NationStates Jolt Archive

US bars Cuba from UN conference
9/13/2005
UNITED NATIONS: Cuba complained to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan yesterday that the US had barred its national assembly speaker from attending a meeting of parliamentarians at UN headquarters in New York.

Washington denied a visa request from Ricardo Alarcon of Cuba to attend last week’s second World Conference of Speakers of Parliament, a meeting sponsored by the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

While the United States. as host country for the United Nations, is obliged to give visas to foreign officials for official UN business, a US official said the conference of parliamentarians was not a UN affair even though it used UN facilities.

Cuban Ambassador Orlando Requeijo Gual wrote Annan: “The permanent mission of Cuba to the United Nations wishes to protest strongly at the arbitrary decision and to state that it disagrees completely with the pretexts given.”

http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/index00.asp
Source "The Quatar leading Daily"

thats funny. Reliable newspaper too :rolleyes:

Perhaps the US should not be the UN host anymore...

thats funny. Reliable newspaper too :rolleyes:Probably more reliable than FOX/CNN

Perhaps the US should not be the UN host anymore...

Yeah. I agree. They suck too much money anyways. Damn, the UN is worse then a bunch of personal injury lawyers.

Oh, BTW, I did not see the article on the web site proper.

Could you post a more percise link, please?

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-09-12T155727Z_01_DIT257463_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-CUBA-UN-DC.XML&archived=False

Oh, BTW, I did not see the article on the web site proper.

Could you post a more percise link, please?
of course...

http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=World_News&subsection=Americas&month=September2005&file=World_News2005091325221.xml

Perhaps the US should not be the UN host anymore...
I agree. Get the fuck out of Manhattan and stop causing retarded traffic jams. Demolish the building and put up a library or a park, you know, something USEFUL.

That's incredible! What on Earth are the American officials thinking?! It's the minimal diplomatical standard, and it is an insult to the UN (no matter what the other country is).

of course...

http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=World_News&subsection=Americas&month=September2005&file=World_News2005091325221.xml

Thank you.

Perhaps the US should not be the UN host anymore...I Think the UN will be replaced by a new International Body...and with World Class Headquarters in Europe...WHITOUT vetoes.

The sooner the better...

The current UN cannot hope to keep any pretense of credibility in its actual form...and in its actual Place (in US territory)

I Think the UN will be replaced by a new International Body...without vetoes..and with World Class Headquarters in Europe.

The sooner the better...

The current UN cannot hope to keep any pretense of credibility in its actual form...and in its actual Place (in US territory)
You forgot one thing. No American support=no UN.

It will be the same with any attempt to create a replacement. No US support=no organization.
Heck, even the creation of the European Union was dependent on US support. They couldn't even solve the problem in the Balkans. It took the US to do that and the balkans are european territory.

You forgot one thing. No American support=no UN.

It will be the same with any attempt to create a replacement. No US support=no organization.
Heck, even the creation of the European Union was dependent on US support. They couldn't even solve the problem in the Balkans. It took the US to do that and the balkans are european territory.

UN-USA= LoN

UN-USA= LoNWhat does LoN means?

Probably more reliable than FOX/CNN
says the democrat

League of Nations (LoN)

Just because it is being hosted in the building doesnt make it a UN program...The UN regularly rents out its confrence rooms to various functions outside of the UN...its small fundraising that probably goes into one of the guys personal bank account..

This article fails (no doubt purposely to mislead) to tell the reader of that fact.

You forgot one thing. No American support=no UN.

