# Impotent UN? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 23, 2004, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impotent-un/241693 "2004-04-23T19:31:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2004, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impotent-un/241693/21 "2004-04-25T13:27:11Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > [(Witness the US’s resistance to acknowledging the authority of, say, the International Court of Justice or the proposed International Criminal Court to rule on US actions.) > > . Nitpick : the International Criminal Court isn’t merely “proposed”. It exists since last year. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2004, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impotent-un/241693/22 "2004-04-25T13:39:21Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > . Of course nobody is perfect, but not recognising that some are more perfect than others is, in my book, where all creditability is lost. Before being invited to partake in the decisions of an UN Human Rights Commission, it is hardly unreasonable that countries themselves are being expected to live up to the most basic of human rights. > . The problem is that personnally I don’t expect much from the Human Right Commission but thinks that it’s disingeneous to base criticisms of the UN on the failures of this particular UN body. The UN includes a lot of institutions, and a lot of them do a good job. For instance, who is going to argue that the World Health Organization should be disbanded? Why is the UN so often booed for the way the Commission for Human Right works and essentially never lauded for the work done by the WHO? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2004, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impotent-un/241693/23 "2004-04-25T14:23:55Z")
clairobscur, you seem to be the only person talking about disbanding the WHO or UNICEF or whathaveyou. I’ve been talking about getting rid of the UNHRC and replacing it with something that actually has the promotion of human rights on its agenda, rather than the “cover your ass” activities undertaken by a good many countries currently on that panel. And I have suggested that the Secretary General or the ICJ have some ability to rule out countries for non-compliance with existing human rights treaties. What do you think about that? (And in an aside, if the UNHRC had the guts to admonish the US over Gitmo, I’d be extremely pleased. That failure to do so only argues further that the UNHRC has no guts, no important mission, no ability to achieve its mission at this point, underscoring the need for serious reform.) ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2004, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impotent-un/241693/24 "2004-04-25T14:58:40Z")
So, if it is not perfect we prefer to have nothing? It is also telling that the USA will use the UN’s backing when it can get it but will dismiss the UN when it can’t. If there is one thing which weakens the UN and makes it ineffective is that the most powerful country, the USA, dismisses it so often. The USA just will not submit to the UN when they are at odds. Why should _any_ other country? If the USA would give an example of magnanimity and submit to the UN and othr international bodies then it might have an argument but by not respecting the UN it is the USA who is causing the greatest damage. Regarding Human Rights, every country, including the USA, defines “Human Rights Violations” as “what other countries do and not what we do” so the notion of having some countries in and others out of the panel is just silly. Countries are sovereign and voluntarily submit to and accept decision of the UN. A UN panel where some members are not even allowed to express or vote would be a waste of time. And the USA is a prime example of not voluntarily submitting to International courts. Why should any other countries? This is like a few members of a condo association saying only those condo owners who are tidy should be able to vote and the slobs should not. Except that the pink flamingo which one considers an eyesore is considered a beautiful ornament by others. Who is going to decide? Any small group is destined to fail because those left outside will not accept any rulings from it. In the eyes of _many_ countries in the world the USA has a _terrible_ record when it comes to Human Rights. Terrible. Of course, the USA says it has its reasons. . . which is what all other countries say: “we have our reasons”. Taking the attitude that “we are better” just shows a very provincial understanding of the world which can only get your country into trouble with the rest of the world. ---
**Author:** ![MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bb73d2/32.png) [@MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MC_Master_of_Ceremonies)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2004, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impotent-un/241693/25 "2004-04-25T15:45:01Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > clairobscur, you seem to be the only person talking about disbanding the WHO or UNICEF or whathaveyou. I’ve been talking about getting rid of the UNHRC and replacing it with something that actually has the promotion of human rights on its agenda, rather than the “cover your ass” activities undertaken by a good many countries currently on that panel. > > And I have suggested that the Secretary General or the ICJ have some ability to rule out countries for non-compliance with existing human rights treaties. What do you think about that? > > (And in an aside, if the UNHRC had the guts to admonish the US over Gitmo, I’d be extremely pleased. That failure to do so only argues further that the UNHRC has no guts, no important mission, no ability to achieve its mission at this point, underscoring the need for serious reform.) Why bother to replace the UNHRC when you already have the OHCHR. I think it would be best to give the UNHCHR a more executive role and get rifd of the UNHRC as it is always going to be dominated by poltics, no matter what the human rights record of the countries. