Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Fri 10/01/2004 View Thu 09/30/2004 View Wed 09/29/2004 View Tue 09/28/2004 View Mon 09/27/2004 View Sun 09/26/2004 View Sat 09/25/2004
1
2004-10-01 Africa: North
Libya demands permanent UN seat
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by tipper 2004-10-01 12:56:20 AM|| || Front Page|| [11130 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Lol! Piled atop recent evidence of incorrigible corruption and moral putrefaction, the circle now seems to be complete. This article makes the case almost perfectly for dissolving the UN. It's not simply worthless, but a demented body of escaped lunatics -- and an absurdly grand stage from which morons strut their insanity like the Emperor's New Clothes and the world's press reports it as rational commentary and debate. I think the opinions Shalghem expresses break new ground and plumb levels of absurdity hitherto unknown. A seminal moment in the history of the UN.

Is there an exterminator in the house?
Posted by .com 2004-10-01 3:17:41 AM||   2004-10-01 3:17:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 The "world" doesn't infuse anything into the UN it's mostly Japan and a very few western nations. Get us out of the UN now.
Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom  2004-10-01 3:34:21 AM|| [http://www.slhess.com]  2004-10-01 3:34:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 "There can be no Mediterranean Sea without Libya,"
WTF. Yeah, without Libya it would just slosh over into the Sahara Desert. LOL.

This is classic middle eastern haggling culture -- give 'em an inch and they want a mile. In a word: NO.
Posted by Tom 2004-10-01 7:55:59 AM||   2004-10-01 7:55:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 I agree with the Libyans. It's hypocritical to try to impose standards and expectations on Security Council members when you don't make the same demands of general members of the UN. If Libya's considered as worthy of UN membership as is the US, France, Botswana and Columbia, say, why should others get to say who's worthy of membership of the Security Council? It's not democratically done, and the criteria are subjectively decided by the most powerful members. It's time to make the UN one animal or the other: either an amoral global talking shop with no claim to authority, or an exlusive club with basic entry standards and moral authority. Perhaps it's time to establish the latter, and allow the UN to remain as it already is: corrupt and immoral, living on borrowed time and coasting on burned-out reserves of credibility.
Posted by Bulldog  2004-10-01 8:05:56 AM||   2004-10-01 8:05:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Bulldog I am with you. France and Germany don't get a seat at the table. Only nations with the capsity to project power get to belong. Makes for a very small club.
Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom  2004-10-01 8:10:58 AM|| [http://www.slhess.com]  2004-10-01 8:10:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 While we're at it, can we change each member country's share of the cost to 1/191 of the total?
Posted by Tom 2004-10-01 8:38:59 AM||   2004-10-01 8:38:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 
The CIA should stop putting those sugar pills in Gaddafi's bottle of bi-polar meds.
.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-10-01 8:49:05 AM||   2004-10-01 8:49:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Did the Beeb buy Scrappleface?
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-10-01 9:11:23 AM||   2004-10-01 9:11:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Since membership in the UN puts all countries on equal footing of "sovereignty" why not indeed? Let's give NoKorea, Iran, Nigeria, Sudan, Zimbabwe, and Venezuela permanent seats in the Security Council. Why, let's give them veto power too! Maybe Mugabe can be the next Secretary General.

Ceterum censeo, Mecca delenda est.
Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2004-10-01 11:06:06 AM|| [http://radio.weblogs.com/0103811/categories/currentEvents/]  2004-10-01 11:06:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 The UN charter was a compromise. The GA recognizes the theoretical equality of sovereigns, while the UNSC is (or should) recognize the reality of power. Neither is or should be a substitute for formal and informal alliances. Is the UNSC structured optimally - almost certainly not - but no restructuring will make it terribly more useful than it is now, nor will it become a "moral" democratic league - thats NOT its purpose.

So should we toss Russia from the G8, since theyre not quite a market democracy?
Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-10-01 11:12:04 AM||   2004-10-01 11:12:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 We should do whatever the F*&k we want. We're the US, and the Big Dog on the street. Time for a reality bitch-slapping of these chihuahas
Posted by Frank G  2004-10-01 11:17:52 AM||   2004-10-01 11:17:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 screw it! Let's demand a permanent seat for Rantburg.
Posted by spiffo 2004-10-01 11:50:43 AM||   2004-10-01 11:50:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 btw - mine was only slightly /sarcasm
Posted by Frank G  2004-10-01 11:52:07 AM||   2004-10-01 11:52:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 The UN charter was a compromise.

Stop ya right there, LH. That's why it doesn't do anything very well. Better to develop something akin to a civilian NATO which demands minimum membership standards and doesn't end up with such ridiculous situations as Sudan (home of the world's latest genocide) chairing human rights bodies, and the oil-for-fraud scandal all but ignored. The UN's had its day. Don't you think the old compromise can be improved on? Don't you think it would do well for wavering states, to have something to aspire to?