It will be the same with any attempt to create a replacement. No US support=no organization.
Heck, even the creation of the European Union was dependent on US support. They couldn't even solve the problem in the Balkans. It took the US to do that and the balkans are european territory.
Yeah, right :rolleyes: .
You're mistaking American interest and opportunism for American support.
I guess you are also reffering to Srebrenica and such: let me point out the fault that Germany single-handledly has in that quagmire. They chose to recognize Croatia, and then to sell arms to it. The rest of the EU was at crossroads - Germany spread its wings because it had just been reunified (and wanted ho have a powerful and independent stance). It was common policy that UN troops not open fire and the likes, if it doesn't get desperate (the officer in charge for Srebrenica was, indeed, a very hesitant person - but I would not blame the troops, as they were confronted with a sizeable Serb militia, one that, basically, took them hostage). These are guidelines that the US followed just as well, for a long time afterward: they initiated negociations with the Serb Bosnian Republic, and opened fire only when an American pilot single-handledly took the initiative to respond to Serb anti-aircraft action (just as many civilians where killed while the world was waiting for that to happen).
The Balkans are not "European territory". Analogy: Brazil is not US territory.

says the democrat

Id hardly call CNN republican..i mean just look at their headlines the past couple days..

its been racially divisive for almost a week straight now..almost like they are purposely trying to incite riots. Since when did major news orgs become nothing more then He said/she said reporters? I mean "we werent allowed across the bridge?" How the fuck is that a news story with facts? all it article does is say the police said this the negros said this...blah blah...that is not factual news, that is fucking gossip.

You forgot one thing. No American support=no UN.

It will be the same with any attempt to create a replacement. No US support=no organization.
Heck, even the creation of the European Union was dependent on US support. They couldn't even solve the problem in the Balkans. It took the US to do that and the balkans are european territory.

The Balkans was not part of the EU (changing now). The US is not vital to a future body though. It is currently seriously detrimental to the UN. Quite frankly an EU/China based versio without vetoes would be a far superior entity. See how the US manages with no veto on the world.

says the democrat?
?
?
would you explain that last comment...we need more..."Juice"

The Balkans was not part of the EU (changing now). The US is not vital to a future body though. It is currently seriously detrimental to the UN. Quite frankly an EU/China based versio without vetoes would be a far superior entity. See how the US manages with no veto on the world.

So you would exclude a massive world economy from an international body out of spite? Kind of goes against the spirit of the UN.

Thank you.
Why am I know longer thanked...

So you would exclude a massive world economy from an international body out of spite? Kind of goes against the spirit of the UN.The Bush Gov is working hard to alienate the rest of the world...The US is excluding itself.

Why am I know longer thanked...
There, there.
Thank you.

Why am I know longer thanked...

Because I hate you...

Joking, have a fluffle :fluffle: .

Why am I know longer thanked...thank you for...uhmm...ahhh... what was that again?

:D

The Bush Gov is working hard to alienate the rest of the world...The US is excluding itself.
THATS A GOOD THING! i like alienation then ppl will stop bothering us, or blaming us for everything

I agree. Get the fuck out of Manhattan and stop causing retarded traffic jams. Demolish the building and put up a library or a park, you know, something USEFUL.

hahahahahahaha I agree. Make a building that sells different countries flags, that will be more useful then the UN.

hahahahahahaha I agree. Make a building that sells different countries flags, that will be more useful then the UN.LOL...

Because I hate you...

Joking, have a fluffle :fluffle: .
Dude! I just wanted a thank you... (not here...)

In a one political party state nation, where,
The Cuban National Assemly Parliment meets twice a year, or when convened by President Dictator Fidel Castro for live, and supposedly works in commitees behind the scene while not in session.

Where, the Council of Ministers and Council of State makes and passed all laws, while the Cuban National Assembly Parliment is not in session, of which President Fidel Castro in President off, and a member of the Cuban National Assembly.

In a nation where former Cuban political prisoner Oswaldo Paya through the Varela Project, first collected over 10,000 signatures, then over 20,000 signatures calling for a referendum on economic, political and social reforms, and a democratic process to bring it about should the referendum pass, as allowed for under the Cuban Constitution.

And where President Fidel Castro announced a 3 day counter petition drive, to declare the Cuban economic, political and social system unchangeable, which according to the Cuban government was signed and approved by 99.25 percent of Cuban eligible voters.

And Approved by 100 percent of the Cuban National Assembly Parliment members for and 0 percent against.

I support the decision 100 percent.