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2004, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impotent-un/241693/26 "2004-04-25T16:12:40Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Consider, for example, the recent achievements of the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency in uncovering and discouraging [illegal nuclear proliferation activities](http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/08/iaea.meeting.reut/) by Iran, Libya, and Pakistan. Hee. Hee hee hee. Hee Hee HEE! BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! For years IAEA sat on its ass and passed (or failed to pass) worthless pieces of paper around while these guys worked on their bomb programs, one of them acheiving success and becoming a nuclear power. Then, within a year of the coutries getting an up close and personal look of what happens when a regime fails to cooperate, they’re all over themselves to be good boys and somehow this is attributible to IAEA? Sorry, that’s the Bush Doctrine right there. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2004, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impotent-un/241693/27 "2004-04-26T16:48:15Z")
Kimstu: > [@](#): > > If the UN can’t actually enforce any of its decisions on its member countries, people sneer that it’s “futile” and “impotent” and “only a nice little debating society”. If, on the other hand, it does try to establish international institutions that have actual muscle for policing states’ actions, people start yelping about “one-world government” and “interference with sovereignty” and “detriment to our national interests”. Precisely the point I was going to make. Manhattan: > [@](#): > > For years IAEA sat on its ass and passed (or failed to pass) worthless pieces of paper around while these guys worked on their bomb programs, one of them acheiving success and becoming a nuclear power. Then, within a year of the coutries getting an up close and personal look of what happens when a regime fails to cooperate, they’re all over themselves to be good boys and somehow this is attributible to IAEA? Sorry, that’s the Bush Doctrine right there. OK, but where do we go from here? Should the US be Global Dictator from now on? Or should the UN be given the power to use military force under the imprimatur of Law? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2004, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impotent-un/241693/28 "2004-04-26T19:20:27Z")
**manhattan:** _For years IAEA sat on its ass and passed (or failed to pass) worthless pieces of paper around while these guys worked on their bomb programs, one of them acheiving success and becoming a nuclear power. Then, within a year of the coutries getting an up close and personal look of what happens when a regime fails to cooperate, they’re all over themselves to be good boys and somehow this is attributible to IAEA? Sorry, that’s the Bush Doctrine right there._ Cite? This sounds rather like one of those _post Iraq ergo propter Iraq_ arguments, and it doesn’t seem to account for the fact that, for example, the IAEA was conducting [extensive inspections in Iran](http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Notes/2003IranNukesUpdate.htm) as early as February 2003. I agree with you that the invasion of Iraq doubtless exerted pressure for compliance, but I think it’s ridiculous to suggest that the IAEA’s efforts were worthless in and of themselves. The IAEA’s information and negotiation, on the contrary, has been very important in watchdogging nuclear developments. (And I certainly don’t think supporters of the “Bush Doctrine” can afford to laugh at the IAEA’s information about nuclear development, considering what a horse’s ass the Bush Administration made of itself by ignoring the IAEA’s evidence that there was no serious WMD threat from Iraq, which turned out to be perfectly correct.) ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impotent-un/241693/29 "2004-04-30T02:51:58Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Cite? This sounds rather like one of those _post Iraq ergo propter Iraq_ arguments, and it doesn’t seem to account for the fact that, for example, the IAEA was conducting [extensive inspections in Iran](http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Notes/2003IranNukesUpdate.htm) as early as February 2003. Cite? That seems a little unfair. It’s not like anyone is gonna hold a press conference and say "I was hiding stuff until that mean old George W. Bush showed me that sometimes UN resolutions actually mean something, even if the UN itself doesn’t care. That said, in the case of Libya, [Hans Blix seems to think it may have had some influence](http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/12/23/gadhafi.interview/index.html), if one is inclined to accept his analysis. As regards Pakistan, it’s literally impossible that the IAEA had any influence – Pakistan is not a signatory to the NPT and IAEA has (still) never been there. If it wasn’t the Bush Doctrine, it was something else that was not IAEA. In Iran, they’ve been there for years and found exactly nothing prior to the Iraq invasion. In fact, despite the occasional (correct) assertion that they haven’t found anything but they think somebody is hiding something, IAEA has _never_ found anything. They were shocked when India exploded a bomb, shocked when Pakistan did, shocked when the newly democratic South Africa turned over fully-functioning weapons to the UN. Someday they’ll be shocked when Taiwan explodes one of their bombs, and ghod-forbid they’ll be shocked if some al Qaeda offshoot someday hits lower Manhattan. Among all of the irrelevant UN agencies, IAEA might be “Mr. Irrelevant” – last picked in the draft. > [@](#): > > (And I certainly don’t think supporters of the “Bush Doctrine” can afford to laugh at the IAEA’s information about nuclear development, considering what a horse’s ass the Bush Administration made of itself by ignoring the