Talk:United Nations/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Countries or sovereign states

This page and the country page seems to confuse coutry with sovereign state? There are lots of recognised countries like Wales or Scotland which have their own "national football teams" and are universally referred to as "countries" for example in sport (and I reluctantly acknowledge that football is pretty well the only really global soprt) but which are not in the UN in their own right as they are not sovereign states. --BozMo|talk 09:31, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

List of countries that are not members of the UN?

Somebody should make it...

There aren't many that are undisputedly states. Taiwan, the Holy See..I cannot think of any others. --64.12.116.67 17:17, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Missing history?

There seems to be some history missing, or at least I think there is, about Canada's role in the development of the UN. I may be totally out to lunch but I'll see if I can find any references. It'll be something about the formation of the Peace Keepers, Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld and Lester Pearson (Secretary for External Affairs of Canada).

confirmed

I don't have time at the moment to add it, but there is reference[1] to it on the UN site.

UN reform

>>In the United States, the term is frequently used to mean "make changes that will reduce the UN's power to hamper the United States", while outside the United States the term is usually a code for "make changes that will increase the UN's power over countries, including the United States".<<

I removed this paragraph because I think it's inaccurate, biased, or perhaps both. There's a large constituency in the US for shrinking or eliminating the UN, but I think there's also a large constituency for a stronger UN, and a reasonable minority supporting an actual world government. A safe distinction to make is reduction/enlargement, which is what the remaining text does. -- Beland 20:03, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

internal institutional failures

To the failures, I think the allegations concerning corruption in the "Oil for Food" program for Saddam's Iraq should be listed. Sources: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2004/0323unprobe.htm http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rosett200403101819.asp Whyerd 16:25, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead and add it. Notice there is already a page for it at Oil for Food. [[User:Brettz9|Brettz9 (talk)]] 16:36, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Citizens of the World

Wikipedians who support at least some aspects of the UN may like to add their names to Wikipedia:Wikipedians/World Citizen. Best wishes to all! Robin Patterson 22:56, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reconciling Criticism and Reform suggestions

Something needs to be done about the growing similiarities between the Criticism and Reform sections. I like that the one section states the issues succinctly and the other more elaborately, but something should be done to avoid the duplication of materials (or at least the sound of things being duplicated). The Commission on Human Rights' admission of certain nations is one example of this. [[User:Brettz9|Brettz9 (talk)]] 04:17, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Somalia

I added the Battle of Mogadishu to the UN failure to succsessfully deliver food to Somalia (under criticisms of the UN). Its important to point that out because as a direct result of that battle the United States has been wary of assisting UN peacekeeping forces. TomStar81 02:37, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Peace-keeping

Can someone tell me the meaning of this sentence: " The peacekeeping scale is designed to be revised every six months and is projected to be near 27% in 2003."? 27% of what? It means the budget in 2000 is 100% and that in 2003 is 73%? (or 27%!?) Thank you in advance.--Corruptresearcher 13:35, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

UN Bad

What follows here is an example how talk pages should NOT be used:

REASONS NOT TO TRUST THE UN:

ONE: The U.N. Peacekeepers have been raping women in Africa

True. However, the UN does not have its own army, so these are soldiers from various countries, most likely including the United States Army.

The majority of the UN peacekeepers raping girls and women come from Europeon nations.

TWO: Kofi Annan (Sec. General) is put up for a NO CONFIDENCE vote

Actually, Annan has the complete support of the UN staff and the UN Security Council. [2] [3]

That is totally unfortunate, because Annan, from what I read about him, suggests that he is a corrupt person, totally unaccountable to anybody but himself. I should also mention that Annan and many top ranking UN officals blocked a US Senatorial investigation into the Oil-for-food scandal. 05:39 January 31 2006 (UTC)

The one fatal flaw of the United Nations is that they are totally unaccontable to anybody but themselves. This leaves room for the abuse of power and corruption. If some of you are saying out there, "But they are accontable. They have to account themselves to the Member nations." I say this to you, the majority of the votes in the UN are held by corrupt, authoritarian nations (cough, France) that are totally unaccontable to themselves. 05:59 January 2006 (UTC) [4]{http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217.cfm}

THREE: U.N.'s Security council member (Syria) was elected one of the eleven members THOUGH IT IS ON THE U.S.'s list of nations supporting terrorism!!!

