On 7 Maijs, 06:15, ostap_bender_1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[snip]
> NATO countries consider UN ineffective because UN doesn't go along
> with their non-stop rapes of little defenceless countires. Hitler and
> Stalin also considered the League of Nations ineffective.
I would say you boggle the mind, but it's habitual. The UN has been
effective at times, but unutterably ineffective at others.
One of the conflicts in which the UN was highly effective was the
Korean War -- but why? Only because the Russians were boycotting the
Security Council (over Taiwan) and therefore couldn't use their veto.
Of course, you probably consider North Korea a "little defenseless
country"...
Hitler and Stalin considered the League ineffective, of course -- but
don't you think the victims of Hitler and Stalin considered the league
ineffective... because it _was_ ineffective? Because it was, in fact,
a near-total failure?
What grew out of the failure of the League that was and is effective
was NATO, which had the brawn to protect the values the League could
only banter about.
UN Watch (http://www.unwatch.org/)
re the Human Rights Council:
"It is supposed to objectively and non-selectively promote and protect
human rights worldwide, yet it has ignored the world's worst abusers
while repeatedly condemning only one country in the entire world=97
Israel. It is supposed to strengthen the UN's human rights mechanisms,
yet threatens now to erode the system and eliminate many of the
independent experts. [...] Our analysis shows that, although slightly
more than half of the Council's 47 members are free democracies, only
a minority of these countries=97about a dozen=97have consistently voted in
defense of the values and principles that the Council is supposed to
promote. Instead, the body has been dominated by an increasingly
brazen alliance of repressive regimes seeking not only to spoil needed
reforms but to undermine the few meaningful mechanisms of UN human
rights protection that already exist. Their goal is impunity for
systematic abuses. Unfortunately, too many democracies have thus far
gone along with the spoilers, out of loyalty to regional groups and
other political alliances."
By the way, Finland is one of the countries that "consistently voted
in defense of the values and principles that the Council is supposed
to promote."
_The Sunday Times_ (South Africa):
"In January this year, shortly after assuming its two-year seat on the
Security Council, South Africa joined China and Russia as the sole
members to oppose a resolution urging Burma to free political
detainees and end ***ual violence by the military. South Africa has
often dismissed such initiatives as campaigns by the wealthy North.
Yet if Ghana, Panama and Peru could sup****t the text =97 and Congo,
Indonesia and Qatar could quietly abstain =97 why did Pretoria help
hardliners Moscow and Beijing to kill the text, ****elding the generals
of Rangoon?"
Of course, Burma/Myanmar is doubtless a "little defenseless country"
in Karlamov's universe, too.
Regards,
/P
http://lettonica.blogspot.com/
|
