NationStates Jolt Archive

Is the UN finally responding to what it needs to respond?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090127/wl_nm/us_rights_un_congo

GENEVA (Reuters) – The top U.N. human rights official Tuesday decried what she called a continuous stream of gross human rights abuses committed by the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay also expressed concern that fighting between Congolese and Rwandan forces against rebels in the North Kivu area was putting many civilians' lives at risk -- breaking international law.
"The violations committed by the LRA are grotesque," she said in a statement. "I'm also concerned that the joint military counter-operations, unless properly planned and executed, could lead to further human rights abuses being perpetrated against the civilian population who are, in effect, caught between the conflicting parties."

NSG: What are Human Rights?

According to Wikipedia, human rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights) are defined as: the "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled."

If we base our answers on this Wiki definition: Will the UN be able to, for once in history, stop the violation of civil rights in a member country before it's too late?

If we base our answers on this Wiki definition: Will the UN be able to, for once in history, stop the violation of civil rights in a member country before it's too late?

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

Short and long question: Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy?

Is the UN finally responding to what it needs to respond?

Yes, there ar a few more places that need attention to.

NSG: What are Human Rights?

According to Wikipedia, human rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights) are defined as: the "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled."


This ^


If we base our answers on this Wiki definition: Will the UN be able to, for once in history, stop the violation of civil rights in a member country before it's too late?

Probably not because they historically lack the initiative or the gall to do what is really needed. There is a reason nations use the threat of actual force to convince people to do things... it works. It at least works more often than sanctions that do nothing more than harm the people that are already suffering.

If we base our answers on this Wiki definition: Will the UN be able to, for once in history, stop the violation of civil rights in a member country before it's too late?

In the Congo, its already too late for millions. Plus they tried before. There'd be little point in going in again without a radical plan, and a good deal of local agreement.

Short and long question: Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy?

Well, historically, they lack the gumption to actually do what is necessary. They don't actually have the ability to project the kind of military force necessary to start helping people. There isn't, and hasn't been, much in the way of international desire to see anything done in Congo.

And lastly, in a war that has lasted almost without break since 1996, where an estimated 8 million people have already died due to warfare or the resulting disease and famine, where there have been over 400,000 reported cases of rape, "before it's too late" has long since passed.

Well, historically, they lack the gumption to actually do what is necessary. They don't actually have the ability to project the kind of military force necessary to start helping people. There isn't, and hasn't been, much in the way of international desire to see anything done in Congo.

Which is a pity.

And lastly, in a war that has lasted almost without break since 1996, where an estimated 8 million people have already died due to warfare or the resulting disease and famine, where there have been over 400,000 reported cases of rape, "before it's too late" has long since passed.

But doesn't it count they the UN is doing, at least, something?

But doesn't it count they the UN is doing, at least, something?

Talk is cheap and ineffective, especially to governments that don't listen.

Talk is cheap and ineffective, especially to governments that don't listen.

Which is why the UN needs to use its power and MAKE them listen.

But doesn't it count they the UN is doing, at least, something?

Talking isn't doing, unfortunately. Decrying and expressing concern do not save lives. People are still dying from a conflict that has its roots in another UN failure in Rwanda.

But doesn't it count they the UN is doing, at least, something?

No. If you can't be bothered, or are incapable, of doing something decisive, DON'T DO ANYTHING. You'll just be adding to the confusion and making it all the harder for someone to sort out the mess in the end.

Which is why the UN needs to use its power and MAKE them listen.

The UN HAS no power. It can only act when the nations that form it lend it some of theirs.

Ultimately, the UN was never made to be a world government, and isn't one. If it and it's boosters would stop trying to be and get on with what they CAN do, it would be much more effective.

The UN are doing a good job of bolting the stable door after the horse has gone.

Too little too late UN....shame on you

The UN HAS no power. It can only act when the nations that form it lend it some of theirs.

Ultimately, the UN was never made to be a world government, and isn't one. If it and it's boosters would stop trying to be and get on with what they CAN do, it would be much more effective.

I consider the UN to be a toothless lion. Sure it can look scary but its mostly harmless in the end, but only if you forget that it also has claws; the right leadership could get member states to work together.

