Is the UN Security Council...a peacemaker???

(Off the top of my head, too early in the morning, before the coffee, and without any research.....)

I believe that you would find the overt mission of UN Security Council to be peacekeeping, not peacemaking. To peacekeep, it needs the two (or more) belligerent sides of the conflict to want peace. Think Cyprus. Making peace is a totally different ballgame, and one that I can't think of a single instance of success. The UN is under considerable strain to become a peacemaker, but even NATO backs away from that role.

Suggested reading: Shake Hands with the Devil, by Romeo Dallaire (someone who has been in the middle of a failed UN mission)

A quick google search on the UN and its missions may give you more information ... at least until the smart people show up.

0 Replies

The UN is neither a peacekeeping nor peacemaking organization. It is basically an ineffective high priced debating society taking up valuable space in NYCity.

0 Replies

The UN is basically set up to avoid major conflict like WWI and WWII so the major military powers were deliberately included in the Security Council so none of them would takes sides as they would talk among themselves. They cannot stop regional skirmishes as neighboring countries will always fight. The UN has successfully avoided world wars so far.

0 Replies

I have absolutely no confidence in the UN in anything they do. They had Iraq on the human rights committee while saddam was murdering thousands of his own people. Of course some in the UN had an interest in keeping Saddam happy, they were getting rich off the oil for food program. They also sat on their laurels while Saddam broke 17 UN resolutions.
The UN is corrupt & useless. Time for them to set up shop in some third world country, where most of them come from.

0 Replies

Israel broke a lot of UN resolutions. It is a creation of the United States which has been out-maneuvered.

0 Replies

so none of you can think of at least ONE case which the UN was a peaceMAKER? in recent years and decades??

0 Replies

Depends on what you mean by "peacemaking".

Maybe you could give an example or an explanation of what you mean, then somebody could point you to an UN mission that achieved something along those lines.

0 Replies

vonderjohn wrote:

so none of you can think of at least ONE case which the UN was a peaceMAKER? in recent years and decades??

That is because you are asking for something that has never happened.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

vonderjohn wrote:
so none of you can think of at least ONE case which the UN was a peaceMAKER? in recent years and decades??

That is because you are asking for something that has never happened.

Has any entity, be it an organization, a nation or a coalition of nations acted as "peacemaker"? What is a "peacemaker" anyways? For example, were the States acting as a peacemaker when they dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Is that what the term "peacemaker" stands for? What about the Korea War? Was that "peacemaking"? What about Vietnam, or Iraq I & II?

I think it's difficult to talk about how the UN failed or succeeded in "making peace" without defining the term first.

0 Replies

All i know about the UN is, when is criticizes Palestinian Arabs it's 'relevant'. When it criticizes Israel its 'irrelevant'.

0 Replies

Zippo wrote:

All i know about the UN is, when is criticizes Palestinian Arabs it's 'relevant'. When it criticizes Israel its 'irrelevant'.

Baseds upon your criteria it must be irrelevantall of the time. Since it never criticizes the Arabs and always criticizes Israel.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Zippo wrote:
All i know about the UN is, when is criticizes Palestinian Arabs it's 'relevant'. When it criticizes Israel its 'irrelevant'.

Baseds upon your criteria it must be irrelevantall of the time. Since it never criticizes the Arabs and always criticizes Israel.

Now, that's not true, is it? It's obvious you don't like the UN, but that's disingenuous, au.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

au1929 wrote:
Zippo wrote:
All i know about the UN is, when is criticizes Palestinian Arabs it's 'relevant'. When it criticizes Israel its 'irrelevant'.

Baseds upon your criteria it must be irrelevantall of the time. Since it never criticizes the Arabs and always criticizes Israel.

Now, that's not true, is it? It's obvious you don't like the UN, but that's disingenuous, au.

That I believe the UN is an ineffective debating society there is no doubt. . However so too is it's bias against the State of Israel. The only nation that stands on Israel's side is the US. The UN turns a blind eye to the suicide bombings of buses, Pizza parlors and etc. as well the incoming missiles from Arab territories. And only recognizes and condemns the action Israel takes in retaliation and to protect it's citizens.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

That I believe the UN is an ineffective debating society there is no doubt. . However so too is it's bias against the State of Israel. The only nation that stands on Israel's side is the US. The UN turns a blind eye to the suicide bombings of buses, Pizza parlors and etc. as well the incoming missiles from Arab territories. And only recognizes and condemns the action Israel takes in retaliation and to protect it's citizens.

I think the effectivity of the UN is well worth a discussion.

However, I think you're wrong in accusing the UN of turning a blind eye to what's going on in the Middle East. Of course it's comparatively easy to address a nation and a democratically elected government. How do you, in comparison, address an organization like Hezbollah? And doesn't talking to them mean you recognize them?

