RSS 2.0 FeedThe United Nations Is A Fraud
by Doug MataconisFor the past week, the world’s attention has been focused on the simmering crisis centered around 15 British Navy seamen taken into custody by Iran for allegedly violating Iranian territorial waters.
Let’s leave aside the fact that all of the available evidence demonstrates conclusively that the sailors were in Iraqi territorial waters when they were seized and consider for a moment this fact —- under international law, even if the boat that these sailors were on was inside Iranian territory, what they should have done what warn the boat away. Taking the men and women on the boat into custody was, and is, a violation of international treaties and about as close to an act of war as you can get.
Rather than immediately declaring war on Iran, the United Kingdom first, and quite properly, took it’s concerns to the United Nations, the supposed arbiter of international disbutes. The result was, you might say, far from satisfactory:
Britain escalated international pressure Thursday in its week-old confrontation with Iran over the seizure of 15 naval personnel, winning from the U.N. Security Council a statement of “grave concern” over the capture.
But in five hours of intense debate at the council, Britain failed to get tough language it proposed that blamed Iran and demanded the immediate release of the 14 men and one woman. Russia balked at wording that the British had been seized in Iraqi waters while serving under a U.N. mandate. China, Qatar, Indonesia, Congo and South Africa also resisted blaming Iran, which contends the British trespassed into its waters, according to U.N. diplomats.
The softened version, which is nonbinding, instead appealed to Tehran to provide consular access to the sailors and marines, which has so far been denied, and an “early resolution of this problem.”
I haven’t been a fan of the United Nations for a long time. And this is one of the reasons why. Even in the face of pure evil, and a clear violation of international law, the United Nations, once again, proves itself impotent in the face of evil.
Update: Apparently, it’s not just the U.N. that’s dropping the ball on this one, Amnesty International hasn’t even spoken out against what is clearly an illegal seizure.
Typical non-action on the part of the greatest fraud perpetrated on the citizens of the USA, namely the UN. This bunch of international thieves and malcontents should have been sent out of New York decades ago. The Brits will receive no justice until they create their own.
Comment by Leftybch — March 29, 2007 @ 11:32 pmAmen, Brother. We KNOW the UN doesn’t want to do ANYTHING to stop the flow of oil from the middle east….
Comment by Dixie Cagle — March 29, 2007 @ 11:35 pmI completely agree with this comment. what is the UN there for if not to resolve critical international adversities, and pull together the international community. We should now bypass the inept UN and do the same as the US did in the Irag war. Send in our SAS and get them out, leaving the UN to sit around scratching their beards.
action now !
Comment by graeme — March 29, 2007 @ 11:35 pmI am surprised why the United Nations doesn’t toe the line when UK citizens are affected what if they were inspecting another sovereign nations vessels in its territorial waters ? Have we not earned the right to be moral guardians of the law. For Gods sake it is our law and our organisation. All this comes of having barbarians on board.
Comment by Andrew Mohan Charles — March 29, 2007 @ 11:38 pmThe UN’s purpose is to protect the sovereignty of its member states.
Nothing more, nothing less. Read the charter, review the history. That’s the sole reason for its existence and the sole motive for its actions.
Expecting more of such an organization fits the definition of insanity — doing the same thing but expecting different results.
Comment by Eric — March 29, 2007 @ 11:39 pmColonialist pigs!
Comment by Andrew Mohan Charles — March 29, 2007 @ 11:40 pmDuh!
Comment by Wilhelm Altgenuch — March 29, 2007 @ 11:40 pmAt least half of all UN resolutions deal with the Palestinians whom we know don’t want peace, but rather the destruction of Israel.
Based upon the UN, one would think the Palestinians are the only problem the world has.
Interesting that suddenly “International law” is of interest: as you know, there is no international justice court, as one country has always opposed such.
Your “facts” are wrong: there is no evidence showing that these detainees were in Iraqi waters: at best, they were in contested waters — at worst, Iranian. Given that these soldiers were allegedly in a spying operation (and indeed, it’s clear that these operations were part of a sustained saber rattling / harassment policy), Iran has (much to your dismay) done nothing wrong.
Had this been an Iranian incursion into US (sorry, Iraqui) teritory, would your words be the same? probably now. Hip hip hypocrisy.
Comment by dimmer — March 29, 2007 @ 11:41 pmYour post is opinion and assumption, not fact. You assume that the event took place in Iraqi waters based on what the British claim, and discount what the Iranians claim. Why is that? You then state that what should be done under international law is to warn the boat away. Can you provide the statute under international law that is relevant to your statement? You then go on to state that taking the British sailors was a violation of international treaties. Can you provide a link to the international treaty between Iran and Britain that this action violates? And lastly, can you imagine what your United States would have done if an Iranian boat would have came anywhere near American waters? Again, your post is nothing more than opinion and assumption.
Comment by Kevin Jackson — March 29, 2007 @ 11:42 pmSorry, but…
This is trash.
