Security Council irrelevant
Moshe Ronen
Published: 06.02.12, 18:03
Comment Comment
Print comment Print comment
Back to article
26 Talkbacks for this article
1. We need to re-think the U.N.'s structure
Sarah B ,   U.S.A. / Israel   (02.06.12)
For one thing, a permanent seat on the Security Council was granted to the Soviet Union, not to Russia. Since nearly all of the former Soviet Republics have divested themselves, Russia is not really entitled to a permanent seat on the Security Council. For another thing, the People's Republic of China was awarded a permanent seat on the Security Council only following blackmail, which entailed the illegal and outrageous deligitimization of Taiwan. China should be removed as well. There is no room on the Security Council for either Russia or China.
2. UN irrelevant? Too many undemocratic&corrupt states!
Jerry ,   The Netherlands   (02.06.12)
3. You are off base
Tom ,   USA   (02.06.12)
The UN is NOT an independent body with legislative power. It's a collection of ambassadors representing their gov.ment. and their stand. The policy is drawn up in various capitals and submitted to discussion in the UN assembly only. As a practical step. The UN cannot make laws on their own without a priory consent of national gov.ment. In brief: Do not overrate the UN.
4. with all due respect
israel israeli ,   tel aviv   (02.06.12)
There is no evidence supporting Ronen's accusation that Assad is "methodically slaughtering his people". Instead, Assad apparently shot and tortured unarmed protestors, in the same way that Saudi forces shot and tortured unarmed protestors in Bahrain. And there is the point. If Obama was a moral president who represented American values, it would be a different story. But he is not. Obama tricked Russia into supporting a "no fly zone" in Libya, and then started bombing civilian targets and deploying SAS death squads to effect regime change. Does he really think that Russia will support him now? And what about national interest? Assad is nasty, but so were the Saudis that Obama supported. Why should Putin become a rubber-stamp to Obama's decisions when civilians can be killed (Bahrain, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya) and when they can't be killed (Syria)?
5. France???
johnny ,   norway   (02.06.12)
how did France get a veto???? the Germans owned France in ww2.. France did not do anything.. they just gave up there country to Germany without fight, then the U>S came to the rescue. France should be striped down from the veto power and Israel should get it, because Israel own all the Arab countrys
6. Israel is the only country not allowed on Security Council.
Jane ,   Wales   (02.06.12)
The ONLY UN member country prohibited from sitting on the UN Security Council is..... Israel. This is due to the vast Arab and Islamic influence within the world body. Arab and Islamic countries regularly sit, head, and vote on the Security Council, even in matters pertaining to the Jewish state, which they often do not even recognise. This was the case during the recent attempt to obtain Palestinian statehood, when both the Security Council and General Assembly were expediently headed by Arab and Islamic nations. The UN human rights council is another group within the world body which is heavily weighted against Israel. It is not for nothing that the UN is regarded by many as irrelevant, morally bankrupt and politically impotent; the abbreviations UN-istan and UN-able have a growing relevance.
7. Not only the SC
Istvan ,   BUDAPEST HUNGARY   (02.06.12)
but the whole UN is irrelevant. The international organisation deals permanently how many new garages and dog's houses are beeing build in "the occupied palestinian territories". But not a word about that dozens of countries are unnaturally overpopulated, which causes plenty of serious problems for example in Egypt, Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen etc, etc, etc.
8. #5 - France owned the most colonies after the UK.
Henry from New York ,   USA   (02.06.12)
The French did do something, but mostly after their country fell. French military leadership is usually quite incompetent. It would be nice for Israel to have a permanent seat one day. A man can dream.
9. #5
Jonathan ,   MN/US   (02.06.12)
The only reason france was "owned" in WW2 was because they were still exausted from WW1. And oviously you never heard of the french resistance. And your reason for israel getting a Security Council seat dosnt hold water.
