Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta

Motion to impose sanctions on the Belarussian government watch

  • View Poll Results: Should sanctions be imposed on the Belariussian government?
    Yes
    55.56%
    No
    33.33%
    Abstain
    11.11%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Because some of them are on the security council
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Not all of them. That would be silly.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Indeed it 'twould.

    The reason why we are pushing for UN action write now in Belarus is that the recent election provides a unique opportunity to try and remove the dictator. If the UN acts swiftly there is a chance that he will fall. It was swift action by protesters in the Ukraine after the corrupt elections that brought about the free and fair elections that swept our great President into power.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RichyP)
    This is right at the start of the UN Charter.
    NOTE:
    "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person"
    " to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,"
    "to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples"

    So as everyone can see this motion is very much in keeping with both "the letter and the spirit of the UN Charter"
    Which part of that allows for coercion against states that don't respect those values? You do know what "reaffirm" and "promote" means right?
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    Peru believes if nothing is done, nothing will change. Therefore it supports the sanctions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Brazil is sitting this one out, since we cant stop you placing sanctions but he have no suggestions for what else can be done
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Which part of that allows for coercion against states that don't respect those values? You do know what "reaffirm" and "promote" means right?
    Yes, and what employing international machinery means as well.

    Oh and imposing sanction does promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Except for the Government officials.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    true
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RichyP)
    Yes, and what employing international machinery means as well.

    Oh and imposing sanction does promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom
    Employing machinery for the "promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples". If the Ukrainian delegate would reach the entire Charter, he would realize that this refers to positive steps only, through organizations like UNESCO. Coercion is explicitly ruled out for anything other than retaliation for international aggression.

    And would Ukraine care to cite a UN SC resolution calling the Belarussian elections anything but free and fair? Meanwhile, the CIS, of which Ukraine is a member, has called the Belarussian elections fully in line with international standards.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Meanwhile, the CIS, of which Ukraine is a member, has called the Belarussian elections fully in line with international standards.
    The Ukraine would like to distance itself from the comments made by the CIS.
    This is an orginisation that we believe is failing and we are concidering withdrawing finanicial support from CIS projects, we would rather join the EU and have 2015 as a target date for this.

    To confirm this here is a quote from a statement from our foreign minister:

    It has been becoming more obvious that during the last period the actions of the authorities of the Republic of Belarus in restriction of the election campaign, freedom of assembly and free functioning of mass media conflict with the voluntarily assumed obligations of the country before the OSCE and do not correspond to democratic standards.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If the Ukrainian delegate would reach the entire Charter, he would realize that this refers to positive steps only, through organizations like UNESCO. Coercion is explicitly ruled out for anything other than retaliation for international aggression.
    If this is the case then why has the UN imposed sanctions in the past for pure domestic reasons. The one example that springs to mind is that after Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) the UN imposed economic sanctions against Rhodesia. This was not international aggression, it was a nation standing up for its rights. Rhodesia had not threatened to invade anywhere, yet sanctions were used.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    So Ukraine wishes to impose sanctions on its northern neighbor despite neither the CIS nor the UN calling the elections unfair and despite their being no investigations that determined that Belarus violated the rights of its protesters and wasn't just locking up petty criminals and anarchists for the safety of the Belarussian people?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RichyP)
    If this is the case then why has the UN imposed sanctions in the past for pure domestic reasons. The one example that springs to mind is that after Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) the UN imposed economic sanctions against Rhodesia. This was not international aggression, it was a nation standing up for its rights. Rhodesia had not threatened to invade anywhere, yet sanctions were used.
    Were the sanctions imposed due to bad elections? Sanctions were imposed because South Africa was a pariah state that was a threat to its neighbors. It had refused to withdraw troops from Namibia; took part in the Angolan civil war, and was involved in the conflict in Mozambique. It also had an illicit nuclear program.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    neither the CIS nor the UN have called the elections unfair because Russia is a major member of both of these organisations. Russia is a close ally of the current Belorussian government, and it is debateable whether it is democratic.