I consider the UN to be a toothless lion. Sure it can look scary but its mostly harmless in the end, but only if you forget that it also has claws; the right leadership could get member states to work together.

Sure. But "The right leadership" doesn't need the UN to do it. There were plenty of good coalitions and aliances to do things both good and bad long before there was a UN - or even a League of Nations.

Sure. But "The right leadership" doesn't need the UN to do it. There were plenty of good coalitions and aliances to do things both good and bad long before there was a UN - or even a League of Nations.

Don't change that the UN needs the right leadership, which is what I am saying.

I consider the UN to be a toothless lion. Sure it can look scary but its mostly harmless in the end, but only if you forget that it also has claws; the right leadership could get member states to work together.

The downside being that this is a spectacularly rare situation, especially when the country in question has lots of raw materials. These days, it's China more than anyone who's most notorious for turning a blind eye to egregious human rights abuses in order to secure resources from the developing world; the US and USSR might have been bad, but the PRC takes it to a whole other level.

Truth is, unless you were to eliminate or enable an override of veto power on the Security Council very little will be possible. I think that would have to be a fundamental reform of any successor to the UN because it basically renders it toothless and no nation with that kind of power will act in any other way than its own interests. Personally, I would flat-out eliminate the council and replace it with a voting system based upon a combination of economic, political and demographic factors to ensure the nations most committed to human rights and economic development in their own countries get the biggest say on all issues.

Human rights, democracy and personal freedoms are flat out inseparable from economic prosperity and quality of life. This is a proven fact based upon all empirical evidence around the globe and I think it's time we give organizations like the UN more power to enforce this desirable and necessary outcome.

Don't change that the UN needs the right leadership, which is what I am saying.

I getcha. And don't get me wrong; I believe the world is a better place with the UN in it. I just feel people put too much weight on the UN that, as an organization, the UN isn't built to handle. It's great for getting nations to talk through difficulties, and parts of it, like the WHO and UNESCO, are wonderful, but it's neither equipped nor capable of dealing with a situation like the Congo. That is going to require exactly what it looks to be getting - a military force to stabilize the situation, disarm the factions and turn a raving mess into something resembling a nation again.

The downside being that this is a spectacularly rare situation, especially when the country in question has lots of raw materials. These days, it's China more than anyone who's most notorious for turning a blind eye to egregious human rights abuses in order to secure resources from the developing world; the US and USSR might have been bad, but the PRC takes it to a whole other level.

Truth is, unless you were to eliminate or enable an override of veto power on the Security Council very little will be possible. I think that would have to be a fundamental reform of any successor to the UN because it basically renders it toothless and no nation with that kind of power will act in any other way than its own interests. Personally, I would flat-out eliminate the council and replace it with a voting system based upon a combination of economic, political and demographic factors to ensure the nations most committed to human rights and economic development in their own countries get the biggest say on all issues.

Human rights, democracy and personal freedoms are flat out inseparable from economic prosperity and quality of life. This is a proven fact based upon all empirical evidence around the globe and I think it's time we give organizations like the UN more power to enforce this desirable and necessary outcome.

I totally agree.

Don't change that the UN needs the right leadership, which is what I am saying.

Perhaps, as many have said before, the UN has reached the end of its utility.

No

I have two reasons:

First is because they will use the age old cry of the oppressor. This is a matter of internal security. We thank you for your interests in this matter but this I am afraid is an internal matter.

Second is because nations have Sovereignty which tends to trump Human Rights. Sad that this can occur in this day and age.

No

I have two reasons:

First is because they will use the age old cry of the oppressor. This is a matter of internal security. We thank you for your interests in this matter but this I am afraid is an internal matter.

Second is because nations have Sovereignty which tends to trump Human Rights. Sad that this can occur in this day and age.

That's why, as sad as it may sound, perhaps the UN has reached the end of its useful life.

No

I have two reasons:

First is because they will use the age old cry of the oppressor. This is a matter of internal security. We thank you for your interests in this matter but this I am afraid is an internal matter.

Second is because nations have Sovereignty which tends to trump Human Rights. Sad that this can occur in this day and age.