Here, let's go back to the recent hostilities between Hezbollah and Israel. Here is what Jan Egeland, UN emergency relief coordinator, had to say about Hezbollah:

Quote:

"Consistently, from the Hezbollah heartland, my message was that Hezbollah must stop this cowardly blending ... among women and children," he said. "I heard they were proud because they lost very few fighters and that it was the civilians bearing the brunt of this. I don't think anyone should be proud of having many more children and women dead than armed men."

Sounds like criticising "the Arabs" to me.

And what should the UN do instead of "turning a blind eye", au? Send peacekeeping troops into Israel and control every bus and car to make sure that no suicide bomber blows himself up somewhere?

And re the support for Israel and the States being the only nation supporting Israel: does "supporting" someone mean you will never, ever criticise him? Does that mean that you are not supporting the United States when you criticise the war in Iraq, for example? Isn't that a little bit simplistic?

And, if the US are the only nation supporting Israel, why then did the US not volunteer to send peacekeeping troops for the UNIFIL mission?

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Zippo wrote:
All i know about the UN is, when is criticizes Palestinian Arabs it's 'relevant'. When it criticizes Israel its 'irrelevant'.

Baseds upon your criteria it must be irrelevantall of the time. Since it never criticizes the Arabs and always criticizes Israel.

You're wrong.

Quote:

The Secretary-General condemns the attacks by Hizbollah across the Blue Line, which resulted in Israeli deaths and injuries, and the capture of two Israeli soldiers. This violent act is a blatant breach of Security Council resolutions 425, 1559, 1655 and 1680.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sgsm10563.doc.htm

Quote:

And, if the US are the only nation supporting Israel, why then did the US not volunteer to send peacekeeping troops for the UNIFIL mission?

What he means is the US is supporting Israel by giving them free-pass, free-money, free-veto, free-weapons to kill Arabs. Thats the type of 'support' they require.

0 Replies

How many times has the UN voted upon resolutions to condemn Israel with the US being the only nation to vote against the resolutions. Now lets take the other side of the coin. How many times has the UN voted or even introduced resolutions condemning the Palestinians or any other Arab entity who was attacking Israel?
Am I surprised of course not. Considering how many nations members of the UN are Moslem dominated. As well as how many [not Moslem nations] have a long history of anti-Semitism.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

au1929 wrote:
vonderjohn wrote:
so none of you can think of at least ONE case which the UN was a peaceMAKER? in recent years and decades??

That is because you are asking for something that has never happened.

Has any entity, be it an organization, a nation or a coalition of nations acted as "peacemaker"? What is a "peacemaker" anyways? For example, were the States acting as a peacemaker when they dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Is that what the term "peacemaker" stands for? What about the Korea War? Was that "peacemaking"? What about Vietnam, or Iraq I & II?

I think it's difficult to talk about how the UN failed or succeeded
in "making peace" without defining the term first.

Was the US acting as a peacemaker when it dropped the Atomic bombs. It sure was as evidenced by the peace it quickly brought. :wink:
As for Viet Nam and Iraq. In my opinion they were acts of stupidity.

Regarding Iraq 1 and Korea. In both instances tghe US was acting as a peace keeper since they were defending nations that had been attacked by their neighbors.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

How many times has the UN voted upon resolutions to condemn Israel with the US being the only nation to vote against the resolutions. Now lets take the other side of the coin. How many times has the UN voted or even introduced resolutions condemning the Palestinians or any other Arab entity who was attacking Israel?
Am I surprised of course not. Considering how many nations members of the UN are Moslem dominated. As well as how many [not Moslem nations] have a long history of anti-Semitism.

Well, to be fair, the block that voted for resolutions in favour of the PLO and to condemn Israel was rather a mix of Soviet, Arab and Third World countries.

There's a lot that can be said about the structural deficits of the UN. The Security Council alone is in no way representative for the members of the United Nations. The five permanent members - the USA, Russia, China, France and Britain - representing what, exactly? Why France and Britain? Why not a single African or South American country? What about Australia?

But apart from that, and on the topic of this thread: what exactly would your definition of "peacemaking" be?

0 Replies

Zippo wrote

What he means is the US is supporting Israel by giving them free-pass, free-money, free-veto, free-weapons to kill Arabs. Thats the type of 'support' they require.

I have little doubt you would rather see the money and arms going to the Arabs inorder that they may destroy the state of Israel and kill all the Jews living there. As many have vowed to do. No doubt you support the Iranian president in his vow to do just that.

0 Replies

Is the UN Security Council...a peacemaker???

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know