If this isn't a UN Conference then the US can deny whatever visa they want. Judging by what I'm seeing here, that is precisely the case.

Nice mislead. Someone has been taking lessons from the NYT!

Yeah, right :rolleyes: .
The Balkans are not "European territory". Analogy: Brazil is not US territory.

Are you trying to claim that the balkans are physically part of another subcontinent??? Are they not West of the Urals?

I think Switzerland should be the UN host nation. It is historically neutral, and I think we wouldn't have these petty squabbles if the Swiss were the ones arbitrating.

:D I think Switzerland should be the UN host nation. It is historically neutral, and I think we wouldn't have these petty squabbles if the Swiss were the ones arbitrating.

I agree. Plus, they have good chocolate.

The Balkans was not part of the EU (changing now). The US is not vital to a future body though. It is currently seriously detrimental to the UN. Quite frankly an EU/China based versio without vetoes would be a far superior entity. See how the US manages with no veto on the world.
Yeah, hm, China...shaping up to be the next USA, i.e., World's Biggest Pain in the Ass -- you know, once they finish ruining our economy and leave us to starve in our trailer parks. That will, of course, take a long time, since we're all so damned fat. Good god, I'm not even joking. But that said, I would trust China even less than the US. Just some friendly advice from an American who actually supports the UN. Don't forget about the developing world. There are a lot of people in it.

And while New York City will always be the center of the universe, maybe it would make sense for the headquarters to be where all the other stuff is -- NATO, the Hague, so forth.

I think Switzerland should be the UN host nation. It is historically neutral, and I think we wouldn't have these petty squabbles if the Swiss were the ones arbitrating.
Yeah, just don't give them any of your money. You might not get it back.

I think Switzerland should be the UN host nation. It is historically neutral, and I think we wouldn't have these petty squabbles if the Swiss were the ones arbitrating.
Problem: land-locked country. I envision problems in the future, if not immediate future, where some delegates will be denied access through another country's land/air.

Better choice: The Netherlands. You already have the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Court, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, Europol and the Hague Academy of International Law and that's just in The Hague. Build a new U.N. building right by the coast and make the land neutral.

Perhaps the US should not be the UN host anymore...


They can move it to Paris anytime.

The Balkans was not part of the EU (changing now). The US is not vital to a future body though. It is currently seriously detrimental to the UN. Quite frankly an EU/China based versio without vetoes would be a far superior entity. See how the US manages with no veto on the world.


I imagine that we would manage quite well without veto power in the UN. Considering just how powerless the UN is in any real matter of world order, it wouldn't really make much difference. What would they do? Order a sanction with holes in it the size of the Gulf of Arabia if we didn't agree with them?

Having been a participant in UN led and organized operations, I feel no need to fear them. Any replacement organization, Chinese/EU built or otherwise will need to have more power and a lot less corruption than the present body in order to work. I don't see it happening with the present set of governing bodies worldwide, the US government notwithstanding. No one is going to be able to do it, short of the Biblical Antichrist prophesied to become the ruler of the entire world at some point in the future.

i would love to see the UN out of america. the UN has proven time and again that what they really want is power. then when all the world powers tell them to get lost, they get all mad and throw out threats that they can't enforce. they've shown over and over that they are a beaurocracy that can't get anything positive done (oil for food, rwanda) and then they expect the US to set up measures where americans are forced to pay taxes to the UN so they have more power. when we want to fight terrorists, they expect us to be forced to ask for thier permission. they expect us to do what is in their best interest. that's not our job. our job is to do what is in our best interest as a country. when the president of the united states of america, republican or democrat, decides on anything important, he is supposed to think about the needs of the american people, not the french people. not the chinese people. not the people of the third world. the united nations has decided that they are soveirgn and can tell america, or any other contry for that matter, what to do, and as americans, why should we care? when the US decided to take out saddam, the UN decided "we're important. you must ask our permission." then when they esscentially said no, we went anyways. why? because we're americans, not "citizens of the world". who gives a rip what some socialist europeans say?

