What hasn't this guy screwed up?

[Ed]

Are you trying to tell me that the decisions made by the US in Iraq were any better. Last I read, you were despairing at how badly the whole concept has been handled.

One has nothing to do with the other. You are implyiny that because one lousey set of decisions was made somewhere along the line that gives a pass to anyone who makes a lousey decision today. That must be some sort of logical error, a strawman maybe?

I ask again: why does the inclusion of Libia, Syria, Cuba North Korea etc. confir legitimacy on anything?

 

[a_unique_person]

One has nothing to do with the other. You are implyiny that because one lousey set of decisions was made somewhere along the line that gives a pass to anyone who makes a lousey decision today. That must be some sort of logical error, a strawman maybe?

I ask again: why does the inclusion of Libia, Syria, Cuba North Korea etc. confir legitimacy on anything?

Because including the US and Great Britain doesn't seem to guarantee anything much either.

IIRC, the number of seats on the UN is about 140. The actual number of 'rogue' states is about a dozen. I don't believe they have that much influence.

 

[Ed]

I ask again: why does the inclusion of Libia, Syria, Cuba North Korea etc. confir legitimacy on anything?

 

[a_unique_person]

I thought I already said, they are a minority.

 

[Kerberos]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What hasn't this guy screwed up?

I've actually talked briefly with General Dallaire. I have the utmost respect for the man. He experienced a hell I could never imagine.

Maybe if he had actually bothered to save the 400,000 Rwandans he was assigned to protect from genocide he would have experienced less of a hell.

:rolleyess: Perhaps if you had bothered to check what happened or just had a basic working knowledge of how the world worked, you'd know or guess that he was refused authority to intervene.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rawanda
“the United Nations [meaning the security council] refused to authorize its peacekeeping operation in Rwanda at the time, led by Gen. Roméo Dallaire, to take positive action to bring the killing to a halt.”

But he seemed to place blame more on the inertia of the international community than anything else. Annan ostensibly made an effort. I think singling him out is no more justified than singling out the U.S. for failing to act.

Well, except for the fact that a). There WERE UN troops there for the specific purpose of preventing the genocide, and b). Annan decided to do nothing.

What on Earth gives you the idea that Annan commands UN troops?

That's quite a bit different than doing nothing because you aren't there. I mean, if today a woman is raped in Chicago, I, being thousands of miles away, am not to blame for not stopping it. But if I am the local sergeant who gets a 911 call from her and still does nothing...

Annan isn't and wasn't the local sergeant, he was the major of the city where the FBI failed to intervene, and had no authority to do anything.

Do you have any evidence that he "buried his head in the sand" or do you have other proposed actions he could have taken?

Start with shooting those who go out to kill with machetes, and making clear you will continue to do so. That's what an army is FOR, after all.

No they were there for a "monitoring mission".

The international community failed in Germany, failed in Croatia, failed in Cambodia, failed in Congo, failed in Iraq, failed in Rawanda, and is failing again in Darfur. No matter how many times we say "never again," we just don't seem to learn the lessons that would prevent the next genocide.

Ah, that's OK then. What's the point of blaming Annan for not stopping a genocide when he could? It's such a common failing, after all. It's not as if his job requires him to do something for peace and protection of innocents, after all.

I'm really suprised it's even possible to be that clueless about how the UN works, Annan could do didely squat to stop the Rawanda genocide. I suppose he could have issued orders for the Peacekeeping forces to stop the genocide, but those orders would have the exact same legal weight as If you’d issued them.

 

[Kerberos]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What hasn't this guy screwed up?

Now, how does Annan compare? Does he have greater or less control over the operations of the UN than the president has over the operations of the US government?

He's the chief administrator of the UN and as such he probably has some influence over its internal workings. He also serves as a mediator and as such he could have some influence, but as for direct power over UN policy he has none whatsoever. The Security Council is the organ that makes those kinds of decisions. With the partial exception of the EU, you can generally assume that no international organization has any authority independent of its member states on important issues.

 

[Kerberos]

So...um...WHAT exactly does the UN do, again?