It's hardly an internal matter. It's a regional war, with Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, and various Tutsi-aligned forces on one side, and Namibia, Zimbabwe, Angola, Chad, and various Hutu-aligned forces on the other side. It's an extension of the larger Tutsi vs. Hutu conflict that has scarred the African Great Lakes region for fifty years.

The downside being that this is a spectacularly rare situation, especially when the country in question has lots of raw materials. These days, it's China more than anyone who's most notorious for turning a blind eye to egregious human rights abuses in order to secure resources from the developing world; the US and USSR might have been bad, but the PRC takes it to a whole other level.

Truth is, unless you were to eliminate or enable an override of veto power on the Security Council very little will be possible. I think that would have to be a fundamental reform of any successor to the UN because it basically renders it toothless and no nation with that kind of power will act in any other way than its own interests. Personally, I would flat-out eliminate the council and replace it with a voting system based upon a combination of economic, political and demographic factors to ensure the nations most committed to human rights and economic development in their own countries get the biggest say on all issues.

Human rights, democracy and personal freedoms are flat out inseparable from economic prosperity and quality of life. This is a proven fact based upon all empirical evidence around the globe and I think it's time we give organizations like the UN more power to enforce this desirable and necessary outcome.

I agree. I would add it always comes down to "What are you going to do about it?"

Are we going to risk war over human rights abuses over there own people. I think the people of those respected nations need to rise up. If they start the ball rolling we would be twice as likely to get involved.

It's hardly an internal matter. It's a regional war, with Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, and various Tutsi-aligned forces on one side, and Namibia, Zimbabwe, Angola, Chad, and various Hutu-aligned forces on the other side. It's an extension of the larger Tutsi vs. Hutu conflict that has scarred the African Great Lakes region for fifty years.

Sorry for my lack of information. Then they will switch over to. Ahem.

This is a war between several sovereign nations. Sometimes bad things happen in war. Sometimes unintended casualties occur. This is in no way based on ethnicity of the combatants.

Or whatever they are pissed at. You get the idea it is spin doctoring. It is also very wrong.

Perhaps, as many have said before, the UN has reached the end of its utility.

Possibly... after all it was organized to police the world and doesn't have any police.

Possibly... after all it was organized to police the world and doesn't have any police.

My question is: Now that it seems the UN is useless, should another organization be created to take its place? If so, what can be done differently? Should the world even bother?

My question is: Now that it seems the UN is useless, should another organization be created to take its place? If so, what can be done differently? Should the world even bother?

How about the next one not have a security council, especially not one that consists of nations with opposing agendas that for all practical purposes hate each other.

How about the next one not have a security council, especially not one that consists of nations with opposing agendas that for all practical purposes hate each other.

Mybe that will eventually be the final outcome. Opposing agendas do not help with preventing abuse and human rights' infractions. Woe unto us that we do not know how to do team-work.:(

The issues are complex. People like to complain about how the UN is unable to prevent human rights abuses or react quickly enough to intervene. However, the UN is not a world government, or a global security force...nor do I think most nations want it to be either of those things. National sovereignty take precedence, and the idea is that as much as possible, internal issues need to be solved internally.

The UNHCHR is not the Security Council, and only the Security Council can pass resolutions allowing the use of force to intervene in matters such as these...and of course you have the five countries with veto powers taking different positions based on personal interest. The UN General Assembly can pass resolution after resolution on an issue, but none of those resolutions are binding on member states. The High Commissioner for Human Rights can issue report after report...but ultimately the people who need to be making the decision to move on human rights abuses, are the citizens and leaders of the UK, the USA, France, Russia and China.

Human rights violations? In the Congo? Surely you jest, Ms Pillay.

That's why, as sad as it may sound, perhaps the UN has reached the end of its useful life.

At what point would you suggest it was more useful than it is today?

At what point would you suggest it was more useful than it is today?

