Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

The UN has been hijacked by corrupt, barbaric nations Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Does anyone agree with this statement?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Yep, it plays host to some pretty vile regimes (two of which are permanent members of the security council!).
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Yes.
    • Offline

      14
      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.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      There are certainly motives that are never officially announced
      Online

      19
      ReputationRep:
      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.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      deffo - whatever the UN decides is illegal when it concerns israel is most likely justifiable. it is a 1/4 made up of muslim nations after all
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      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.

      Offline

      14
      ReputationRep:
      St. Lucia objects
      Offline

      18
      ReputationRep:
      (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.

      (Original post by Planar)
      St. Lucia objects
      Tuvalu seconds this motion; "this is an outrage"
      Offline

      15
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Meus)
      Who these "barbaric" countries are, however, would differ on where you asked this question.
      This exactly.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      Can this not be used as an excuse to bring up the Israel-Palestine conflict? Please?
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (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.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (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.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (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?
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      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.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (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.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Folderol)
      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.
      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.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      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
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (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
      Yaaaarrr it be Sinbad, he be pillaging common sense, intelligence and logic on the seas! Yarrr!
     
     
     
  1. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  2. Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources
  3. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  4. 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

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