Oh – I note that this thread is becoming a somewhat useful discussion on the merits of the UN, and am reluctant to bring up the subject of the site in the OP.
But I’m going to.
Those are the same people who have been putting up these huge billboards all over Texas (at least between Dallas and Houston) that say in big bold letters: COULD THE UN INVADE THE US? In smaller print is their phone number and website. There are blurred background images of helicopters, APCs, and the American flag. I’d been meaning to check them out, but it always slipped my mind. And now I’ve been blessed with the opportunity to confirm that they are, in fact, wacko nutjobs. (And further, if the UN was going to invade the US, why on earth would we want to quit? We could use our veto on the Security Council to deep-six the resolution. )
First, I think that the UN is about as efficient and benevolent as any group of largely wealthy powerful men can be.
Ahem.
Second, I think the debate on whether or not the U.S. ought to sign on to the ICC is one of the most interesting in recent years. As much as I dislike the guy, I can’t find fault in ol’ Bush for not pushing for ratification. The only reason he has to deal with it at all is because Clinton forced him…at the 11th hour of his term.
That said, I’ve heard good arguments on both sides, and I tend to lean toward the U.S. joining. It will never, ever pass muster with Congress, but in an ideal world, I think we ought to do it. Forgetting for a moment the ethical argument that war crimes [even those committed by us) ought to be punished outside of a home-grown venue, Clinton got enough loopholes into the document to virtually guarantee that U.S. citizens will never be brought to trial. Heck, any pending case has to get through the Security Council…on which we have a big veto.
…then again…it does seem like accepting the ICC necessarily means violating the sovereignty of the Constitution. Ah well. It’ll never pass through Congress, regardless. =}
And, notice how I am overlooking your hyphenation which apparently lumps together the terms “Palestinian” and “terrorist”. I am assuming for purposes of this discussion that you are meaning “Palestinians”, not “Palestinian terrorists”.
Taking your cites one by one…
[list=1]
[li] http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/unantisem.html[/li]
This is an op-ed piece by Morris B. Abram, of UN Watch, titled, “Anti-Semitism in the United Nations”.
The total discussion here of actual resolutions is limited to the following:
It was “considered”, not “passed”. If it was passed, please give a cite for it.
All it’s asking for is a meeting of experts to talk about the Geneva Convention. I submit that Morris Abram has intentionally slanted it to make it sound as though Israel is being specifically targeted. If you want to prove me wrong, why don’t you go find it for me, and show me.
The point of me asking you for cites to support your statement that there is a clique of Arab/Muslim nations pushing anti-Israel resolutions through the UN was for you to go and find those on the Web and post the URLs here, so I could read them for myself. The point was not for you to go and find various anti-Palestinian, pro-Israel commentators and quote what they say. I’d like to see cites for those “34 anti-Israel UN resolutions”. So far all we have is Morris’ word for it.
“The usual”? This is his opinion, not a statement of fact. Cite, please.
The resolution was passed nearly 30 years ago–and it was rescinded over ten years ago.
Here is the text of the original Resolution 3379 from 1975.
And here’s the list of those who sponsored it, 24 members.
It was adopted, 72 to 35, with 32 abstentions As many people abstained as voted against it. So only 48 other members, besides the 24 sponsoring members, voted in favor of it. In what way did the 24 sponsoring Arab/Muslim members push this through? What sort of leverage did they exert on those 48 other members to force them to vote for this? Remember, your point is that the Arab/Muslim members are controlling the UN by forcing anti-Israel resolutions through, not merely that anti-Israel resolutions have been passed. I don’t question the fact that there is an Arab/Muslim voting bloc in the UN–what I do question is your assertion that they’re controlling the UN’s political process and pushing “many” anti-Israel resolutions through.
I also don’t question the fact that there is probably a certain amount of anti-Israel feeling in the UN, but that’s not the point here.
[li] http://www.adl.org/PresRele/UnitedNations_94/4076_94.asp[/li]
This is an Anti-Defamation League press release concerning the UN envoy’s comments concerning Jenin, and has nothing to do with UN resolutions, whether Arab/Muslim-sponsored or not.