I think Switzerland should be the UN host nation. It is historically neutral, and I think we wouldn't have these petty squabbles if the Swiss were the ones arbitrating.

Naah, the US would boycott it if they can't make the UN play in it's own home court. Hate the UN as much as they would like you to think, the US wants to keep it around because it can use it to force through their hand while maintaining the premise of a united (albeit shaky) front.

And does anyone find it funny that all the UN bashers seem to be forgetting that the UN was sort of founded by the US and the other allied powers after WWII? Something along the lines of for the "free world" if memory serves. Now of course it's not so much of the "free world" but "screw the world"

Lets see Cuba offers to help save lives after Katrina, they get the big 'DENIED'
They want to go to a UN conference. DENIED. No wonder they dislike us.
Sorry the US is lead by idiots.

Maybe we should disband the UN, which is considered the "World Democracy", considering many countries like Cuba are allowed but don't even hold democratic elections in their own country. I'm glad to see the Cuban speaker stopped from entering the US>=.

Naah, the US would boycott it if they can't make the UN play in it's own home court. Hate the UN as much as they would like you to think, the US wants to keep it around because it can use it to force through their hand while maintaining the premise of a united (albeit shaky) front.

And does anyone find it funny that all the UN bashers seem to be forgetting that the UN was sort of founded by the US and the other allied powers after WWII? Something along the lines of for the "free world" if memory serves. Now of course it's not so much of the "free world" but "screw the world"
Well, hey, the rest of the world thinks of themselves as being as good as the US. Some nerve, huh?

Perhaps the US should not be the UN host anymore...
I'll second that. Move them out of NYC and let someone else deal with the scofflaws who take advantage of diplomatic immunity.

I think Switzerland should be the UN host nation. It is historically neutral, and I think we wouldn't have these petty squabbles if the Swiss were the ones arbitrating.
They could fund construction of the building with the Jewish gold that the NAZIs gave them for safe keeping.

the UN has proven time and again that what they really want is power.

Sorry but.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

That was fucking hilarious, you need to get a job as a stand up comedian, this shit is priceless.

Sorry but.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

That was fucking hilarious, you need to get a job as a stand up comedian, this shit is priceless.
I've seen this from Oceandrive, and now from you. Since when does "Hahahaha!" work as a counter argument? At least try to show why you disagree with him.

Well, hey, the rest of the world thinks of themselves as being as good as the US. Some nerve, huh?

Of course. US sovereignity is better than other peoples sovereignity, that's why they can be invaded or destabilized at a drop of a hat. Not to mention US economy is better than other economies. That's why they can demand free trade and the removal of tariffs while subsidizing their own export goods.

Of course there was that proposal lately by the US to the UN which would more or less turn it into a rubber stamp. If memory serves, some of the items listed were the encouraging of the use of veto votes to not identify genocide as such as well as the removal of war as a final option to something along the lines of first option. I'm going to need to find the article again for the full list.


They could fund construction of the building with the Jewish gold that the NAZIs gave them for safe keeping.

Gold which they are returning are they not? Besides, it only proves that the Swiss are very neutral bankers. It was the State, and not a criminal organization that gave them the gold to keep was it not?

I've seen this from Oceandrive, and now from you. Since when does "Hahahaha!" work as a counter argument? At least try to show why you disagree with him.

I'm not disagreeing! On the contrary, I feel the UN should be actively trying to gain more power. Unfortunatley this conflicts with the US' current plans. Oh well, needed that power a little earlier then. Wait...

Gold which they are returning are they not? Besides, it only proves that the Swiss are very neutral bankers. It was the State, and not a criminal organization that gave them the gold to keep was it not?
To me neutrality isn't a virtue. Especially if you choose not to take sides in a fight between a genocidal, expansionist, racist regime and the rest of the world.

I'm not disagreeing! On the contrary, I feel the UN should be actively trying to gain more power. Unfortunatley this conflicts with the US' current plans. Oh well, needed that power a little earlier then. Wait...

