UN failed to save 'hundreds of thousands of lives'

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Channel 4 News

Friday 22 August 2014 World

UN failed to save 'hundreds of thousands of lives'

In her final speech to the UN security council, UN human rights chief Navi Pillay says a focus on short-term interests stopped the group from preventing large scale human suffering.



In a stinging address to the 15-member body, Ms Pillay criticised the group's indecision and failure to act.

"Short term geopolitical considerations and national interests, narrowly defined, have repeatedly taken precedence over intolerable human suffering and grave breaches of and long term threats to international peace and security," she said.

"I firmly believe that greater responsiveness by this council would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives."

It was her final briefing after six years in her role as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and she said that crises in Syria, Afghanistan, Central African
Republic (CAR), Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Libya, Mali, Gaza, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan and Ukraine "hammer home" the international community's failure to prevent conflict.


Read more: http://www.channel4.com/news/united-nations-failure-cost-lives-navi-pillay-video

[merrily]

1. Once again, a very costly institution not doing what it is supposed to be doing.

Once again, a small group, living very well on our money (in the case of the UN, mostly our money), not fulfilling the purposes we were told it would fulfill.

Be it Congress, the Supreme Court, the D of J, the FDA, the FTC, the FTC or any other F agency, or the UN, I, for one, am sick of it. If I were not such a pacifist, I might turn anarchist.

League of Nations:

The League of Nations (abbreviated as LN in English, "Société des Nations" abbreviated as SDN in French) was an intergovernmental organisation founded on 10 January 1920 as a result of the Paris Peace Conference that ended the First World War. It was the first international organisation whose principal mission was to maintain world peace.[1] Its primary goals, as stated in its Covenant, included preventing wars through collective security and disarmament, and settling international disputes through negotiation and arbitration.[2] Other issues in this and related treaties included labour conditions, just treatment of native inhabitants, human and drug trafficking, arms trade, global health, prisoners of war, and protection of minorities in Europe.[3] At its greatest extent from 28 September 1934 to 23 February 1935, it had 58 members.

...........

After a number of notable successes and some early failures in the 1920s, the League ultimately proved incapable of preventing aggression by the Axis powers in the 1930s. Germany withdrew from the League, as did Japan, Italy, Spain, and others. The onset of the Second World War showed that the League had failed its primary purpose, which was to prevent any future world war. The League lasted for 26 years; the United Nations (UN) replaced it after the end of the Second World War on 20 April 1946, and inherited a number of agencies and organisations founded by the League.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations

United Nations

The United Nations (UN) is an intergovernmental organization established on 24 October 1945 to promote international co-operation. A replacement for the ineffective League of Nations, the organization was created following the Second World War to prevent another such conflict. At its founding, the UN had 51 member states; there are now 193. The UN Headquarters is situated in Manhattan, New York City and enjoys extraterritoriality. Further main offices are situated in Geneva, Nairobi and Vienna. The organization is financed by assessed and voluntary contributions from its member states. Its objectives include maintaining international peace and security, promoting human rights, fostering social and economic development, protecting the environment, and providing humanitarian aid in cases of famine, natural disaster, and armed conflict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations

Any questions?

[Kalidurga]

2. You can be an anarchist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-pacifism

There are a lot of different kinds of anarchists. I am not a pacifist per-se. Violence should always be a last resort, not a first, second, or third. It should be only for self-defense or defense of another person as well. I have stopped more fights with words than I can count, but if someone swings on me they will have a unique perspective on the sky. It's a longish article though the gist is that anarchy and pacivism are a natural fit, but there should be room for a variety of tacticts. I prefer non car burning and vandalism tactics myself.
I think that in the long run making ourselves less dependent on harmful corporations will do more to bring down bad corporations than vandalizing buildings ever will.

[merrily]

3. In reality, I don't think I can.

I am not sure what does work. But I don't have gobs of faith in non violent resistance.

BTW, car burning and vandalism is not anarchy, in my book. It's people being frustrated and hopeless and not knowing what the fuck to do to change society. Or maybe people being high and frustrated and hopeless. But, it's not anarchy in my book.

In my book, anarchy is something that results in profound social change, or at least aimed at that. If profound social change is possible at all anymore, I believe it will take organization and violence, not a pray in or a call your Congressional rep or getting a cop to arrest you or kill you.

But, maybe that's just me.

[Kalidurga]

4. I hope you are wrong

I hope I am wrong as well because I do think violence is going to happen whether it is necessary is open for debate. I am thinking that we need to have lots and lots of dialogue about reducing our dependence on corporations though. Some people barter, I would like to see that become more of a thing. Some people reduce, reuse, and don't buy in the first place which is also good. Community gardens would also be a great thing. I think right now there are a lot of things we can do that could put a dent in the wallets of bad corps. Of course at the same time we would need to support the good ones if they are out there.

[merrily]

5. I hope I am wrong, too, but, obviously, I don't think that I am or my view would change.

Using recycling and other means of limiting purchases is a good thing. So are community gardens. Boston has had one since WWII, although obviousy it is mostly symbolic now. Going local generally is also a good thing.

I also believe in economic boycotts (and tax strikes).

But. will that change America? And quickly enough to matter?

[Kalidurga]

9. It would change things rapidly if 280,000,000 did it

unfortunately the number will probably be much lower than that much much lower. I would be estatic if just 18 million people joined a movement like that to reduce our dependence on mass produced corporate goods. That isn't the only thing wrong with our economic system of course. I think corps are only going to change if they have to though.

