The part of the UN resolution that I quoted had 2 key metrics for when the UNSC would act: when the controlling government can’t control the violence, and when diplomacy has been shown to have failed. It also mentions that each situation has to be handled individually, so you said the question was when putting down an insurrection becomes genocide, but equally important a question is when we know that diplomacy has failed. Currently, the Russians are saying there are still diplomatic options.
No Arab country is going to invade another Arab country without incurring the wrath of the rest of the Arab world. The Arab League is even more worthless than the UN in this situation.
We have a UN to serve the purposes of imperialism and other vested interests of the five permanent members, and to give all of that a veneer of credibility for the hard of thinking - especially but not only in the area of 'international ‘law’ which, of course, isn’t law at all. Unless it suits the five permanent members.
It’s just not USAs imperialism or vested interests that’s served on this occasion.
You condemn once, so we can say he’s a tyrant. If you keep after it, it looks like a bunch of fancy diplomat tricks. It’s the difference between paper law and international law. Even the Chinese are vetoing it!
Depends on your definition of “genocide”, I’d expect. If you simply use it to mean “lots and lots of dead civilians”, then yes, if only because the violent suppression of dissidents tends to be a self-sustaining proposition.
But if you use the more restrictive definition of “killing people based on their ethnicity/culture/religion/social caste”, then rebelliousness has little to do with anything.
The UN is effectively carrying out its duties as designed. Instead of caving to a pro-Western ideology, it was forced to consider the vetoes of 2 of its permanent members.
Just because it doesn’t come out in your favor doesn’t make it ineffective
There’s a very strong correlation between Americans (and Brits) complaining that the UN is irrelevant/outdated/useless, and the UN getting in the way of what America Britain wants to do.
Part of the whole point of the UN is to keep countries or groups of countries from going on the warpath without wider approval.
Only the Security Council can authorize peacekeeping missions or military action (unless the SC is not actively considering a matter, in which case the General Assembly can authorize peacekeeping efforts.)
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Only the Security Council can authorize peacekeeping missions or military action (unless the SC is not actively considering a matter, in which case the General Assembly can authorize peacekeeping efforts.)
[/QUOTE]
Yep. The US and the Obama administration is trying to do an end around, but that will delay any kind of humanitarian relief while we wait for everyone interested to get their shit together. From what I was reading earlier, we’d basically just be helping out the current Arab peace/humanitarian/probe efforts going on, since there isn’t anyway (without the use of force) for us TOO provide relief in the areas that need it.
[QUOTE=Diceman]
so the United Nations failed to pass a resolution condeming the violence in Syria. Apparently, China and Russia are having fun watching the show. Or something. I wish I could say I’m surprised, but I’m not. Could someone please remind me why we have a UN, when it’s so dysfunctional that they can’t even agree that mass murder is a bad thing?
[/QUOTE]
The trouble is that there is no consensus on what the ‘best’ course IS, over there. The Russians and Chinese don’t agree that regime change is the best course (and, leaving their own interests aside, recent events haven’t exactly been glowing for regime change as a fix all for problems), so they are balking at passing the resolution. Since they either have to agree or refrain from voting, it ties up the UNSC and effectively prevents any action with the stamp of UN approval on it.
