The UN has been hijacked by corrupt, barbaric nations

Margaret Thatcher

Does anyone agree with this statement?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Democracy

Yep, it plays host to some pretty vile regimes (two of which are permanent members of the security council!).

Yes.

The UN is an archaic, corrupt, ineffectual talk shop. Pointless, considering certain nations get away with whatever the hell they want because they know the "repercussions" will be a joke if any come at all.

Reply 4

T.Reid

There are certainly motives that are never officially announced

Reply 5

Joinedup

Yeah... sort of.

You give every country a vote regardless of whether it's decent or barbaric and it soon becomes apparent that there's far more corrupt and barbaric countries in the world than there are decent ones.

It's suffered mission creep - maybe should have stuck to trying to prevent WW3 as per it's founding objectives.

Reply 6

Folderol

Definitely, I mean look at the following;

United Nations Human Rights Council;

• One single "Urgent Debate" — on Israel;
• Nine "Special Sessions" that criticized countries — six of them on Israel. (And another one that praised Sri Lanka after it killed 20,000 civilians);
• Some 40-odd council resolutions that criticized countries — 35 of them on Israel;
• Five "fact-finding" missions — all on Israel
• Since its 2006 creation, 80 per cent of the council's resolutions have singled out one member state -- Israel

United Nations General Assembly

In the years 1947 to 1989, the General Assembly passed a total of 690 resolutions (full or partial). Of these, 429 were against the Israeli position while only 56 were against Arab positions. Of the 56 votes not to the Arabs' liking, 49 concerned the establishment or financing of peace-keeping forces. Absent these, the last anti-Arab vote in the General Assembly, on any issue, was in May of 1949.

The UN has repeatedly held Emergency Special Sessions of the General Assembly on Israeli construction in Jerusalem. The Emergency Special Session was originally convened in 1950 for emergencies like the Korean War. In the last 15 years, these special meetings have only been held regarding Israel. Emergency Special Sessions were not convened over the genocide in Rwanda, ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, or with regard to the other major world conflicts, but they were convened to condemn Israelis

United Nations Security Council

In an analysis of the Security Council's record up to 1989, of 175 total resolutions passed by the Council, 97 were directed against Israel, as contrasted with 4 against all Arab states combined. The Council expressed its 'concern,' 'grave concern,' 'regret,' 'deep regrets,' 'shock' etc. about Israeli actions 31 times.
Regarding Arab actions, the Council Never expressed negative sentiments.

St. Lucia objects

Original post by Margaret Thatcher

Does anyone agree with this statement?

Look at Folderols graph and you'll quickly realise a lot of people will agree with you. Who these "barbaric" countries are, however, would differ on where you asked this question. :biggrin:

Original post by Planar

St. Lucia objects

Tuvalu seconds this motion; "this is an outrage"

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 9

OMGWTFBBQ

Original post by Meus

Who these "barbaric" countries are, however, would differ on where you asked this question. :biggrin:

This exactly.

Reply 10

SolarElephant

Can this not be used as an excuse to bring up the Israel-Palestine conflict? Please?

Reply 11

Folderol

Original post by SolarElephant

Can this not be used as an excuse to bring up the Israel-Palestine conflict? Please?

I'm against turning every discussion into a generic Israel-Palestinian conflict thread. That is actually against the rules of IA - however, that is not an absolute ban on mentioning the conflict. In context, it'v very clear how the UN is politicising human rights by the members of UN bodies - i.e., it answers the OP's questions without making this a generic thread.

Reply 12

SolarElephant

Original post by Folderol

In an analysis of the Security Council's record up to 1989, of 175 total resolutions passed by the Council, 97 were directed against Israel, as contrasted with 4 against all Arab states combined. The Council expressed its 'concern,' 'grave concern,' 'regret,' 'deep regrets,' 'shock' etc. about Israeli actions 31 times.
Regarding Arab actions, the Council Never expressed negative sentiments.

Perhaps this is because the actions of Israel have been not as, I hesitate in using the word atrocious?, as the actions of Arabs. Therefore this might be why the Council condone Israel and not simply because they are anti-semitic or anti-zionist or whatever you seem to be suggesting they are.

When you say Arabs do you mean Arab countries, groups like Hamas or just Arabs in general.

Reply 13

borismor

Original post by Democracy

Yep, it plays host to some pretty vile regimes (two of which are permanent members of the security council!).

China and Russia?

Reply 14

tieyourmotherdown

Yup. It's the most flawed democratic body you could possibly come up with and whilst is a good idea in principle, it's execution is horrendous.

Reply 15

Folderol

Original post by SolarElephant

Perhaps this is because the actions of Israel have been not as, I hesitate in using the word atrocious?, as the actions of Arabs.

If you honestly believe this, I suggest you go through Arab history - to give you some examples; Hama massacre, Black September, the expulsion of 300,000 Palestinians from Kuwait, the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza by Jordan and Egypt respectively, the Lebanese civil war (where Israel wasn't directly taking part), Tadmoor prison masssacre, the discrimination against Palestinians in Lebanon and the persistent human rights violations of ethnic minorities, sexual minorities and women.

And I hasten to add, this is not just about Arab nations. As the graph and stats showed; it is not just in the Middle East. Would you seriously suggest that Israel is worthy of more condemnation than Sudan or Congo or Rwanda? Not a chance.

Therefore this might be why the Council condone Israel and not simply because they are anti-semitic or anti-zionist or whatever you seem to be suggesting they are.

I have not used either of those words. What I have said is that there has been a politicisation of human rights. Their motives are largely irrelevant. Human rights are intended and must be universal - and derogation from that for any reason should be condemned.

When you say Arabs do you mean Arab countries, groups like Hamas or just Arabs in general.

I'm talking about Arab states. The United Nations SC, as far as know, does not make a habit of referring to non-state actors by name.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 16

SolarElephant

Original post by Folderol

The UN do seem to have double standards regarding Israel. A good example of this is American soldiers in Iraq causing the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians without facing any criticisms from not only the UN but most of the international community as well.

Reply 17

sinbad23

everyone says UN is against israel.

Israel has committed the most crimes according to the UN they have according to UN rules illegal nuclear weapons but does the UN do anything about it? No

Reply 18

PeeWeeDan

Original post by sinbad23

everyone says UN is against israel.

Israel has committed the most crimes according to the UN they have according to UN rules illegal nuclear weapons but does the UN do anything about it? No