IAEA’s evidence that there was no serious WMD threat from Iraq, which turned out to be perfectly correct.) Somewhere, there’s probably a psychic who correctly identifed where a body might be found. That psychic has a better record than IAEA. If you say “no” every single time, eventually it will be the correct answer. The sad, unfortunate fact is that the OP is, if anything, too kind by calling the UN irrelevant. If they weren’t irrelevant, there would be a UN resolution on Sudan tomorrow and a quarter million blue helmets there next week, just as should have happened in Rwanda. If they had their sights lower, say, not being actively evil, they’d insert a sentence or two about Hamas in their regular tirades against Israel. ---
**Author:** ![ouryL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ouryl/32/6067_2.png) [@ouryL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ouryL)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impotent-un/241693/30 "2004-04-30T04:36:36Z")
Read the UH charter: the UN was born a eunuch. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impotent-un/241693/31 "2004-04-30T05:22:00Z")
> [@manhattan](#): > > If they had their sights lower, say, not being actively evil. After reading about the massive graft machine that was “oil-for-food,” I’m inclined to say that _you’re_ being too kind. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impotent-un/241693/32 "2004-04-30T12:23:36Z")
**manhattan:** _Cite? That seems a little unfair. It’s not like anyone is gonna hold a press conference and say “I was hiding stuff until that mean old George W. Bush showed me that sometimes UN resolutions actually mean something, even if the UN itself doesn’t care.”_ Sorry, I don’t think it’s any more “unfair” to ask for a cite on an unprovable inference than it is to assert such an inference in the first place. If what you’re saying is “I **think** that the **only** reason there’s been any progress on nuclear negotiations/discoveries in Iran, Pakistan, or Libya is because of the invasion of Iraq, but there’s really no way to prove that”, fine. Otherwise, I’d like to see your proof. _That said, in the case of Libya, Hans Blix seems to think it [the Iraq invasion] may have had some influence_ Well, I already said I agreed with you that the invasion of Iraq had **some** influence in this regard, but thanks for the cite anyway. \*As regards Pakistan, it’s literally impossible that the IAEA had any influence – Pakistan is not a signatory to the NPT and IAEA has (still) never been there. If it wasn’t the Bush Doctrine, it was something else that was not IAEA. \* Well, according to [this January BBC News report](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3444483.stm), it **was** in fact the IAEA that found the Pakistan connection during investigations in Libya: > [@](#): > > As Libya, too, announced the dismantling of its nuclear weapons programme, investigators from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) discovered a Pakistani connection. > > Pakistani officials say when the IAEA shared this information with Islamabad, and asked for answers, it became a real challenge for the government to uncover the truth. > > Islamabad had maintained, and it continues to do so, that it has never been involved in proliferation. > > In order to clear its name, it sent investigators to Tehran and Tripoli, and held intense discussions with the IAEA in Vienna, leading to the high-level investigation. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impotent-un/241693/33 "2004-04-30T23:46:50Z")
First, the IAEA got access to those Libyan documents _precisely because_ Libya gave up the game to the United States and Britain (note – they didn’t go to the UN, they didn’t go to France or Russia, they didn’t go to another Arab country. They went to the guys with the big planes and the will to use them. Libya’s been reaching out to continental Europe for a while now, trying to rejoin the world community, and I think it’s pretty telling that they went to us on the big magilla) and for no other reason. No Bush Doctrine = no questions to even ask. Second, IAEA has been questioning Pakistan for decades and has been told (politely) to go pound sand. _Something_ changed their minds and persuaded them to cooperate at least as far as profliferation to bad-guy countries is concerned (They’re still hiding other stuff, IMO). Yep. I maintain that the something was the Bush Doctrine. If it’s something else, make the case. But there’s literally _no_ case that it was IAEA or any other UN organ – they just don’t have any pre-Bush Doctrine successes at all on which to base the claim. ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2004, 10:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impotent-un/241693/34 "2004-05-01T10:00:17Z")
> [@](#): > > They went to the guys with the big planes and the will to use them. Republican porn Manny. the Axis of Ultimate Warriors were never going to really go after Libya. rather, Libya saw the oppertunity to score a massive PR coup (something they have been trying to do for years). Gadaffi wants to be allowed sell his oil agaiun, and the Ultimate Warriors want a short term reliable source of oil while their kerfuffle in Iraq is going on. If they ever correct their massive mistakes and the area stabilises, Lybia will be ignored once again and blair won’t hae to suffer through another flatulent meeting with Gadaffi again. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2004, 10:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impotent-un/241693/35 "2004-05-01T10:25:41Z")