10. is the un what????
les ,   canada   (02.06.12)
what a revelation... the un was stillborn from day one! it is just a hangout to low lifes, whom otherwise would never be allowed on usa soil. it has been hijacked by the beggars, to squees the last drop of blood from the civilized world (aka. western world), and gives back only grief and trouble! CAN THE UN, SAVE THE WORLD!
11. most arabs including syria Iran & Iraq have sat on SC before
zionist forever   (02.06.12)
Bahrain Egypt Iran Iraq Jordan Kuwait Lebanon Pakistan Quatar Syria Sudan United Arab Emirates All these countries have sat on the rotating Security Council at least once some have even been elected to it 4-5 times. Syria has been elected to the Security Council three times now under both brutal dictator & champion of terror Bashar Assad and his father Hafez Assad who was responsible for wars against Israel, the invasion & occupation of Lebanon and responsible for the murder of up to 40,000 Syrians at Hama. Any organization which allows 5 of its members to veto any bill is always going to be rigged in somebodies favor. If one of the permanent members thinks a proposed bill will not be good for their best interests then they will veto it and the bill will be dead even if all the other members support it.
12. Good article; answer is expanded UNSC and no veto
esnuffnstl ,   USA   (02.06.12)
To make the UN more relevant, the first step is to expand the UNSC. India and Japan certainly deserve permanent seats (but without veto priveleges), and Africa and S. America should each get an additional rotating permanent seat to bring UNSC membership to 19. This would make the UNSC more representative (and therefor more legitimate) but not too big as to become an ineffective debating society that never gets things done. One day, decades from now, there might be a time when the world has been at peace for so long that the five permament members will agree to give up their vetoes. When this happens, nations like Syria, Serbia, and Israel will no longer be able to rely on their pesonal sugar daddies to prevent international condemnation of their actions. Needless to say, this day might never come (or probably won't come in our lifetimes.) The UN is as far from perfect as an international organization can be, but it is still better than nothing. It's no surprise that those who scream the loudest about the UN are those who want their nations to have the ability to live by the dictate that 'might equals right' as opposed to 'equal under the law.'
13. #12 - Please remember we are dealing with reality here.
Henry from New York ,   USA   (02.07.12)
14. LOL! Uh, the UN is irrelevant!!!
EZ ,   USA   (02.07.12)
Not just the security council. Since the first gulf war the UN has only been used as a tool for Muslims and COMMUNISTS, nothing more. It is the greatest failure of any int'l org. The reality is that humanity is a far cry from being able to responsibly handle such an institution at this point in our evolution. There are are far too many uneducated people and cultures that are totally backwards for a UN type agency to work. It's that simple. Such people and cultures exploit every opportunity to acquire more money and power which is abused, misused and often funneled to terrorists. The UN is a joke.
15. All of a sudden they're irrelevant?
Mark ,   Detroit USA   (02.07.12)
For years the nations of the globe have been voting their minds and hearts regarding the Palestinian Arabs, only to have the US veto the resolutions. That was just "working the system". Now that we can't condemn others, we have no use for the UN? Israel was created solely by virtue of the UN blessing. We should work the system to the best of our ability and shut up when we can't get our way. Negotiated settlements are still much better than the bloody war that awaits us in the middle east when arrogant men (our leaders and theirs) decide that the best option is war.
16. #15. Mark: please be rational
Tom ,   USA   (02.07.12)
The UN was and is irrelevant if it cuts into the interest of the Big Players. The Soviet/Russia ignored the UN during their invasion into Hungary '56, to Prague '68, China ignores anything pertaining to Tibet, the US has her own goals etc. Then what? The UN is like a "small claim court" - can be used in Africa between feudal tribes, far away lands like Papua New Guinea, in the Balkans etc. Also maybe good for humanitarian efforts and so on. The point is that we ought regard the UN what really is, instead of what we would like it to be. In world politics there is no room for romanticism.