We’re not here to talk about “anti-Semitism in the UN”–we’re here to talk about specific UN resolutions.
[li] http://www.adl.org/PresRele/IslME_62/4074_62.asp[/li]
This is another press release from April 16, 2002 by the ADL concerning a “U.N. Human Rights Commission resolution condemning Israel for alleged mass killings of Palestinians”,
I’m assuming that this was the “Situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory - Commission on Human Rights resolution 2002/1”. Here is the actual text of the resolution (VBulletin won’t make it into a link, so Copy and Paste the entire thing into the Address window.)
Okay, so there’s one (1) actual UN resolution, definitely not friendly to Israel, although I think it’s worthwhile to point out that it’s not a Security Council resolution, or even a General Assembly resolution–it’s just a Human Rights Commission resolution. But–in what way did your presumed Arab/Muslim clique push this through? Please demonstrate.
Consider the possibility that the members of the UNHRC commission who voted for it might have done so simply because they think Israel is out of line, and not because any Arabs or Muslims pressured them into it.
[li] http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_faq_palestine_un_anti_israel_bias.php[/li]
This is an opinion piece masquerading as “Palestine Facts” titled, “What is the evidence that the United Nations is biased against Israel?” There are facts, yes, but there are also a lot of unproven assertions. And I don’t see any references to actual UN resolutions, whether pushed through by an Arab/Muslim clique or not.
“Repeatedly”? And what was the text of the resolutions? In what way did they charge Israel with all this? Cite, please.
“Routinely”? Cite, please.
Ah, some actual numbers. Um, maybe this is because Israel is the one who has the most trouble, so Israel is the one who gets the most attention?
Same thing–what was the text of the resolutions? A resolution merely expressing “shock” and “regrets” doesn’t automatically qualify as “anti-Israeli”.
This is beginning to sound like the kid who has problems in class and then complains that he’s always in the principal’s office. Well, yeah, that’s the way it works. UN members who don’t have trouble with their neighbors don’t normally have the UN pass resolutions against them. What was the actual text of the resolutions?
Please be so kind as to go find this for me, and show me how it condemns Israel, and then show me how it was pushed through the UN by an Arab/Muslim clique.
A. Prove this. Show how the votes added up and the Arab/Muslim clique pushed it through.
B. Almost parenthetically, I might note that it would seem to me that if this “series of anti-Israel resolutions” “was capped” by something in 1975, that it might be classed as “ancient history”. Still, in a conflict that goes back over 2,000 years, I suppose 27 years is as a passing dream…
[li] http://christianactionforisrael.org/un/news_un.html[/li]
Not only is this last one the most “comprehensive”, it’s also the most biased. No way am I going to wade through all that glurge, looking for actual UN resolutions.
The first one I looked at is an article by Jonah Goldberg titled U.N. Vote Undermines “Human Rights”, dealing with last April’s UNHRC resolution, and it starts out with this:
And finishes up with this.
I mean, geez. Total paranoia, right out of the box. :rolleyes:
[/list=1]
So, as far as I’m concerned, your assertion that there’s an Arab/Muslim clique running things at the UN and forcing the passage of “many” anti-Israel resolutions is not proven.
Please do. You can put them in your new thread, so we can get out of Vanilla’s way.
Well, at first I’d thought it might be a good site, as lots of “christians” seem to like the ideas of the John Birch Society.
And I certainly am a beleiver in some conspiracies myself.
I really wanted info, as I knew nothing about the U.N.
There was a really good book called Birchism Was My Business by a Gerald Schomp, written many years ago.
He used to be a Bircher, then left and wrote a funny expose of it. I can’t find it anywhere.:eek:
Nope. Doesn’t work like that. The pending cases don’t have to go through the Security Council. The Security Council can suspend a case, however. So, with its veto, the US could prevent a case from being blocked. But it couldn’t block it.
So, there’s actually no guarantee that US citizens will never be brought to trial. But the fact that the US ratify the treaty or not is irrelevant, anyway. Citizens of non-signatory countries can be brought to trial too. The only difference is that the court has no juridiction for war crimes when US citizens are the victims, or when they’re commited on the US territory. And of course the US has no say in its organization. But if an american is the criminal, he can be tried by the court, even though the US have not signed the treaty.