The United States is one of the seven countries which question the legitimacy of the International Criminal Court and opposed its creation. The other six are China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Sudan, and Yemen. All seven have a history of completely disregarding human rights.

Overgeneralization, the U.S. gave up, or at least inactivated conscription some time ago and has a strong record of protecting freedom of speech, although it has slipped some on jury trials and gun ownership.--Silverback 21:25, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The nation of Israel does not totally disregard human rights, they are just trying to protect their citizens from all of the hostil nations surronding it that are bent on obliterating Israel from the map. 05:42 January 31 2006 (UTC)

FOUR: In the Oil For Food scandal THE U.N. LITERALLY GAVE BILLIONS TO SADDAM!!!

The UN has not given money to Saddam Hussein. In the Oil for Food program, Iraq exported oil in exchange for food, aid, and medical supplies. The money generated from the sale of oil went into an international escrow account which Saddam had no access to. Iraq was allowed to make requests for specific supplies on this credit, but could not profit directly from it.

To the comment above, you are absolutely in the wrong. I will ask you to check this site and see for yourself. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

However, Iraq engaged in frequent smuggling and sold oil on the black market for considerable profits; much of this money went directly to Saddam's bank account. This is the main controversy surrounding the program. Clearly the UN had no involvement in the illicit trade, since smuggling is by definition covert.

No, the Saddam regime also subverted the oil for food program, through dummy companies and vouchers.--Silverback 21:25, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Paul Volcker told Charlie Rose a few months ago that the amounts being discussed in rumor are vastly overinflated (by a factor of a thousand in most cases) and that OFFP corruption at the U.N. is considerably less than was suspected. His report is due soon. Blair P. Houghton 16:29, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Too the person you made the commit above, DO YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT PILE OF BOLOGNA. The UN is blocking any outside investigation into this scandal, and do you truly believe that a corrupt Annan would allow the truth of this to get out (considering that he was implicated as being involved in this scandal). I am getting tired of people who are unwilling to get the scales off their eyes. 05:49 January 31 2006 (UTC)

FIVE: Several Records state U.N. Officials have taken BRIBES.

An allegation that has yet to be proven. And although this may very well be true, corruption is an omnipresent disease, that is not limited to the U.N. and does not exclude American U.N. Officials. 16:42, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

SIX: In Rwanda the U.N. let 800 thou people be slaughtered and had their troops taken hostage

This occured because many influential nations hindered the UN from acting effectively Mir 05:36, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

SEVEN: U.N. ROASTS BABIES!!!

I'd like to see citations for some of the more extreme allegations above. Also, this seems to me to be the wrong place to post this. Pedant 22:39, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

This is just a troll. I'd have reverted it but for your comment. I suggest you remove this section.-gadfium (talk) 23:01, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I retract my above suggestion since User:Eequor has gone to the trouble of refuting the allegations.-gadfium (talk) 23:48, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

They deserve refutation. In fact, the issue should get a page to document the craven propagandization by warmongering U.N. haters. The U.N. has prevented more wars than any other diplomatic mission in history. It's ridiculous to consider the idea of shutting it down. Blair P. Houghton 16:29, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Blair P. Houghton, don't interplate this as bashing UN. I am asking because you seem very up to date and i can't really figure out the reason behind it. This article is suggesting that UN tried to provoke a war between Rwanda and Congo. What would be the motivation behind that. See this quote. "But a dissenting member of the UN panel, William Church, has now told the BBC that the Rwandan invasion was a false claim added by other panel members who had come under pressure from un-named sources." What is really happening here? Here is a link to the who article [10]

Kofi Annan was not the secretary general of the UN during the genocide in Rwanda, he was the Under-secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations (March 93 - Dec 96). As UnderSecGen he was one of three people in charge of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, making him more directly responsible for Rwanda. Annan became SecGen on Jan first 97.

UN Table

I have re-added the UN table removed by User:Ed g2s on the argument it was "completely useless" and that "it doesn't provide enough information." I disagree. If it doesn't provide enough information, then add information to the table yourself. And I don't think it is useless. I believe every organization with a flag or seal should have a table. Maybe we should make this into a policy? —02:33, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Have made "UN resolutions" an internal link and written a short intro on this subject (perhaps one of you international lawyers out there could expand this further?) Ian 12:09, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

re-added Taiwan and Vatican city mention

I hope noöne objects to the way I have re-added the mention that Taiwan/Republic of China and the Holy See/Vatican City are the only CIA-recognized first-order sovereign entities which are not members of the UN. The reasons for their non-membership are quite obviously very different, but I think that such a mention deserves note at the very outset of the article. TShilo12 03:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Model U.N.

