Just kidding. The fact that a state like Algeria could block something like this is just one indication of just how deeply dysfunctional the UN is. "Algeria vetoes U.N. anti-terror statement," from Ynet News, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:
The U.N. Security Council did not issue a statement condemning Monday's terror attack in Netanya, after it failed to agree on a version due to Algeria's objection to the proposed wording.
Algeria is not a permanent member of the council, but is currently participating in its meeting as a representative of the Arab countries.The original version of the statement, drafter by the United States, included a harsh denouncement of the bombing, and a demand of Syria to close down the Islamic Jihad offices in Damascus.
However, Algeria refused to fall in line with the other member states and sign the statement.
Why doesn't this tell our leaders (Bush, Rice, Rumsfield) the truth they are so in denial about? Algeria is part of the Ummah. Protection of the ummah is the highest priority. Condemning acts against infidels, they hardly get a ranking. Why, Bush and Rice, is Algeria protecting the Ummah, or do you even know what the Ummah is? I'm afraid to hear the answer. DhimmiRice for Dhimmi of the Year 2005!
Are bush and condi and the state dept really so dumb that they don't understand that the UN is a danger to peace, not an instrument for working toward peace? Anyway, why should algeria be more Catholic than the pope, as it were? After all, bush and condi have supported and befriended the terrorists of the "palestinian authority." So why shouldn't algeria help their arab brethren too? After all if bush and the EU do it, then why not Muslims like themselves?
Why the so-called conservatives in Congress demand no more funds for the UN?
Asalamu aleykum wa rahmatulahi:
The danger is not the United Nations per se, but the states who make it up, and the inadequacy of the provisions of the UN Charter. The Charter is too precriptive, particularly when it comes to the use of force. Take a look at Chapter VII and you will see what I mean.
The UN can only be as good as its member states. A great New Zealander, Colin Keating (serving as President of the Security Council) back in the beginnings of the Rwandan genocide, was one of the first to stand up and articulate what was happening and called for immediate action. Legal manuvering with the definition of "genocide" prevented concrete action from being taken.
Such legal wrangling also was a factor in UN inaction in Darfur. The other factor of course is that PC reigns unfettered at the UN level.
Moving forward, particularly in the current climate, the best thing would be for the US and like minded member states to push for a weakening of Chapter VII, so states can take off the gloves in this fight. Such moves would also assist Israel in her continued fight against terrorism.
We should all be cognisant that there are moves being made by jihadist sponsoring states to push for a weakening of US power on the Security Council (ie the veto power).
TH
There have been some moves by member states to establish a robust set criteria, taking into account human rights an dcounter-terror records for rotating SC membership. Unfortunately there is not a great deal of traction on this. It would diminish the chances of states like Algeria, or like minded states from becoming members.
Wa salam
TH
What are the current dicincentives for member states such as Algeria to vote and act the way they do? None.
Hell, Thomas:
What are the current disincentives on member nations of the Security Council to undercut initiatives like the sanctions imposed on Saddam by helping him circumvent them and casting votes against an invasion to overthrow him.
Algeria's conduct is morally vile, but if the "core members" like France, Germany and Russia show the kind of integrity they do, and its most senior beaurocrats show themselves to be equally low... ...who indeed is going to censure Algeria? The Arab League or the OIC?
The UN is a joke. Attempting to 'fix' it is a fool's errand. Demanding that the UN reform itself is just like expecting a bunch of convicts to 'behave'. Remember the movie 'The Fugitive', where Dr. Kimbal(?) tells the escaping killer to 'be good'?
It was a joke, boys & girls.
What does this make someone who reflexively turns to the UN for solutions to world problems? At best, it makes him a naif - at worst, a moron.
For the past twenty years, whenever I drive a certain rural highway, I have passed a large sign that reads, "Get the US out of the UN." For many years, I thought it was a silly sign. Afterall, the UN provided so many useful projects to benefit the developing world; an organization of do-gooders doing good things. Or, so I believed. The sign is faded now; so is the farmer who put it up. This spring, if he is still around, I will offer to have it repainted.
Of course, I meant above: "Why DON'T the so-called conservatives in Congress" demand an end to $$$ for the UN?
To Haidon, Aleykhem Shalom,
Indeed, the UN is more dangerous than the sum of its evil parts. It is a power-multiplier for the worst states, which morally and spiritually dominate the UN. It is a tool in the hands of those who want to destroy civilization. Recall that Libya has been chairman of the UNhuman rights commission. This degrades the whole concept of human rights as well as increasing the power of Libya.
By the way, what's happening with the Bulgarian nurses?
A day of great news! With the Saudis and others calling for "moderation" in Islam, and the UN about to take the helm in the WOT -- I'm sleeping pretty -- although if you saw me sleeping you mightn't agree...
Hey Thomas,
If you're still checking this thread, I have an OT (but subject matter related) question for you, if you don't mind.
to those who complain about Pres.Bush concerning the UN, why do you think he had such a problem with getting Bolton there? if he was like minded.. like Kerry and the Democrats, the US would be ass kissing the UN!
Kia ora PRCS
What's the question mate?
Cheers
TH