So US Ambassador John Danforth has urged the UN to avoid making one-sided resolutions against Israel at the organization’s annual session.
As for the dozens of non-binding, anti-Israel resolutions adopted by the General Assembly annually, “these multiple resolutions are redundant, and at best tedious and boring and not a fruitful use of time,” Danforth said. “And something should be done to fix the situation I would hope that the Europeans in particular would join us to say enough is enough for these crazy resolutions.”
I’m not holding my breath for this one.
Hmmm… urging despots to be more balanced… that’s going to go far.
Hmmm… urging despots to be more balanced… that’s going to go far.
What’s that mean, incognito???
Anyway, the U.N. isn’t there to make sense to you or me, or the U.S. They function to pass non-binding resolutions all the time. The only 2 countries that have violated binding resolutions more than all other countries combined are the U.S> and Israel. So, it goes without saying, why make resolutions that the U.N. knows will be broken? Perhaps the United Nations members are doing this to spite us and Israel.
In a strange sort of way, I agree with James.
The only 2 countries that have violated binding resolutions more than all other countries combined are the U.S> and Israel.Is that so ? Care to substantiate this entertaining assertion ? Actually, just so you know, Iraq has been holding that record for many years. No binding Chapter 7 resolution has ever been passed against either Israel or the U.S. Chapter 6 resolutions are legally non-binding; effectively, they are recommendations and no U.N. member can enforce them.
There is also the slight detail of that document called the U.N. Charter, which is routinely ignored or violated in gross ways by 75% of its members, the very same who consistently demand and/or vote resolutions against evil Israel or their American “masters”. Because, they’re the real threat to world peace, you know…
As for these specific resolutions, it’s mostly cynical posturing by the countries involved and is mostly intended to placate their domestic audience. To the extent it helps undermine whatever is left of the U.N. moral credibility, I welcome them. I respect the right of fools to shoot themselves in the foot in public.
Let’s do some math: everybody gets one vote, America and Israel have numerous enemies each with one vote……
With the exception of a veto on the Security Council, which in my opinion should be used at every opportunity, there is absolutely no reason to stay in this brutal dictators employment security agency.
But while I’m saying that, there is a paradox (or is it a conundrum, I’m not sure, anyway…) the vast majority of the UN’s military legitimacy comes from the United States which puts us in the position being criticized when we use military force and when we don’t (sometimes simultaneously). Now my emotional reaction to that is flip Kofi Anan the bird, pull out of the UN, bring all our troops home from places like Europe, Japan, and South Korea, and force those countries out of the adolescence they have been in for 50 years.
But here’s the rub: If those countries actually spent the proportion of GDP that the US spends on defense, the forces of those countries could replace US military might at the UN.
You think the UN is a problem for the US and Israel now, imagine what kind of problem it would be with a credible non-US military backing.
Maybe the current situation isn’t so bad.
Good point DSpears. Perhaps bureaucratic incompetence and military impotence were the original goals of the U.N. Genius on the part of post WW2 U.S. Give them a shoulder to cry on, but no wherewithal to do much else.
The U.N. is a cesspit of corruption. The sooner we shut it down, the better. Today’s example:
The New York Times
Published: August 8, 2004
Rwandan Accused in Genocide Wins Suit for U.N. Pay
By JANE PERLEZ
After the killing frenzy in Rwanda a decade ago, a war crimes investigator charged that a United Nations employee delegated to ensure the safety of his colleagues took part in the atrocity. The employee was never prosecuted and continued to hold jobs in the United Nations for years.
Now he has won the right to compensation for pay lost after he was finally dismissed in 2001, a decision that has incensed some United Nations investigators and officials, who say it represents a betrayal of the United Nations’ most basic principles. . .
Tony Greig, a criminal defense lawyer now based in New Zealand, said in an interview that as a United Nations war crimes investigator, he had collected evidence against Mr. Mbarushimana for an indictment that was never pursued.
The accusations, drawing on the accounts of 24 witnesses, asserted that Mr. Mbarushimana, a Rwandan Hutu who was assigned to help keep United Nations workers alive during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, instead directed or took part in the killing of 32 people, including United Nations colleagues, and personally shot two people.
Mr. Greig says he was told by United Nations officials that because Mr. Mbarushimana was not considered one of the planners of the killings, the indictment, prepared by the tribunal’s lawyers, was set aside. . .
The UN is over. We need to set up the successor organization now. Democracies only, even the French, but no more Sudans, Zimbabwes, Saudi Arabias, Burmas, Cubas … Admission by invitation only.
Hahahahahaha! Ask the U.N. to stop bludgeoning Israel at every opportunity now that’s a laugh. I mean that would remove their whole raison d’etre wouldn’t it?
The UN will be effective when we are truly one world society…with no “countries” so to speak or imbalances of economic power from one area of the globe to another…you know the kind of world society you always see in things like Star Trek…Millenium Man, etc…..in short, never…
er..I meant Bicentennial Man….
WTF is Millenium Man anyway?? Did I make that up?
Maybe you crossed up Marathon Man with Millenium Falcon