Korea?

the UN has already done this numerous times no?

either way anything the UN can do (which at this point I guess is taking off and nuking the site from orbit) would be a breach of what it was actually designed to do which is mostly talk and pressure peace treaties with the threat of sanctions

Too little too late UN....shame on you

its not like the UN hasn't been in the Congo for a rather long time now its just that the horse happens to be a shire horse

the right leadership could get member states to work together.

so what we are looking for is the anti-Christ who can appeal to the leadership of every nation on Earth through bribes I presume?

what I'm getting at is the UN isn't an office needing innovative management ideas its more like a tree house club

Korea?

As a proxy for US foreign policy?

The High Commissioner for Human Rights can issue report after report...but ultimately the people who need to be making the decision to move on human rights abuses, are the citizens and leaders of the UK, the USA, France, Russia and China.

I don't know are you suggesting we commit huge numbers of troops to a quagmire like the Congo?

so what we are looking for is the anti-Christ who can appeal to the leadership of every nation on Earth through brides I presume?

what I'm getting at is the UN isn't an office needing innovative management ideas its more like a tree house club

If you think that that kind of thing is true than I guess so.

the right leadership could get member states to work together.

No. Because there is no possibility for 'leadership' in a plenary system of representation (one nation, one vote on the General Assembly), and a Security Council that is inherently divided by the political interests of the five permanent members. You are never going to get those five nations to 'get together' under a single leader. Ever.

As a proxy for US foreign policy?

So, the UN is subjected to a catch-22 policy for foreign intervention?

No. Because there is no possibility for 'leadership' in a plenary system of representation (one nation, one vote on the General Assembly), and a Security Council that is inherently divided by the political interests of the five permanent members. You are never going to get those five nations to 'get together' under a single leader. Ever.

The right kind of leadership, aka the right leaders in the world's 'most powerful' nations.

I don't know are you suggesting we commit huge numbers of troops to a quagmire like the Congo?

What I'm suggesting is that we stop blaming the UN, because the UN is ultimately only able to do anything if the five permanent members of the Security council WANT to do anything. The ultimate decision to intervene militarily is in the hands of those five. Citizens of one of those states who want there to be intervention, need to make it known to their leaders.

Human rights violations? In the Congo? Surely you jest, Ms Pillay.

:confused:

At what point would you suggest it was more useful than it is today?

It has been useful cleaning landmines, preventing nuclear proliferation, promoting development, promoting women's well being, inproving goobal-trade relations, generating support for the world-wide well-being of children, ect.

http://www.un.org/un60/60ways/pk.html

But I conceed that, when it comes to preventing the violation of human rights in affected, member countries, it has failed miserably.

:confused:



It has been useful cleaning landmines, preventing nuclear proliferation, promoting development, promoting women's well being, inproving goobal-trade relations, generating support for the world-wide well-being of children, ect.

http://www.un.org/un60/60ways/pk.html

But I conceed that, when it comes to preventing the violation of human rights in affected, member countries, it has failed miserably.

It might be useful for you to separate the various UN organisations from the Security Council. Under the UN Charter, only the Security Council has the power to intervene militarily to 'ensure interntional peace and security'. Other UN bodies can access vast resources (human, financial and otherwise) to fulfill their mandate that may actually help create more lasting stability than military intervention ever could.

It's understandable that people get fed up with the UN because of the Security Council's inability to get their shit together and do something about immediate human rights abuses, but scrapping the entire system is short-sighted. The bulk of UN organs exist outside of the Security Council and have been able to organise on a level that has been unmatched by any oranisation other than the WTO in terms of international participation. Unlike the WTO, those UN organs are not focused only on trade.

It might be useful for you to separate the various UN organisations from the Security Council. Under the UN Charter, only the Security Council has the power to intervene militarily to 'ensure interntional peace and security'. Other UN bodies can access vast resources (human, financial and otherwise) to fulfill their mandate that may actually help create more lasting stability than military intervention ever could.

It's understandable that people get fed up with the UN because of the Security Council's inability to get their shit together and do something about immediate human rights abuses, but scrapping the entire system if short-sighted. The bulk of UN organs exist outside of the Security Council and have been able to organise on a level that has been unmatched by any oranisation other than the WTO in terms of international participation. Unlike the WTO, those UN organs are not focused only on trade.

Which is why I made the distinction.

Maybe the Security Council should be disbanded or reassessed.