17. The UN is indeed Worth It
Abdel Karim Salim ,   Jerusalem   (02.07.12)
The UN is not worthless . When unanimity or even a majority is reached in the Security Council or the General Assembly it simply symbolises and reflects some kind of international consensus or general agreement by humankind on any single issue . And deliberations in the various bodies of the UN are a no-less important part or face of diplomacy . Furthermore, the recently-felt " disappointing veto " by Russia and China in favor of Syria should be viewed as tantamount to the dozens of vetoes the US used in favor of Israel . It simply works both ways : once for you , and once against you ! Besides, it should not be forgotten that US military intervention in Korea in 1950 was mandated by the UN as was Desert Storm war against Iraq in 1990 . And I find it puzzling to see you erring seriously by claiming NATO intervention against the late tyrant of Libya in March 2011 was not mandated by the UN ! Also, unilateral,one-sided military intervention against other countries , such as the 1965 Vietnam War, the 1999 war against Serbia, and the 2003 US-led war against Iraq is not blessed by international approval but is rather a reflection of egoistic, selfish and perhaps aggressive foreign policy of certain individual states .
18. To: No. 15
Sarah B ,   U.S.A. / Israel   (02.07.12)
The United Nations has been irrelevant for a very long time. They aren't voting their "minds and hearts" regarding the ersatz "Palestinians." They've been voting their anti-Semitism. Have you stopped to wonder why countries which enthusiastically endorse an ersatz "Palestinian" state have expelled the ersatz "Palestinians" from THEIR states? Jordan, Lebanon, Tunisia, Oman, Muscat, Abu Dhabi and Kuwait. Saudi Arabia barely grants visas -- and then, only to perform haj. No one really wants them. I submit to you that there is a reason, and all you have to do is look at seven decades of unrelenting terror against Israel and Jews in the Diaspora; nearly inciting a revolution in Jordan; destabilizing Lebanon; trying to take over Tunisia ..... and keep going from there.
19. #14
CindyCol ,   Missouri, USA   (02.07.12)
"There are are far too many uneducated people and cultures that are totally backwards for a UN type agency to work. It's that simple. Such people and cultures exploit every opportunity to acquire more money and power which is abused, misused and often funneled to terrorists." Yes, I have hope that Israel will one day grow up and become a more mature nation.
20. to 11
iran is not araby it is IRAN and pakistan is not araby nor pakistan
21. Deluded expectations
Zivron   (02.07.12)
The UN and League of Nations supported a Jewish State in their ancient homeland still the Shoah still the wars to destroy the small Jewish state surrounded by Islamic triamphalists oil rich and expansionist.
22. #17 Abdel NOTHING to do with Israel
Sharona ,   Jerusalem Israel   (02.07.12)
The UN is worthless, and what is going on in Syria has NOTHING to do with Israel. So the Chinese and Russian veto is not for "us". It is for the continued massacre of Syrians by the Syrian government. It is for mass slaughter of Arabs by other Arabs.
23. #21. Zivron: You're incorrect!
Tom ,   USA   (02.07.12)
The UN partially!! supported the Jewish state because the vote was not unanimous. In favor 33, against 22, abstention 10. Britain absented (!!!) and Spain recognized Israel in 1975 only. Britain is the most hostile country towards Israel from the beginning among the larger nations.
24. #9 jonathan
solomon ,   bklyn   (02.07.12)
“And your reason for Israel getting a Security Council seat doesn’t hold water. “ Agreed. But neither does any reason for Israel not getting a Security Council seat.
25. #12 esnuffnsti
solomon ,   bklyn   (02.07.12)
I never knew that self-defense, winning wars started by others, protecting the state’s citizens, and taking threats of annihilation seriously, are reasons for being condemned by the international community. Don’t get me wrong; Israel is condemned by many and often, but without reason.
26. #19 cindy
solomon ,   bklyn   (02.07.12)
Please note some specific arguments as to why you equate Israel with your quote, while the “Palestinians” keep milking the world for aid, which mysteriously appears in the bank accounts of their leaders and is also turned into arms. These arms are used against Israel indiscriminately. If you can’t tell us your reasons, I can only assume you shut your eyes and ears when confronted with reality.
Back to article