[merrily]

10. A lot of things would change if 280,000,000 united instantly and acted as one.

Going back to my prior replies, though, I am speaking of what seems likely in reality. That does not seem to me to be likely in reality, especially when the side that wants it is not organized or funded or in power or in control of the media and the side that doesn't want has all those things on its side, plus the force of inertia.

[pampango]

6. The UN is not "mostly" funded by the US. We pay 22%. The most of any country.

Do we give up on the UN because the big powers - mostly the US and Russia - hamstring its effectiveness. Something tells me that those same powers (and others) will not be effective at doing what "a very costly institution not doing what it is supposed to be doing"?

"Short term geopolitical considerations and national interests, narrowly defined, have repeatedly taken precedence over intolerable human suffering and grave breaches of and long term threats to international peace and security," she said.

"I firmly believe that greater responsiveness by this council would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives."

I doubt that the US, Russia or other countries would have done anything to 'save hundreds of thousands of lives' in the absence of the UN.

Of course the changes necessary to make the UN effective are opposed by many because an effective UN would infringe on the 'national sovereignty' of countries. (That is why the republican base wants the US out of the UN, the WTO, the IMF and practically every other international organization that real - or imagined - power. Of course, the right is afraid that the UN is the precursor of their dreaded "One World Government".)

2012 Texas GOP Party Platform

United Nations – We support the withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations and the removal of U.N. headquarters from U.S. soil.

Law of the Sea – Adopted by the UN in 1982, we still oppose the Law of the Sea Treaty.

UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child ― We unequivocally oppose the United States Senate’s ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Cap and Trade – We oppose Cap and Trade (“Cap and Tax”).

International Organizations – We support U.S. withdrawal from the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization and the World Bank.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre/assets/original/2012Platform_Final.pdf

[CJCRANE]

7. I think the UN should be a genuine Planetary Parliament.

I'd like to see the whole world debate these issues not just a few powerful countries that play geopolitical football against each other.

[pampango]

8. While I agree, the idea of a Planetary Parliament is way to close to a One World Government for

the "national sovereignty" lobby - mostly on the right but with elements on the left as well.

Good luck with that idea!

[CJCRANE]

13. I'm thinking more of a debating chamber to start with.

Right now we're overwhelmed by MSM propaganda, we don't get to see what the rest of the world thinks.

[merrily]

11. Thank you for that important correction in my wording.

BTW, as to the 22%, do you know if that is on paper, or actually currency in the coffers? I don't know, but I do know that I have seen stories about what nations are supposed to pay to us or to the UN for various endeavors vs. what they actually end up paying. Of course you don't see the follow up stories, if and when they do pay.

Do we give up on the UN because the big powers - mostly the US and Russia - hamstring its effectiveness.

You say that as though the answer is self-evident. It is not self-evident to me. I am not saying that the answer should be yes and I am not saying that the answer should be no, saying only that the answer that I prefer does not leap out at me.

[malletgirl02]

18. The big powers do hamstring the UN

The big powers do hamstring the UN, because they are members of the UN Security Council, because they can veto anything that comes up in the UN chamber. So the the U.S. Russia who are both members of the UN Security Council, and have used their veto power are largely responsible for the ineffectiveness of the UN.

[merrily]

12. P.S. I disagree with this

I doubt that the US, Russia or other countries would have done anything to 'save hundreds of thousands of lives' in the absence of the UN.

I think economic sanctions, or whatever persuaded Russia, could have been done without maintaining a building in NYC and a huge, costly operation like the UN. It's not 1912 anymore. Among other things, since 1912 God made global videoteleconferencing and private jets.

I dont know how much happens because of debates in the UN. My suspicion, though, is, not much. I think, as with Congress, the decisions are made somewhere else and what happens on the floor is showboating and blustering.

For example, do you think any country based its decision about whether or not to support us in Iraq was based on Powell sitting there, waving around some pipes or whatever the hell those props were? I don't. I think the decisions were made by consultation of much smaller groups that could have occurred even if the UN never existed.

[CJCRANE]

14. I agree, but that was good theater.

I'm inclined to think decisions are made by a small group within NATO and a few of their allies.

What we're seeing unfold now has all been planned ahead.

Hence the leisurely vacations of western leaders who seem in no hurry to do anything urgent.

As Andy Card said "you don't roll out a new product in August".

What we're seeing now is just prologue to what is to come.

[merrily]

15. Was it good theater, though? Who was the intended audience?

(Hint, the only answers I will give even partial credit for are "no" and "Americans".)

So no matter what the "mission" was, it could have been "accomplished" without the ridiculously expensive UN. And even if was good theater, the ticket price was way too high.

As Andy Card said "you don't roll out a new product in August".

You know, I used to think it was unfortunate that the House can barely do anything between fundraising for elections that are held every two years. Now, I'm thinking, maybe we should hold them every year. Keep them out of D.C. entirely. Or, at least until we can get gerrymandering outlawed.

[Trillo]

16. On earth, "peace" has only been brought via sword.

Perhaps the future can be different, but its only a dream at this point.

[malletgirl02]

17. UN Security Council

My criticism is incorrect the UN Security Council was being criticized, as it should. The title of the post just mentioned the UN as a whole, and I thought the big power on the Big powers of the Security Council was being let off the hook.