Which is why I made the distinction.

Maybe the Security Council should be disbanded or reassessed.

Pragmatically, the amending formula of the UN Charter would make it nearly impossible for any real change to be made to the Security Council unless somehow, miraculously, the five permanent members actually agreed that it should be so.

I'd like to see an end to the veto power. A special majority should be enough. There should be an expansion of the permanent membership...some have argued that rather than add new nations (like Japan, or India), that there should be some system of rotating regional representation. Such as perhaps one permanent member (or two) representing Latin America, etc.

I think it's still important that we have a system in place to access military strength in order to intervene in cases of extreme human rights abuses...but we do need to find a way around the historical gridlock in the Security Council that has prevented this from actually working.

The other option is to continue turning to regional organisations like NATO to do what the Security Council cannot, or is unwilling to do. Ultimately, I'm not really sure that either system 'works'.

Pragmatically, the amending formula of the UN Charter would make it nearly impossible for any real change to be made to the Security Council unless somehow, miraculously, the five permanent members actually agreed that it should be so.

Which history has shown us time and time again it's nearly impossible.

I'd like to see an end to the veto power. A special majority should be enough. There should be an expansion of the permanent membership...some have argued that rather than add new nations (like Japan, or India), that there should be some system of rotating regional representation. Such as perhaps one permanent member (or two) representing Latin America, etc.

That sounds wise. It would also help with the frequency the US uses the veto to suit its agenda. Besides that, it gives member nations equality where it comes to representation and decision-making.

I think it's still important that we have a system in place to access military strength in order to intervene in cases of extreme human rights abuses...but we do need to find a way around the historical gridlock in the Security Council that has prevented this from actually working.

For that the rotation of regional representation could help.

The other option is to continue turning to regional organisations like NATO to do what the Security Council cannot, or is unwilling to do. Ultimately, I'm not really sure that either system 'works'.

Yeah. And the problem is that there's no alternative, right now, to turn to. It's either the UN or NATO.

That sounds wise. It would also help with the frequency the US uses the veto to suit its agenda. Besides that, it gives member nations equality where it comes to representation and decision-making.I don’t actually think the US is any more guilty of this than say, Russia or China, to be honest.


Yeah. And the problem is that there's no alternative, right now, to turn to. It's either the UN or NATO.
Though there are more regional bodies now that could possibly create some sort of regional force to ensure internal peace and security...I’m thinking specifically of the OAS, the EU, and the AU.

I don’t actually think the US is any more guilty of this than say, Russia or China, to be honest.

Agreed.

Though there are more regional bodies now that could possibly create some sort of regional force to ensure internal peace and security...I’m thinking specifically of the OAS, the EU, and the AU.

Perhaps regional forces would fare better. These can tackle the immedate treats to human rights violations and the like without having to wait for a decision from an international body.

There's a good reason nobody's going to intervene. Nobody wants to be the US.

There's a good reason nobody's going to intervene. Nobody wants to be the US.

Please expand.

Please expand.

If you intervene, you'll cop that "You're imperialist warmongers" stuff.

If you intervene, you'll cop that "You're imperialist warmongers" stuff.

I think that unilateral military intervention should always be regarded with intense suspicion by the international community. The entire point of trying to come up with regional or global solutions to these things is to approach these issues from an international perspective, which is supposed to avoid the particular biases and agendas of the various parties to the action.

It's the nature of the system.

The same people who like to whine and bitch that the United Nations is impotent and ineffective are the very same people who would howl and bitch even louder if the United Nations had more bite to it... say like its own standing military force that could intervene in whatever crisis it deemed serious enough to do so in.

It's basically a case of the Permanent Security Council Members wanting their cake and eating it too. And a whole bunch of corrupt nations that figured it out as well and go for the crumbs.

Possibly... after all it was organized to police the world and doesn't have any police.
No. It's a place to talk, that's all. It is useful in that respect, as long as you don't expect it to be anything more than what it is. Actual "policing" of the world requires that nations with sufficient power to do so get talked into doing it. That was likewise true before the UN or the League existed, but talk-shops back then (called "the Congress of the Powers") were only held sporadically and only included a few nations from Europe.