DDG – You’ve asked for a lot. If I have time, I’ll look for more cites. I am not planning to start a new thread at this time.
However, I would take exception to this statement:
As I read it, the statement you quoted is saying that the US might be next to be treated unfairly by the UN. The booing of Colin Powell at the recent UN earth summit in South Africa shows that it’s far from paranoid to imagine that the UN might develop an anti-American bias.
That isn’t what I said. The U.S. has a veto and no, it isn’t a wholesale block, but it surely is a powerful one.
The ICC is only involved in issues where a crime can be substantiated to the Security Council, and the country in question is unwilling or unable to conduct their own investigations in good faith. Further, the crimes must be on a grand scale, and only democracies who open up their records (and are investigated) on human rights may sign or ratify.
One schmo in Japan who rapes a 16-year-old would not, for example, be brought to trial (actually, for several reasons), and countries like Iraq, China, Libya, and Sudan could never even sign if they wanted to.
AFAIK, this is not true. Only countries Can you cite from the document to back this up?
It depends. First, like all cases, they must be “war crimes,” and be on a grand scale. Second, you are incorrect. Since the U.S. is a member of the Security Council, they may bring charges. Charges may be brought if the crime occurs in a country that has ratified, by a country that has ratified, or if referred by the Security Council.
Can you back this up to any degree? It appears false on its face.
Rubbish. Not only did Clinton and Albright negotiate a large portion of the Rome treaty, but every U.N. nation is involved in the selection of judges.
First, we have signed the treaty…but signing the treaty is meaningless. Second, the crime must be on a grand scale. Third, yes, Americans may be brought to trial even if we do not ratify the treaty if and only if:
-The crimes are committed in a country that has ratified
-The Security Council approves
I mean no disrespect, but have you read the document?
andros, I’m not claiming that the UN is anti-American. I’m not even claiming that the UN could become anti-American some day. All I’m claiming is that it’s not paranoia per se for someone to believe that the UN might become anti-American some day. I think that would not be an insane belief, anyhow. The booing of our Secretary of State at a UN conference tends to support the possibility that much more.
YMMV. Do you have evidence that anyone who thinks that the UN might turn anti-American is ipso facto paranoid?
There was a billboard for that web site on the main drag here in Spokane last week. I was going to complain to the billboard company that it gave the impression our town is full of ignorant hicks who think the UN is going to invade us, but the billboard is already gone. I guess someone already complained.
>> The booing of Colin Powell at the recent UN earth summit in South Africa shows that it’s far from paranoid to imagine that the UN might develop an anti-American bias
Seeing that many, if not most, were Americans themselves I would not call that antiAmerican bias, I would rather call it anti-American-government-policy in that particular area. So, what are you going to do? Outlaw Americans whose opinions differ from their government’s opinions?
To show this as an example of anti-Americanism is just silly.
December, read all you wrote, ponder it, and then try discussing it. Firts of all Who cheered for mugabe? then Who jeered Powell? Then Who cares? Prove that The General Assembly, The economic and social council, the general secretary or the security council (just to name a few of the UN’s organs) ever compromised U.S. security. Read the Un’s chart start with chapter five, articles 23 and ss. specially read article 27. When you do that you will know how is it that the U.N. can never threaten the U.S. China, Russia, France, Great Britain. Article 27 is the reason that you can’t be paranoid. Also read articles 108, and 109. That means that the secuirty council can also veto reforms that will private it from their current powers.
What is the meaning of all those articles? If the U.S doesn’t want the U.N. to take an important action, it can vote against it and the action will never happen. Period.
This mini-debate is a bit silly. I was responding to a statement made with no evidence at all that anyone who imagined that the UN could develop an anti-American bias was obviously paranoid. I suppose I ought to have simply demanded evidence for that POV and let it go at that.
Yes, the UN could always veto a Security Council resolution. However, other agencies of the UN could conceivably take anti-American positions that could be at least embarassing. Anyone who thinks that the sentence immediatly preceeding this one proves that I’m paranoid, please explain why.
)