating seats on the Security Council.[/quote]
I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, the Saudis are right and the UN really does a reform, its simply not doing its job properly. On the other, the Saudis aren't ones to talk when they have done fuck all for the Syrian situation and they still don't do anything about the human rights issues in their own country.
[QUOTE=agentalexandre;42563012]I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, the Saudis are right and the UN really does a reform, its simply not doing its job properly. On the other, the Saudis aren't ones to talk when they have done fuck all for the Syrian situation and they still don't do anything about the human rights issues in their own country.[/QUOTE]
like most countries that criticize the UN, they're right for the wrong reasons.
they don't give a shit about human rights, of course they want the UN to be "reformed", just not the kind reform a sensible person would expect.
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;42563037]like most countries that criticize the UN, they're right for the wrong reasons.[/QUOTE]
That's because they each have an agenda.
Vis-à-vis domination another nation in one aspect or another.
Saudi Arabia can be full of shitbags but at least they had the balls of calling out the security council.
It really does need a reform. Just not the one Saudi Arabia is asking for.
Most people who directly criticize the UN, especially on facepunch don't really understand what it is, what it does and what it has done.
The UN has been one of the most successful bodies in international politics in the post-world war world.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;42563049]That's because they each have an agenda.
Vis-à-vis domination another nation in one aspect or another.[/QUOTE]
some agendas are pretty shitty for humanity in general, saudi arabia opposition to human rights in and their "alternative" are laughable.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Declaration_on_Human_Rights_in_Islam[/url]
"what you mean we can't discriminate against gays, women, BAN THIS SICK FILTH, WE GOTTA MAKE OUR OWN "SUPERIOR" VERSION!"
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;42563061]Saudi Arabia can be full of shitbags but at least they had the balls of calling out the security council.
It really does need a reform. Just not the one Saudi Arabia is asking for.[/QUOTE]
its not like they're the only ones, several others have too.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_of_the_United_Nations_Security_Council[/url]
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42563072]Most people who directly criticize the UN, especially on facepunch don't really understand what it is, what it does and what it has done.
The UN has been one of the most successful bodies in international politics in the post-world war world.[/QUOTE]
i think most people do know, that the UN main purpose is to prevent WW3, which they have been VERY successful at least.
Get rid of permanent membership ala GB,Russia,France, and the USA
Then there can be progress
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;42563061]Saudi Arabia can be full of shitbags but at least they had the balls of calling out the security council.
[/QUOTE]
Balls? They're oil barons that fund a good chunk of Islamic extremism. One of the Saudi princes threatened Putin they'd have the Chechens bomb the Olympics if he didn't turncoat and start helping them remove Assad. While I have disdain for all parties involved, that's fairly fucked up.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42563072]Most people who directly criticize the UN, especially on facepunch don't really understand what it is, what it does and what it has done.
The UN has been one of the most successful bodies in international politics in the post-world war world.[/QUOTE]
Can you give me one example of a time when the Security Council has acted against a great power of the world?
[QUOTE=Explosions;42563573]Can you give me one example of a time when the Security Council has acted against a great power of the world?[/QUOTE]
The UN is to promote communication between the world nations and powers.
Which it does.
[QUOTE=Grimhound;42563516]Balls? They're oil barons that fund a good chunk of Islamic extremism. One of the Saudi princes threatened Putin they'd have the Chechens bomb the Olympics if he didn't turncoat and start helping them remove Assad. While I have disdain for all parties involved, that's fairly fucked up.[/QUOTE]
that was a hoax actually.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42563618]The UN is to promote communication between the world nations and powers.
Which it does.[/QUOTE]
The Saudi criticism was about the Security Council though.
[editline]18th October 2013[/editline]
I'll just answer the question myself: there has never been a U.N. intervention against another great power because they're all on the S.C. with vetoes. The S.C. was designed to be irrelevant when it comes to issues which may effect other powers in the world.
Case in point-Syria
[QUOTE=Explosions;42563695]The Saudi criticism was about the Security Council though.[/QUOTE]
I was talking directly about the UN.
I even say so in the my post you quoted.