    Democratic nations however and organisations such as the OSCE have critised the elections. Those locked up were not petty criminals, and the Ukraine would like to remind Uzbekistan that some of those "criminals" are Ukrainian citizens. Is Uzbekistan accusing the Ukraine of sending petty criminals and anarchists to harm Belorussian people?

    Even if they were, which they certainly were not, the Belorussian government has violate international law in their treatment of our citizens. In this matter there is no doubt at all.

    Rhodesia is not South Africa they did not try to acquire nuclear technology nor involve themselves in other people affairs militarily.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RichyP)
    neither the CIS nor the UN have called the elections unfair because Russia is a major member of both of these organisations. Russia is a close ally of the current Belorussian government, and it is debateable whether it is democratic.

    Democratic nations however and organisations such as the OSCE have critised the elections. Those locked up were not petty criminals, and the Ukraine would like to remind Uzbekistan that some of those "criminals" are Ukrainian citizens. Is Uzbekistan accusing the Ukraine of sending petty criminals and anarchists to harm Belorussian people?

    Even if they were, which they certainly were not, the Belorussian government has violate international law in their treatment of our citizens. In this matter there is no doubt at all.

    Rhodesia is not South Africa they did not try to acquire nuclear technology nor involve themselves in other people affairs militarily.
    If Ukraine does not believe that the CIS and the UN are capable of of dealing with this issue in a just manner, why is it still a part of those organizations?

    Is Ukraine admitting to sending to knowingly sending its citizens to disreput the Belarussian democratic process?

    International law, by definition, only deals with the acts of states and not individuals.

    South Africa invaded Angola in support of UNITA. Zaire invaded in support of the FNLA. The U.S. provided extensive assistance to both UNITA and the FNLA. In October 1975, a massive Soviet airlift of arms and Cuban troops turned the tide in favor of the MPLA. South African and Zairean troops withdrew, and the MPLA was able to form a single-party socialist government, which gained widespread diplomatic recognition, although not from the U.S. or South Africa.

    UNITA and the FNLA then joined forces against the MPLA. UNITA was initially driven out of its headquarters in Huambo and its forces scattered and driven into the bush. But it subsequently regrouped and waged a devastating, long-running war against the MPLA government, which it saw as asimilado (urban, educated, and Portuguese-oriented), mestizo (mixed race), and northern dominated. UNITA portrayed itself as anti-Marxist and pro-Western, but it had its own regional roots, primarily among the Ovimbundu people of southern and central Angola.

    The war spread, with UNITA making steady gains and South African forces operating sporadically in Angola in support of UNITA. The largest South African incursions occurred between 1981 and 1993, partly in retaliation for MPLA support for the South West African People's Organization's (SWAPO's) guerrilla war against South Africa's occupation of Namibia. During this period, South African forces occupied parts of the extreme south of Angola.
    Source

    In March 1993 President de Klerk declared that South Africa had previously developed a limited nuclear capability which had been dismantled and destroyed before South Africa acceded to the NPT.
    Source
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm talking about Rhodesia, not South Africa, there is a big difference.

    Our citizens were not their to disrupt the elections at all, we are asking if Uzbekistan was accusing us of doing this
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RichyP)
    I'm talking about Rhodesia, not South Africa, there is a big difference.

    Our citizens were not their to disrupt the elections at all, we are asking if Uzbekistan was accusing us of doing this
    The UN resolution that put sanctions on Rhodesia claimed that Rhodesia was a threat to international peace and security, since its policies sparked off a rebellion in the south of the country that had the potential to spread.

    How does the Ukrainian government know that its citizens that were arrested in Belarus weren't petty criminals or anarchists?

    Uzbekistan would also like to wish the Ukrainian delegate a happy birthday.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Didnt notice! Happy Birthday Ukraine
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Russia feels that Belarus may have a corrupt, immoral and evil government, but at least it is OUR corrupt, immoral and evil government...
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 21, 2006
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.