Is it appropriate to have a paragraph here on Model United Nations? Is there any organizational connection between the real U.N. and the school programs? If not, I would suggest just a "See also" link, not a full section in an already long article. Isomorphic 20:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the Model UN material and put in a "see also." Nothing there gave any indication of why the Model UN would be important in the context of the real UN. Isomorphic 05:06, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

New image copyright tag

There is a new image copyright tag for UN images: {{unimage}}. It can be used on copyrighted images released by the UN, provided a reasonable claim for fair use can be made. TreveX^talk 03:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

UN Resolution condemning USA

Were there any resolutions introduced in UN General Assembly condemning US military actions during/after the US invasion of Iraq ?

User:Siyac 11:10, 9 June 2005 (UTC)

Four part question regarding your question: (1) are you asking if any "Resolutions" were introduced, i.e. proposed to be voted upon? (2) are you asking if any "Resolutions" were voted upon? (3) are you asking if the UN General Assembly voted in the affirmative on a "Resolution"? (4) What enforcement powers do General Assembly "Resolutions" have as compared to Security Council Resolutions (since both can deceptively be called "UN Resolutions")? Thank you. Nobs01 16:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

My question is: were any Resolutions introduced in UN General Assembly, i.e. proposed to be voted upon.

User:Siyac 10:13, 10 June 2005 (UTC)

Frankly I don't know. But like in the law, anyone can be accused of being a child molester, arrested, brought up on charges, only to have the matter dropped before any rendering of a final verdict. Yet the charge can always be made "He was accused of being a child molester". Is this the sense of your question, "Were there any resolutions introduced in UN General Assembly condemning US military actions during/after the US invasion of Iraq ?", considering the General Assembly doesnt even deal with matters the Security Council was created to deal with? Nobs01 15:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

Do you mean that UN General Assembly can't deal with any matters witin Security Council's purview ?

User:Siyac 7:49, 13 June 2005 (UTC)

The General Assembly is free to consider and vote upon any useless unbinding "Resolution" it pleases that lacks the provisions of Law; (that incidentlally is what a resolusion is, it is definitely not a law). Not being an expert in what the UN is, I do have some understanding of International Law. (No.1), the UN is not a Parliamentary body, nor is it a Law making body. International crises, as they occur, are dealt with through the Security Council, that was the purpose of its creation. A member state I am sure is free to introduce any type of resolution it pleases, provided, one would presume, it has a requiste number of co-sponsors. So it is likely to conclude the delegation off North Korea worked overtime to get its name off the Axis of Evil list. Whether they found co-sponsors or not I couldn't say. In the final analysis, the point is moot, cause the UN Secretarait, Security Counsil, and General Assembly, none have the power to author laws, and the verdict of history is all are as useless as a third teat. Nobs01 15:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Essentially, Siyac, Nobs is saying "yes". The UN:GA is a bunch of nattering nabobs who ultimately have no say about anything whatsoever. This is good, since the UN, especially the GA, has become a forum for pushing the agendas of every petty dictatorship around the world, hence my assertion that the GA having no actual power is a good thing. Tomer ^TALK 08:18, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Let me use a simple illustration drawn from U.S. law. Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution states,

"All legislative powers vested herein shall reside in a Congress of the United States"

legislative, meaning law making. The executive has not lawmaking (i.e. legislative) powers. Hence, the separation of powers doctrine. The United States representative to the General Assembly is an offical in the State Department, i.e. Executive Branch. His title is Ambassador, not Legislator, i.e. 'author of laws'. It would be unconstitutional to place legislative powers in the United States Executive Branch. Thus, at a minimum, under U.S. Constitutional Law, the United Nations has no law making power. Nobs01 16:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Who needs the U.N anyway?

As an Indian I have total disrespect for the U.N. Where was the U.N when Pakistan attacked Kargil,the least they could have done is expelled them.When in late 2001 and early 2002 tensions rose again between India and Pakistan ,and India deployed tropps on the border, U.N was making noise,but when the U.S deploys troops thousands of miles away they do nothing?This organisation is becoming more and more meaningless.