[QUOTE=Explosions;42563573]Can you give me one example of a time when the Security Council has acted against a great power of the world?[/QUOTE]
Frankly the security council acts against "great powers" all the damn time. I mean look at the security council concerning Syria over the last few months, nothing but Russian and Chinese veto's towards the American agenda.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42563707]I was talking directly about the UN.
I even say so in the my post you quoted.[/QUOTE]
Then your reply was useless because I specifically asked about the S.C.
[QUOTE=cxcxxxxx;42564181]Frankly the security council acts against "great powers" all the damn time. I mean look at the security council concerning Syria over the last few months, nothing but Russian and Chinese veto's towards the American agenda.[/QUOTE]
The U.N. isn't acting, it's being prevented from acting by the vetoes. That is exactly my point.
I'm sorry but the UN is designed directly to prevent action is situations like Syria.
Not that I agree with that stance - like I think failure to intervene in Syria over the last couple of years is going to be a pretty obvious mistake over the next few decades. But its there to stop what is going to be pretty much a proxy war between powers.
Working as intended.
The Security Council needs to always include the world superpowers, because it would quickly become irrelevant if it was just random small countries trying to boss the USA and Russia around.
The system should be different though e.g. something like every ten years, the top 5 countries by GDP get a seat. And no veto
[QUOTE=smurfy;42564507]The Security Council needs to always include the world superpowers, because it would quickly become irrelevant if it was just random small countries trying to boss the USA and Russia around.
The system should be different though e.g. something like every ten years, the top 5 countries by GDP get a seat. And no veto[/QUOTE]
considering there are over 193 countries, i think just 5 is waaaay too little, and yeah veto shouldn't even exist really.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42564358]I'm sorry but the UN is designed directly to prevent action is situations like Syria.
Not that I agree with that stance - like I think failure to intervene in Syria over the last couple of years is going to be a pretty obvious mistake over the next few decades. But its there to stop what is going to be pretty much a proxy war between powers.
Working as intended.[/QUOTE]
I know that's how it's designed and that's how it's intended: that is the principal argument against it. It prevents meaningful action whenever a veto holding member is involved.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42564358]I'm sorry but the UN is designed directly to prevent action is situations like Syria.
Not that I agree with that stance - like I think failure to intervene in Syria over the last couple of years is going to be a pretty obvious mistake over the next few decades. But its there to stop what is going to be pretty much a proxy war between powers.
Working as intended.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Unless all countries can go and definitely say, "Yeah this shit is fucked" and agree on a resolution together, we shouldn't be declaring wars and interventions left and right. It's better to let situations boil down in the locality, and try to find better[and more peaceful] alternatives for dealing with situations.
I can't really see the positives of intervening in places like Syria where ultimately it'll lead to a lot of political drama between the US and Russia[already has], and can lead to a massive proxy war between multiple countries.
[editline]18th October 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Explosions;42564568]I know that's how it's designed and that's how it's intended: that is the principal argument against it. It prevents meaningful action whenever a veto holding member is involved.[/QUOTE]
And that's a good thing. By making it so Russia and US can't just start wars with each others allied nations, we ultimately prevent larger wars from occurring.
As demented as this sounds, places like Syria are acceptable losses when the alternative is greater instability and the possibility of larger conflicts in the region. Syria will become our new Afghanistan if we so much as even step into it with the UN.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;42564624]And that's a good thing. By making it so Russia and US can't just start wars with each others allied nations, we ultimately prevent larger wars from occurring.
As demented as this sounds, places like Syria are acceptable losses when the alternative is greater instability and the possibility of larger conflicts in the region. Syria will become our new Afghanistan if we so much as even step into it with the UN.[/QUOTE]
As long as you're fine with hundreds of thousands dying I guess the U.N.S.C. is fine and Syria is an "acceptable loss."
Pathetic
You didn't act in our favor, you need to undergo reforms!
That's how it all sounds to me. While Security Council does need a reform, SA is not the one to talk.
[QUOTE=Explosions;42564874]As long as you're fine with hundreds of thousands dying I guess the U.N.S.C. is fine and Syria is an "acceptable loss."