> [@TwistofFate](#): > > Republican porn Manny. the Axis of Ultimate Warriors were never going to really go after Libya. rather, Libya saw the oppertunity to score a massive PR coup (something they have been trying to do for years). Gadaffi wants to be allowed sell his oil agaiun, and the Ultimate Warriors want a short term reliable source of oil while their kerfuffle in Iraq is going on. If they ever correct their massive mistakes and the area stabilises, Lybia will be ignored once again and blair won’t hae to suffer through another flatulent meeting with Gadaffi again. Or perhaps liberal nightmare Twisty. What an awful thought that must be to contemplate; that Bush’s policy actually works! Khadaffi has always worked in mysterious ways (did you see his hot bodyguards!) but don’t you find his timing just a little bit potent. As you say, he has tried for years, but only moved now, when he feels the fire burning. But of course the Axis of Ultimate Peeves deserves all the praise right. ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2004, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impotent-un/241693/36 "2004-05-01T15:19:54Z")
they haven’t jut been trying for years, rather they’ve been taking steps towards a better image. I think the current environment just gave Libya the oppertunity to make a leap rather than them getting a push. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2004, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impotent-un/241693/37 "2004-05-01T23:31:39Z")
The one inconvenient fact the Republicans want to brush under the rug is that most of the bridge-building between the United States and Libya happened [under the Clinton Administration.](http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/indyk/20040309.htm) As with everything else in his political career, Bush is simply taking credit for someone else’s work. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2004, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impotent-un/241693/38 "2004-05-02T11:43:55Z")
**manny** , I think the problem is that you’re assuming your premise. You insist that the IAEA doesn’t accomplish anything useful or constructive, and when I point to something useful or constructive that the IAEA **has** accomplished, you say “oh well, it must have been something else besides the IAEA that made that action actually useful and constructive, because the IAEA doesn’t accomplish anything useful or constructive”. Hard to argue with that line of reasoning, although that doesn’t mean that it’s right. I think we are definitely in agreement that the IAEA is certainly incapable of achieving James-Bond-like results in singlehandedly detecting and eliminating illegal nuclear activities. The Agency is restricted in terms of how and where it’s allowed to conduct inspections, and cannot go sneaking around undercover to dig up everything that a government may be trying to hide. That’s not its role—nor would any of the major UN member countries agree to its having such a role—and that IMO is not the goal by which we ought to measure its achievement. Nobody is claiming that the IAEA is capable all on its own of handling the problem of illegal nuclear proliferation, just that it does some effective and constructive things in brokering disarmament and nonproliferation agreements and in watchdogging compliance. If you’re evaluating the Agency as some sort of international spy whose job is to find stuff that bad guys don’t want it to find, even though the bad guys retain control over what the Agency gets to see, it’s no wonder you’re disappointed in it; but I think the problem is not with the Agency’s work, but rather with your expectation. We’ve known since at least the discovery of Iraqi weapons programs in the early 1990’s that bad guys can successfully hide stuff from the IAEA. That doesn’t mean that its activities are of no use whatsoever, as you seem to think. I’d like to know how you’d propose to monitor and enforce non-proliferation goals **without** the IAEA. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2004, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impotent-un/241693/39 "2004-05-05T16:40:26Z")
UN absurdity continues. Sudan in the midst of an ethnic cleansing campaign gets re-elected to the UN Commission on Human Rights - described as the main UN human rights watchdog. This is a farce. The UN is steadily pissing away what creditability is left after the recent graft scandal. The next time the UN speak up on some human rights violation I’m afraid a common enough though will be: _yeah right, admonitions of piety straight from the mouth of the mass murderers._ > **[UNconscionable](https://www.economist.com/unknown/2004/05/07/unconscionable)** > > As the humanitarian crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan continues to spread, the country’s appointment to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights prompts an American walkout > **[Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines](https://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=%2Fnm%2F20040504%2Fwl_nm%2Fun_rights_elections_dc)** > > The latest news and headlines from Yahoo! News. Get breaking news stories and in-depth coverage with videos and photos. (…and Cuba also) [http://coranet.radicalparty.org/pressreview/print.php?func=detail&par=5534](http://coranet.radicalparty.org/pressreview/print.php?func=detail&par=5534) ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2004, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impotent-un/241693/40 "2004-05-08T20:02:24Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > The one inconvenient fact the Republicans want to brush under the rug is that most of the bridge-building between the United States and Libya happened [under the Clinton Administration.](http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/indyk/20040309.htm) That’s an interesting article, and something to think about. The Clinton administration had its share of spectacular failures to go along with some notable successes, just as any administration. But it’ll take more than one article to convince me they were so bad at foreign policy that they couldn’t work out a deal on Libya’s WMD, particularly since they successfully did work out a deal on the Pan AM 103 suspects prior to the events portrayed in that article. In either case, though, the IAEA had nothing to do with it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impotent-un/241693.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impotent-un/241693.md?page=3)