Believe me, you're not the only one. The vast majority of the populace of the US, as well as of other countries, notably, but probably irrelevantly, Israel, hold the UN in utter contempt. The UN has been hijacked by tinpot dictatorships, and since it's basically a dumping-ground for unwanted bureaucrats, essentially nothing worthwhile is ever said in its chambers, and absolutely nothing worthy of mention ever happens there. The only noteworthy thing that ever goes on is that muslim states make uproarious noises, almost always against Israel, and all the do-nothing think-naught ignorant do-gooders vote in lock-step against Israel. Happily, the UN is an utterly useless and powerless body w/o the backing of the US, so the nonsensical rubbish passed as "UN Resolutions" (obscenely biased against Israel...check out the number of anti-Israel resolutions sometime, it's over 1/3 of all UN Resolutions) ultimately come to naught. The UN is ultimately flawed, since most countries regard it as a sort of world Congress, when in fact, it is actually a world Parliament. What's the difference? Congress is answerable to the People. Parliamentarian governments are answerable only to their party bosses and various governmental organizations...i.e., the people have no power whatsoever--the whole thing is a charade to occupy the minds and time of the people, meanwhile concealing from them that they have no voice whatsoever. Why anyone would ever emulate Parliamentarianism as "Democracy" therefore, is completely beyond me, but I think I've wandered a bit far afield from the subject at hand... :-p (It happens, with me, frequently. :-D) Tomer ^TALK 08:26, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Personal opinions such as these, apart from being tiresome, are completely irrelevant to the article at hand. Kindly refrain from placing them here. --cjllw | TALK 06:58, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

O txil aut. Ét líst ái m nát meikigh nán-nuträl-point-av-víu edits tú qí ártikäl. Tomer ^TALK 09:10, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Too the guy who wrote on top of this, I salute you. I am an Alaskan Native and I have no respect whatsoever for the United Nations. For one, because they accepted bribes from Saddam Hussein, which they had put economic sanctions, they have shown that they are totally incapable of any good. 07:54 January 30 2006 (UTC)

Genocide in Rwanda

I changed "ethnic cleansing campaign" to "genocide" under specific failures. It is factually incorrect and offensive to the victims to classify April 1994 as "ethnic cleansing". The use of the term ethnic cleansing, at least in the context of Rwanda and Srebrenica, among other events, is nothing more than an attempt to deny the actual events.

removing NPOV-section from /* Criticism of the UN */

The NPOV-section template was added on 22nd July 2005 by 62.180.32.97. That is the only edit made to date by that IP address, and there is no discussion or rationale presented on this talk page. Accordingly, I've removed the template. Hv 11:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of the UN - Alleged Attack in Haiti

Anyone who writes about the alleged attack as well-sourced should check his sources first - partisan websites are no good sources.

The BBC shows a different picture:

[11] --216.139.155.144 21:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, then you should write a more neutral version citing both sources, explaining how they differ and how they agree. These statements were well-sourced in that they agreed with their source, and were properly qualified as allegations. You should try to understand Wikipedia policy better. Democracy Now is a reasonable and respectable source and they think it is credible. As for the "brutal ex-president" this is remarkable in the context of Haiti, as it is quite undeniable and agreed by all serious observers that the level of brutality and political violence in Haiti under Aristide was far less than under his predecessors and successors. The evidence - based on the earlier elections and polls in the US, where anti-Aristidists might be expected to be overrepresented, indicates that most Haitians have been and are "supporters of the brutal ex-president" - thus their view certainly deserves respect and allegations coming from them are encyclopedic material.--John Z 23:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Corrections about "Background, history and structure"

In the 3rd paragraph, it mentions:

"From August to October 1944, representatives of France, the People's Republic of China, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the USSR met to elaborate the plans at the Dumbarton Oaks Estate in Washington, D.C. Those and later talks produced proposals outlining the purposes of the organization, its membership and organs, as well as arrangements to maintain international peace and security and international economic and social cooperation. These proposals were discussed and debated by governments and private citizens worldwide.":

By 1944, there wasn't any People's Republic of China, not until 1949 when the Communist Party took the power over Mainland and Chinese Nationalist (KMT) withdrew to Taiwan.

These following links supports this correction, one is wikipedia itself

Republic of China

China and the United Nations

So, actually it was Republic of China, not People's Republic of China