Pathetic[/QUOTE]
No no it's okay that hundreds of thousands are dying because it might cost money to help them, God knows we can't have that.
The UN should be demanding reform of Saudi Arabia.
[QUOTE=DesolateGrun;42563479]Get rid of permanent membership ala GB,Russia,France, and the USA
Then there can be progress[/QUOTE]
Though I agree... They are placed there for a reason.
In the interest of peacekeeping, no other nation can produce the resources en-masse like these nations.
The United Kingdom can call on the commonwealth to assist, the US and Russia can also act sovereignly to quell matters.
Mind you, I don't know what the fuck the French can do though...
[sp]Please don't kill me MaxOfS2D[/sp]
[QUOTE=Explosions;42564874]As long as you're fine with hundreds of thousands dying I guess the U.N.S.C. is fine and Syria is an "acceptable loss."
Pathetic[/QUOTE]
What you guys are failing to understand is that casualties don't matter. The second any non-Syrian[or Jihadist] force steps on the ground, the war becomes a much more complex situation then it already is. Not to mention the political shitstorm that would arise, and cause greater amounts of problems then just letting this war go as it is.
We have already come to the conclusion that Syria will give up it's chemical weapons, and that's all we should be doing. If their next door neighbors are so keen to complain about it, maybe they should be doing something about it, but they probably will not, and for good reasons.
Iran has dedicated forces to the ground.
Israel has dedicated attacks under the guise of "rocket attacks".
Several Middle Eastern[and some European] countries are giving weapons to both sides, the only option is to just get rid of shit like chemical and cluster munitions, take refugees who leave, and let them finish what they started. The alternative of invading would risk a far larger conflict, and it's not exactly something we need to deal with when the global economy is already in deep shit.
[editline]18th October 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=DaysBefore;42565236]No no it's okay that hundreds of thousands are dying because it might cost money to help them, God knows we can't have that.[/QUOTE]
Oh so letting more people who are completely unrelated to their dickwaving contest get killed is a far more suitable means of dealing with problems, and risking a larger conflict/more instability in the Middle East.
Take refugees, remove chemical/cluster munitions, let the war go on.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;42566847]What you guys are failing to understand is that casualties don't matter.[/QUOTE]
Stopped reading here.
Joeskylynx has a point, geopolitically. If we didn't bar the nations of the world from jumping into these kinds of things every internal collapse or civil war would end up as international political battles (see: Spanish Civil War).
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42563072]Most people who directly criticize the UN, especially on facepunch don't really understand what it is, what it does and what it has done.
The UN has been one of the most successful bodies in international politics in the post-world war world.[/QUOTE]
It can be unnecessarily cockblocked by the fact the most important decisions are taken by absolute unanimity and that a single voice can disrupt the whole thing, which is a really constricted and constraining way of dealing with things.
It has done a lot of great things but these recent years the UN hasn't seemed to come to any decent decision on anything because there's always some dick country with personal interests that'll veto a decision, or some inter-country bickering that ends up with one country vetoing a decision just because that other country was favorable to it.
[editline]19th October 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Bradyns;42565880]Though I agree... They are placed there for a reason.
In the interest of peacekeeping, no other nation can produce the resources en-masse like these nations.
The United Kingdom can call on the commonwealth to assist, the US and Russia can also act sovereignly to quell matters.
Mind you, I don't know what the fuck the French can do though...
[sp]Please don't kill me MaxOfS2D[/sp][/QUOTE]
As part of the OTAN if France enters a conflict whichever it other countries part of the OTAN are obliged to send reinforcements, as far as I know. Or maybe I'm mixing up with some other military alliance.
As for Syria the whole situation is fucked because we waited way too long to actually do anything and by the time we realized that publicly denouncing the syrian government for being baddies didn't fix shit the rebel movement had already been replaced by a majority of rabid islamist lunatics who will very likely damage the country more than Assad. Which in itself is also an example of how flawed the UN currently is since I'm pretty sure the whole situation was blocked for a while by Russia constantly vetoing any decision concerning Syria.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.