• UN Security Council sets emergency meeting for Sunday
    32 replies, posted
[quote]The U.N. Security Council has called an emergency meeting at Russia's request to discuss the growing crisis in Ukraine. Russia's U.N. mission sent a text message to reporters saying a closed meeting of the Security Council would begin at 8 p.m. Sunday (0000 GMT). The Russian mission said it had requested the meeting[/quote] [URL]http://www.cnbc.com/id/101579247[/URL]
So I guess we'll be treated to another display of the complete uselessness of the UNSC on Sunday. Great.
[QUOTE=Explosions;44539180]So I guess we'll be treated to another display of the complete uselessness of the UNSC on Sunday. Great.[/QUOTE] TIL the UNSC is useless. Enlighten me on how.
[QUOTE=Masterofstars;44539412]TIL the UNSC is useless. Enlighten me on how.[/QUOTE] It was designed to be useless in any area where a veto holder wanted it to be useless. Let's just imagine that every single other permanent member on the council voted for military involvement in Ukraine to stabilize the situation or something. Russia just says "nope" and now absolutely nothing happens. We see the same thing with Israel with the U.S. blocking anything from happening, China with Taiwan, etc. It's a symbolic institution with no real power. The only places where the U.N. actually does anything is in Africa. Care to guess why? None of the veto holders have powerful vested interests in any areas of Africa that have significant strife.
this sunday or 4/20
[QUOTE=weedscopes;44539502]this sunday or 4/20[/QUOTE] [url]http://webtv.un.org/live-now/watch/security-council-the-situation-in-ukraine/3086187116001/[/url] It's on right now
[QUOTE=Explosions;44539449]It was designed to be useless in any area where a veto holder wanted it to be useless. Let's just imagine that every single other permanent member on the council voted for military involvement in Ukraine to stabilize the situation or something. Russia just says "nope" and now absolutely nothing happens. We see the same thing with Israel with the U.S. blocking anything from happening, China with Taiwan, etc. It's a symbolic institution with no real power. The only places where the U.N. actually does anything is in Africa. Care to guess why? None of the veto holders have powerful vested interests in any areas of Africa that have significant strife.[/QUOTE] That's the entire point. It's not supposed to be dominated by one side, it's supposed to encourage negotiation instead of "nanananaNANA, we got more votes than you because there are three western powers and two eastern ones." If it wasn't like this, it'd be a western dominated alliance and would have half the world leaving due to uselessness.
So Russia called this meeting because Ukraine is threatening military force against separatists. Is Russia going to act like they didn't do the exact same thing with Chechnya?
[QUOTE=Masterofstars;44539853] If it wasn't like this, it'd be a western dominated alliance and would have half the world leaving due to uselessness.[/QUOTE] Countries are always looking out for their own interests. No system can possibly stop that but efforts at cooperation such as the League and UN have been proven to do alot of good.
[QUOTE=Masterofstars;44539853]That's the entire point. It's not supposed to be dominated by one side, it's supposed to encourage negotiation instead of "nanananaNANA, we got more votes than you because there are three western powers and two eastern ones." If it wasn't like this, it'd be a western dominated alliance and would have half the world leaving due to uselessness.[/QUOTE] Sure. Maybe there can't be a realistic world union like the UN. That doesn't change the fact that it's useless.
[QUOTE=Masterofstars;44539853]That's the entire point. It's not supposed to be dominated by one side, it's supposed to encourage negotiation instead of "nanananaNANA, we got more votes than you because there are three western powers and two eastern ones." If it wasn't like this, it'd be a western dominated alliance and would have half the world leaving due to uselessness.[/QUOTE]... But it's just as useless as that, instead of a majority-rule thing we've got a system where if anyone even utters "LOL NOPE" then [i]nothing[/i] gets done. This is literally the same situation, only countries aren't leaving the UN because it's too big of a hassle to do that. Oh, and this was never intended to be the point of the UNSC. This sort of situation wasn't planned for, or else they would have had some sort of veto cap or something.
[QUOTE=Explosions;44539943]Sure. Maybe there can't be a realistic world union like the UN. That doesn't change the fact that it's useless.[/QUOTE] Except the UN has done [I]shitloads.[/I] Everyone acts like they have never gotten anything done but they've done plenty of shit in the past.
[QUOTE=Masterofstars;44539959]Except the UN has done [I]shitloads.[/I] Everyone acts like they have never gotten anything done but they've done plenty of shit in the past.[/QUOTE] Let me clarify: the UNSC in areas where veto powers have an interest. I don't mean to denigrate the importance of the UN as a whole, because it has given the world a stage for useful negotiations that have maintained peace many times. And in cases where there wasn't much great power interest, the UNSC has certainly been a force for good in the world. But I don't think anyone can argue that it can do anything in this particular situation, and that's is because of Russia's veto power.
[QUOTE=Masterofstars;44539959]Except the UN has done [I]shitloads.[/I] Everyone acts like they have never gotten anything done but they've done plenty of shit in the past.[/QUOTE] About the only good thing they do is humanitarian aid missions. Peacekeepers have a largely mixed track record, either because of their lack of a unified training or simply because of the UNs RoE.