The UN will never gain that type of Authority. Why? People don't want to give up soveriegnty. Yes in some areas they will but not in all areas. Until that happens, the UN really is nothing more than a paper tiger that doesn't even follow through on their own UN Resolutions.

Because of this failure, it can be disbanded!

So you would exclude a massive world economy from an international body out of spite? Kind of goes against the spirit of the UN.

As does denying diplomats access to it.


Personally I would sod the UN and rebuild the British Empire, but its not going to happen :P (Vote Lionstone)

Lets not forget that every last Nation in the UN is trying to subvert it for their own ends. Obvious solution? Hang all people in power on all sides. Much cheaper and helps prevent wars :D


I would like to see a PROPER world government, with its own military not just whover it can persuade to go along with it.

As does denying diplomats access to it.


Personally I would sod the UN and rebuild the British Empire, but its not going to happen :P (Vote Lionstone)

Lets not forget that every last Nation in the UN is trying to subvert it for their own ends. Obvious solution? Hang all people in power on all sides. Much cheaper and helps prevent wars :D


I would like to see a PROPER world government, with its own military not just whover it can persuade to go along with it.Do you really want to see a proper world government with it's own military? What if that government decides that the British, French, etc. all owe huge monetary reparations to their former collonies in Africa and Asia and decide to use the threat of economic sanctions and perhaps military force to collect the cash?

It's an extreme example, but a world government could conceivably violate the sovereignty of many nations with no concern for fairness and do so without any consequences to itself.

the u.s. has haqd a grudge with cuba since the cold war that was clearly stated when asked why we refused help for the hurricane disaster although i do not agree with their decision its not something we can all control

I find this funny especially since cuba offered so much aid to america post katrina (which to my knoledge hasn't been accepted yet)

the un should get out of the US because by being there it just seems to be linking the UN and the US even more then it is

also america should be kicked out untill they pay up all the money they owe

really the UN should be used to limit the ability of america to fuck the world up

I'd like to see the UN kick the US out. The UN could not even hand out bags of food in Africa without US support.
The UN is little more than a stage for dictators and communists to rattle on about the evil US. We need a word body more like the OAS, one that only grants membership to democratic nations and activly promotes freedom.

Castro should instead take the money to improve his own damned shit hole of a country rather than trying to make buddy-buddy with the United States.

Ah yes, the US makes the UN look bad. We really are at fault for the wide spread corruption and all. Don't know how, but apparently we are. Just like the hurricanes that have happened are all Bush's fault. Damn him and his weather control device!

We should be kicked out until we pay back funds?

...

...

Well, I'm tempted to laugh my ass off, but I'll be serious a moment.
Once the UN pays all its back parking tickets, fines, etc that they refuse to do, we'll consider paying our own disproportionate share of the UN's bloated bills.

And btw, the UN can't enforce jack shit without the United States. We have been its enforcers since it was founded. No country of importance will embargo us as that would screw up their countries. No country will attempt to use military power to influence us, because our military is larger and better equipped.

I'd like to see the UN kick the US out. The UN could not even hand out bags of food in Africa without US support.
The UN is little more than a stage for dictators and communists to rattle on about the evil US. We need a word body more like the OAS, one that only grants membership to democratic nations and activly promotes freedom.

I would love to see the UN kick out:

Russia
France
Britain
Spain
Germany
Iraq
Afghanistan
Eqypt
Syria
Saudi Arabia
Iran
China

And every other nation I can think of.

Under the UN Charter, the UN can be disbanded on the grounds that they have not lived up to their charter. And before you say that it is because it is the fault of the US, take a strong look at the UN. We aren't the only nation that holds things up.

We need a word body more like the OAS, one that only grants membership to democratic nations and activly promotes freedom.

I agree here. Only democratic nations allowed as well as those that promote freedom. That means that only a handful of nations (including the US) would be allowed in.

Good idea. How shall we go about setting it up?

Perhaps the US should not be the UN host anymore...
If it's led by Bush then yes.