Their disapproval proves the UN is doing just fine to me. I’d say a UN is a fraud if there was no democratic vote. The entire point of democracy is that EVERYONE GETS A SAY and we RESPECT other’s opinions, even if we don’t like them.
Just because they don’t agree with YOU doesn’t make them wrong. Insulting them because they do not agree with YOU… well I’m glad you’re not president or the US is going to turn even less democratic. Frankly I’m glad they voted to do so… This shows that the DEMOCRATIC system is at work. Just because they don’t act the way YOU want them to act doesn’t make them impotent… Otherwise, you might as well as turn the UN into a monarchy under your rule.
Comment by stre — March 29, 2007 @ 11:42 pmIn case everyone is wondering what all this hoopla is about? Well, it’s quite simple, keep baiting the Iranians into making critical political miscalculations, therby providing the “Allies” justifiable cause to unleash “Holy Hell” on the Persian Empire. Yep, you got it….Hasta La Vista to the so-called Iranian Nuclear Program!
Comment by A.V. — March 29, 2007 @ 11:42 pmThe UN should be abolished. If it ever gets to tax everyone on the planet then we are all in deep trouble.
Comment by uhm — March 29, 2007 @ 11:43 pmFirst of all, evil only exists in our imagination. We are all animals, biologically, not “good guys” and “bad guys”.
If you blame the UN for not doing enough to stop problems you don’t like, then the UN may make the excuse that it doesn’t have enough troups/hard-power. If we give the UN more hard power, then it may become more like a one-world-government. This may make it more “effective” at taking action, but it won’t make our liberties any safer. The United Nations SHOULD be weak; its whole purpose is NOT to solve our problems: its purpose is to facilitate dialogue between world powers, and non-government organizations. It has been somewhat successful at this.
I would prefer we stop critizing the UN and take more steps to initiate real dialogue with people with which we disagree.
-Paul from Texas, USA
Comment by Paul Phipps — March 29, 2007 @ 11:43 pmThe UN is dominated by ambitious countries seeking power, and wanting to see the existing powers fall. There is no interest in democracy or freedom amongst the majority of members.
Respect of the United States at the UN has always been based on our internal strength and resolve, which is now being destroyed by our own citizens and from within our own borders.
“The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is the most brutal wrongdoer.”
Comment by Patrick Henry — March 29, 2007 @ 11:43 pmTheodore Roosevelt
Unfortunately, this type of criticism usually stems from people who don’t quite understand why the United Nations was founded in the first place. Are you so isolated from the news media that you are still in denial about Iraq? Unfortunately, many of us predicted the outcome become the first plane landed there.
Back to the UN, it was partly founded as a world government, so asking the UN to attack Iran, would be a little like asking California to attack Texas (No pun intended, I’ve been to Texas, and I sometimes think I might be better off living in Iran)
Comment by Vince — March 29, 2007 @ 11:45 pmUnfortunately, this type of criticism usually stems from people who don’t quite understand why the United Nations was founded in the first place. Are you so isolated from the news media that you are still in denial about Iraq? Unfortunately, many of us predicted the outcome before the first plane landed there.
Back to the UN, it was partly founded as a world government, so asking the UN to attack Iran, would be a little like asking California to attack Texas (No pun intended, I’ve been to Texas, and I sometimes think I might be better off living in Iran)
Comment by Vince — March 29, 2007 @ 11:45 pmI hate to break it to you guys, but it is the US and the UK who declared war on Iran a while back. It has been years now that Bush and his poodle have been threatening Iran with possible military action. And by the way, there is no conclusive evidence that the British sailors were in Iraqi waters.
This said, I agree that the UN is a sham. It is primarily a tool to justify Israeli and US military actions against countries like Iraq, Lebanon and Serbia. Let us be honest here, the biggest violator of UN resolutions is Israel, closely followed by the US.
Comment by Alex — March 29, 2007 @ 11:46 pmThe UN is nothing but a corrupt forum for any second rate fascist country that wants to stand up and bash the United States and its allies.
I strongly support the U.S. withdrawing from the U.N. and evicting the U.N. from New York. Let those self-serving moral cretins meet somewhere more appropriate, like France or Belgium.
“U.N. Security Council,” what a joke.
Comment by David — March 29, 2007 @ 11:46 pmThe UN will evolve, but only after enough ordinance is dropped to make all the stiffs that sit in that chamber realize…..yes realize, they really do have a job to do, so stop snoozing and boozing, and get to work a…holes
Comment by A.V. — March 29, 2007 @ 11:48 pmA simple question….,
What gives the Iranians the right to think that they’re hip enough to handle nuclear weapons?