[QUOTE=G3rman;44539983]About the only good thing they do is humanitarian aid missions. Peacekeepers have a largely mixed track record, either because of their lack of a unified training or simply because of the UNs RoE.[/QUOTE] Most of the UNs peacekeeping problems comes from the fact that most of the peacekeepers are from developing countries themselves. Poorer training and backwards cultural attitudes contribute to a lot of the problems. In Haiti and Central Africa aid workers caused cholera outbreaks and fed the child sex industry.
This will be the most useless meeting in the history of meetings. I hope the rest of the UNSC shows up just to call Russia a bitch and then leaves.
[QUOTE=Explosions;44539449]It was designed to be useless in any area where a veto holder wanted it to be useless. Let's just imagine that every single other permanent member on the council voted for military involvement in Ukraine to stabilize the situation or something. Russia just says "nope" and now absolutely nothing happens. We see the same thing with Israel with the U.S. blocking anything from happening, China with Taiwan, etc. It's a symbolic institution with no real power. The only places where the U.N. actually does anything is in Africa. Care to guess why? None of the veto holders have powerful vested interests in any areas of Africa that have significant strife.[/QUOTE] It's pretty much just a room where powerful and rich countries can get together to decide what to do with powerless, poor countries. It can't prevent any of the permanent members from doing anything.
According to CNN, Russia urged for intervention to prevent "spillover" and "civil war" in Ukraine, the US said "Russia is orchestrating this shit", and Ukraine said "We aren't putting up with this shit, we aren't having another Crimea."
[QUOTE=Masterofstars;44539959]Except the UN has done [I]shitloads.[/I] Everyone acts like they have never gotten anything done but they've done plenty of shit in the past.[/QUOTE] Always remember: Gadaffi got a seat on the Human Rights council
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;44540385]Always remember: Gadaffi got a seat on the Human Rights council[/QUOTE] Countries such as China and Saudi Arabia participate so that they prevent the UN from taking action against them.
The UN needs a reform. I don't understand why any country has this supreme veto power.
[QUOTE=Banhfunbags;44540495]The UN needs a reform. I don't understand why any country has this supreme veto power.[/QUOTE] So they agree to participate?
What angle do you think Russia is playing?
[QUOTE=Banhfunbags;44540495]The UN needs a reform. I don't understand why any country has this supreme veto power.[/QUOTE] Otherwise they would leave. So it only has real power when dealing with places that none of the great power veto holders care too much about. If you thought that after World War 2 the US, Britain, France, Russia, and China were about to just give up a bunch of their power then think again.
[QUOTE=Banhfunbags;44540495]The UN needs a reform. I don't understand why any country has this supreme veto power.[/QUOTE] Because at the end of WWII, the UN was formed out of the victor powers, excluding the USSR all being kinda-democracies or democracies with Western interests. The first flag of the pre-UN was a red and white striped flag reminiscent of America. The UN granted these powers exclusive military rights, under the expectation that they would reasonably enact a similar program and not veto each other- if one had to use a veto, it would be out of the common good. Instead, it quickly became communists vs non-communists. To remove the veto power would risk granting either side (read: always the west) supreme power in all votes. Korea? UN sends troops to support the Southern murderous dictatorship (as actually happened in absence of China and Russia) instead of the Northern. Same with Vietnam, Nicaragua, Cuba, Greece, Italy.... Because the majority of the members of the UNSC at any time are western-oriented, almost always every vote for military use would be granted in the favor of the west. Which makes sense to most of us, but we all live in the west mostly.
[QUOTE=Masterofstars;44539959]Except the UN has done [I]shitloads.[/I] Everyone acts like they have never gotten anything done but they've done plenty of shit in the past.[/QUOTE] People say they never get anything done because the only thing they do are bureaucratics that are essentially invisible to the common person and do not affect them in any way. The deals that are big news (intervention) are almost always turned down, thus the only thing anyone ever hears about is [I]"The UN refused to do anything about the _____ in/of/at _____."[/I].
[QUOTE=Masterofstars;44539853]That's the entire point. It's not supposed to be dominated by one side, it's supposed to encourage negotiation instead of "nanananaNANA, we got more votes than you because there are three western powers and two eastern ones." If it wasn't like this, it'd be a western dominated alliance and would have half the world leaving due to uselessness.[/QUOTE] Better half the world leave due to uselessness than the entire organization being rendered useless. We'd end up with....oh, wait! We already have it. It's called NATO. Fuck the UN. Waste of taxpayer money.
The UN just needs more independent power. But that's never going to happen.
[QUOTE=TestECull;44540673]Better half the world leave due to uselessness than the entire organization being rendered useless. We'd end up with....oh, wait! We already have it. It's called NATO.[/QUOTE] UN exists to promote international organisation and cooperation, NATO exists to combine the efforts of Western military organisations.
[QUOTE=TestECull;44540673]Better half the world leave due to uselessness than the entire organization being rendered useless. We'd end up with....oh, wait! We already have it. It's called NATO.[/QUOTE] are you shitting me? NATO is a defensive alliance between basically the US and Europe. UN is a world organization that is supposed to promote cooperation. And you're saying they're similar? lmao
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.