A fair question, I'm far from an expert in the UN but as I see it the UN provides a framework for cooperation and joint actions, in the cases where the permanent members can agree on it. Fx it provides some agencies for monitoring agreements, which being independent of the individual states is presumably more impartial. It might also be more politically acceptable for other states to allow UN inspectors than US inspectors. As for the security council authorizing military action and such I see it as an attempt to reduce conflict in the world by making sure that there is at least an attempt to get the major powers on board or at least their acceptance for said military action.
I realize this is quite superficial, but as I said I'm no expert. Does the UN make a substantial difference then? Personally I tend to believe that it makes some, basically because most states, including the US, favours it's existence, which I take to mean they consider it's existence in their interest. I really don't know for certain though and I don’t subscribe to the belief that a war that France supports and that Germany opposes, is automatically more just than if the roles were reversed.

 

[Skeptic]

No they were there for a "monitoring mission".

Oh, that's OK then. It just wasn't their job to actually stop genocide. They were just there to look genocide, er, to "monitor" it. Which is, indeed, precisely what they did.

This reminds me of the Monty Python episode when the insurance agent explains to the claimant that his policy specifically says no claim he makes would be paid. If you just want to have insurance, he explains, why, this is a wonderful policy; if you actually want to be paid, that's another matter.

Same here. If you just want to have peace keeping forces, well, then, the UN is a wonderful organization. If you want forces that actually keep peace--by, for instance, lifting a finger to stop the genocide of hundreds of thousands of innocents--you'll have to look elsewhere.

 

[Kerberos]

Re: Re: Re: What hasn't this guy screwed up?

Technically no, morally yes... Maj. Gen. Romeo Dallaire - head of a U.N. peacekeeping mission in Rwanda - pleaded with Annan to intervene before the killings began. Mr. Annan refused to act, or to say anything publicly. Over the course of 100 days more than 800,000 people were killed because Annan buried his head in the sand.

See my answer to skeptic. Annan couldn't have acted anymore than you adn I could, he has no authority to do anything that would have helped. I supose he could have said something though I doubt it would have worked, but regardless the main responsibility must lie with those who had the actual power to act, not with those who might, at best, have asked those with the power to act why they weren't doing anything.

 

[Kerberos]

No they were there for a "monitoring mission".

Oh, that's OK then. It just wasn't their job to actually stop genocide. They were just there to look genocide, er, to "monitor" it. Which is, indeed, precisely what they did.

This reminds me of the Monty Python episode when the insurance agent explains to the claimant that his policy specifically says no claim he makes would be paid. If you just want to have insurance, he explains, why, this is a wonderful policy; if you actually want to be paid, that's another matter.

Same here. If you just want to have peace keeping forces, well, then, the UN is a wonderful organization. If you want forces that actually keep peace--by, for instance, lifting a finger to stop the genocide of hundreds of thousands of innocents--you'll have to look elsewhere.

What a suprise, I rebute you idiocy point by point and you pick a single line out of context. I supose I should know better than to leave such lines that you can use to avoid the point.

 

[Skeptic]

So, to summarize: just who in the UN is responsible for the Rwanda massacre not being stopped, and UN forced sitting on their hands doing nothing throughout it all? Well, everybody who has superiors blames his superiors, and claim he was powerless to do anything without their authorization... while the guys at the top, who have no superiors, claims that everybody knows they are just figureheads, gloridied clerks, and the real power lies with those below them; it's not like they had the guns themselves, is it ? So there was nothing they could do, either.

Gee, sounds familiar? Why yes--"Nuremberg Trials" come to minds. If the post-WWII trials transcripts are to be believed, the holocaust, enslavement of the Slavs, not to mention the very war, were all a giant misunderstanding: those who did the actual shooting had no choice because they were under orders, and those who gave the orders had no idea they are being obeyed in such a fashion--and anyway they were just clerks pushing paper; it's not like they had any guns, did they--the REAL power belonged to those below them.

This blame-shifting isn't new, and it is no more convincing now than it was then.

 

[Kerberos]

What we have here is the usual situation where the high and low both blame each other. The soldiers who failed to stop the genocide are not to blame, since they didn't have orders to do so. But their commanders are not to blame, either, since they didn't have the right instructions from the UN's political leadership. But the political leadership of the UN is not to blame, too--they are, after all, far removed from the action; it isn't as if they are with the troops or commanders on the grounds, so how the hell would they know what to do?

It's good to know that nobody was to blame for the UN forces sitting on their hands and allowing hundreds of thousands to be massacred, though. Naively, I thought that this showed something is wrong with the organization. But apparently I was misinformed, or as somebody said in this thread, I am "clueless about how the UN operates".