Heck, the technology is in it’s 6th decade, it’s old hat, and they’re still trying to master a centrifuge….really guys, give it up, would ya:)
Comment by A.V. — March 29, 2007 @ 11:52 pmThe UN is indeed a fraud! I think the old adage that “If you’re not part of the solution, you are part of the problem”, applies. Why do we suffer such deluded, perversity to reside on our shores, or anywhere else for that matter? I have heard it said that it is a useful diplomatic tool. I fail to see how. John Bolton, where are you?
Comment by R. Brock — March 29, 2007 @ 11:57 pmI stand corrected…make that its 7th decade
Comment by A.V. — March 29, 2007 @ 11:58 pmWhere was UN when Iraq was invaded..?? Where is UN now that Iraq is occupied and hundred of thousand lives lost..?? Where is UN when few developed countries are converting food into Oil ( bio-fuel )while the poor nations starve..?? Is it not time for the imbecilic war monger leaders to wake and see what they are doing to this world..?? The world would be a better place should we appoint Mr. Bugs Bunny as secretary general of UN along with Elmer Fudd as the president of USA… and give the veto powers to Mr. Daffy Duck…
Comment by Arshad — March 30, 2007 @ 12:09 amAV,
Yep, you got it….Hasta La Vista to the so-called Iranian Nuclear Program!
That would be cruel, forcing them to upgrade.
Regards, Don
Comment by Don Lloyd — March 30, 2007 @ 1:16 am“I hate to break it to you guys, but it is the US and the UK who declared war on Iran a while back.”
Seizure of the U.S. Embassy and subsequent holding of hostages, 1979.
Bombing of U.S. Embassy and Marine Barracks, Beirut, 1983.
Kidnapping and subsequent murder of CIA Station Chief, Beirut, 1984.
Bombing of Israeli Embassy in Argentina, 1992.
Bombing of USAF Barracks at Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia, 1996.
I’m pretty sure it was Iran that declared war on us.
Comment by mike — March 30, 2007 @ 2:09 pm…and I’m sure the P.O.W.s are being treated per the Geneva convention standards complete with a nice place to pray, no sleep deprivation, and without subjecting them to stress positions.
Comment by Stephen Littau — March 30, 2007 @ 6:14 pmIf any of us were Tony Blair, what WOULD or SHOULD we do to get the Iranians to free the British sailors and marines?
Comment by Richard — March 31, 2007 @ 12:33 amAs for the UN Security Council itself, it is not the UN itself that has failed. Instead, it is the nations of the world (and especially the veto powers on the Security Council) who have failed the UN.
Finally, recalling our American history, let’s remember how weak and ineffective our own national government was under our original form of government, i.e., The Articles of Confederation. Every state tried to be as independent as possible, while providing only minimum cooperation with the national government and the other states.
It was only after the Constitution was finally written and adopted that the USA really began to become a unified nation.
And, if we continually bypass or ignore the UN, then we’re back to the old tradition historical game of “balance of power”. That “game” has produced and then destroyed any number of nations and empires, e.g. the Portuguese, Spanish, French, German, and British “empires”. And that list doesn’t include all the other empires of world history, from the Persians, the Babylonians, the Mongols and even the Muslim “empire” from about 700 to 1500 A.D.\
One last fact of life we Americans seem reluctant to admit. . .we really don’t want to fight much anymore or in the foreseeable future. The average age of our population is 36 and getting older every year. Our net savings rate is on the negative side and we keep borrowing from the Chinese (among others) to finance our ever-growing national government’s debts; the “baby boom” generation is beginning to make its claims on the Social Security system that is increasingly overburdened with Medicare and Medicaid as every American tries to live as long as he or she can possibly live. . . while not producing anything!!!
Within 100 years, America will probably be eclipsed by the economic and political power of China and India. And Indonesia, Brazil and even Nigeria may be major players on the world scene.
Meanwhile, we don’t even want to draft our young people to defend their own country. Instead, we keep creating a professional (mercenary) army to defend an increasingly old, lazy, fat, soft population that just wants to “enjoy” their eats, collect useless “stuff” and watch more and more trash on TV.
We have probably 100 yearsto begin to create and get a decent system of world goverance based on law and not primarily force. If we don’t, we will (like the Romans?) eventually begin to lose battles (and troops) overseas and ultimately withdraw to our national borders. And then we could possibly be as limited a power as Great Britain is today.
If you were Tony Blair, what would you do to obtain the release of the Royal Navy’s sailors and marines?
Comment by Richard — March 31, 2007 @ 4:48 pmEveryone is criticizing his efforts, but no one has a really FEASIBLE answer!!!
I read a lot of criticisms about this situation and the roles of the UN. But I have not yet seen any reasonably effective solutions proposed to resolve the situation. Any real ideas out there? Or just a lot of hot air?????
Comment by Richard — April 1, 2007 @ 12:27 pmRichard, are you proposing that we give the UN teeth? If so don’t fret because Transnationalist are working hard to consolidate nations into continental unions like the EU. I bet at the end of it there will be a World Government cherry on top.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_union
Comment by uhm — April 1, 2007 @ 3:03 pm