Ok try to pay attention this time, if I use any big words you don't understand just ask: The political leadership of the UN is responsible. Annan however is not, I repeat not the political leadership of the UN, he is the administrative head. The political leadership is the UN security council. Now is there any part of that you have any difficulty with?

 

[AWPrime]

Well, generally speaking, the western delegates are usually not murderers (or murderer's relatives getting a gig from the dictator-for-life in New York City), but they are usually still thieves, as the Oil-for-Food scandal shows. The exception to the general thievery seems to be the English-speaking democracies' delegates.

Wasn't primary the English-speaking democracies' delegates and companies that were involved with the oil for food?

 

[Kopji]

I think the blame really lies with the Hutu's, and maybe even with the current president of Rwanda who is busy pointing fingers in all directions.

I am bothered but not really surprised that a tragedy of this magnitude can be successfully blamed on the actions of a single person thousands of miles away, with no power that is not given to him by supporting countries.

The fault simply lies with those doing the killing, which would be the Rwandans themselves. After almost 100 years of ethnic division and not learning to live together, something snapped. The failure in Rwanda did not happen overnight, or can be blamed on one person.

 

[Ed]

Wasn't primary the English-speaking democracies' delegates and companies that were involved with the oil for food?

Russia, China and France.

 

[Skeptic]

Wasn't primary the English-speaking democracies' delegates and companies that were involved with the oil for food?

Nope. It was primary Russia, China, and France, with some from Germany as well.

I'm not saying no diplomat from the English-speaking democracies had been involved, but it was a continental/Russian operation for the most part.

 

[rikzilla]

So what is it needed for? The member states can't do that themselves? The UN has no ability to enforce anything, except by using its member states' militaries. What is the UN accomplishing that couldn't be done without it?

Well, it did accomplish the biggest fraud in history while helping the Husseins to stay current on the palace payments. It also managed the absurd accomplishment of seeing Libya chair the UN Human Rights Commission! No other entity could possibly even dream up such a joke! It's tantamount to making Michael Jackson the Chief Santa Barbara County Judge in charge of child molestation cases! Who else but the UN could set up a situation where the defendant and judge were the same entity...and do it without trace of irony??

-z

 

[Freakshow]

Are you trying to tell me that the decisions made by the US in Iraq were any better. Last I read, you were despairing at how badly the whole concept has been handled.

Decisions and actions are good or bad on their own merit. It doesn't matter who makes them. If everything in Iraq was the same as it is now, except the decision to go in had been made by the UN, would that make it any better of a decision? I don't think it would.

 

[Orwell]

Ok try to pay attention this time, if I use any big words you don't understand just ask: The political leadership of the UN is responsible. Annan however is not, I repeat not the political leadership of the UN, he is the administrative head. The political leadership is the UN security council. Now is there any part of that you have any difficulty with?

What he says.

Dallaire couldn't do much: not only he didn't have the authority, he didn't have the men nor the firepower...

Seeing the situation in Rwanda deteriorating rapidly, Dallaire pleaded for logistical support and reinforcements of 2,000 soldiers for UNAMIR. The UN Security Council refused, several journalists laying blame on a gun shy US President Bill Clinton's administration which refused to provide requested material aid after the failed US efforts in Mogadishu, Somalia. The Security Council further voted to reduce UNAMIR down to 260 men. Following the Belgian withdrawal, Dallaire consolidated his contingent of Canadian, Ghanian, and Dutch soldiers in urban areas and focused on providing areas of 'safe control'. His actions are credited with directly saving the lives of 20,000 Tutsis. There is speculation that Dallaire's forces deliberately sabotaged equipment to slow their UN-mandated withdrawal from the combat zone.

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

 

[a_unique_person]

Decisions and actions are good or bad on their own merit. It doesn't matter who makes them. If everything in Iraq was the same as it is now, except the decision to go in had been made by the UN, would that make it any better of a decision? I don't think it would.

I think that's the point, isn't it, the UN would never have sanctioned Iraq. I'm not saying every other member of the UN is a shining example of selfless enlightenment, but the collective opinion of the invasion was pretty well that it was doomed to end up where it is right now. A bloody standoff that is creating more terrorism, not reducing it.