No EU comparisons, please. I'm not talking about a world government.
Posted by Bulldog  2004-10-01 12:04:16 PM||   2004-10-01 12:04:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 NATO has minimum membership standards? Then why is France still in it?
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-10-01 12:05:51 PM||   2004-10-01 12:05:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Camembert?
Posted by Bulldog  2004-10-01 12:31:09 PM||   2004-10-01 12:31:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 ...nor will it become a "moral" democratic league - thats NOT its purpose.

The UN represents the triumph of the cargo cult mentality: We've built something that sort of looks like a democratic world government, ergo it is a democratic world government, and it must function as one. Which is to say, whatever the UN says is Law.

When the bamboo-and-banana-leaf world body was constructed, the chief witch doctors knew it wasn't real, but hoped that time would make something real from it. Those guys are gone now, and the current crop of witch doctors don't know it's not real. They think any kind of trash that falls from the rickety old thing must be the holy International Law it's supposed to produce.
Posted by Angie Schultz 2004-10-01 12:35:21 PM|| [http://darkblogules.blogspot.com]  2004-10-01 12:35:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Title: Libya demands permanent UN seat

Fine, take ours! We'll take our ball ($) and go home. Oh yeah, BTW, you're in our home, so get out!
Posted by BA  2004-10-01 2:25:42 PM||   2004-10-01 2:25:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 The UN is a cold-war creation, and it was intended to be a sort of geo-political shock-absorber. It's design mandate was to do nothing, and to take it's time doing it. Both these design goals are in evidence today.

It is an institution that has outlived whatever relevance it might have once had.
Posted by mojo  2004-10-01 3:35:51 PM||   2004-10-01 3:35:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 BD - i remember when Daniel Patrick Moynihan said there should be a democratic bloc within the UNGA, to counter the communist and third world block. That began to happen, then the muslim countries broke with the reds on Afghanistan, and everything was hunky dory. After the reds fell, the UNGA got even better, repealing the Zionism is racism res for example.

Frankly as NATO has shown, the problem now is NOT the influence of non-democracies on world affairs, but the failure of the democracies to unite on pro democracy policy, and to see it as something of value to all of them, rather than to oppose it out of fear of the US hyperpower. Thats a lot of peoples fault - but i dont see changing the UN structure helping much.

AS - International law is made by treaties among nation states. The UN charter is one such treaty. That charter renders UNSC resolutions international law - NOT UNGA resolutions. As a power with the veto, the US has little reason to be concerned with resolutions we dont like. As for the failure to pass resolutions we do like, thats pretty silly - if there were no UN we wouldnt get them either. IF a group of democracies is interested in signing a treaty that say China, doesnt like, they are free to do so outside the UNSC.

The real problem is that some people claimed that outside of immediate self defense, you cant go to war without a UNSC resolution. This is not MY reading of the UN charter, and it isnt how most nations have conducted their affairs. The administration (divided against itself, i might add) chose to act as if that were true, only changing course when it became clear a second res after 1441 was impossible. IMHO that was clearly a mistake. We should have pointed out ALL ALONG that we had the right to go to war based on Saddams violations of the ceasefire that ended gulf war one, and that we had the right to make THAT ceasefire without authorization from the UN, as the right of Kuwait to self defense, and to help from others, was a preexisting right of states prior to and independent of the UN charter. But a certain Jim Baker suggested going to the UNSC instead, and Baker was close to George HWB. Some thought Baker could get a UNSC res with stuff in his briefcase. They were wrong. ANd the rest is history.

Mojo - the UN is useful in places that are NOT central to great power conflict, like Timor, Cambodia, etc. It may yet prove useful in Darfur. This was the case during the cold war as well.
Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-10-01 3:53:39 PM||   2004-10-01 3:53:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Time to vote France off the island.
Posted by RWV 2004-10-01 6:42:28 PM||   2004-10-01 6:42:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Liberalhawk:
[The UN] may yet prove useful in Darfur
As useful as they were in Rwanda?

Kosovo?

Iraq?

Then God help the poor citizens of Darfur.
Posted by Barbara Skolaut  2004-10-01 6:48:25 PM||   2004-10-01 6:48:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Mojo - the UN is useful in places that are NOT central to great power conflict, like Timor, Cambodia, etc.

It only took 'em 30-odd years to get around to Timor. As for Cambodia...

But indeed- the UN made themselves useful.
Posted by Pappy 2004-10-01 10:54:56 PM||   2004-10-01 10:54:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 and they provide good weapons and snuffie transport in Gaza, so.....
Posted by Frank G  2004-10-01 11:39:06 PM||   2004-10-01 11:39:06 PM|| Front Page Top

00:24 JINSA
19:11 f*_^_ you
19:15 f*_^_ you
13:42 Whemble Glamble2411
22:57 lex
13:43 lex
13:28 lex
11:11 Zhang Fei
09:33 tu3031
07:48 Shipman
07:15 indu ju killer TROLL
04:20 Zenster
02:53 Zenster
02:22 Bryan
00:49 ed
00:23 Super Hose
00:13 Seafarious
00:05 Lucky
23:52 Super Hose
23:50 Frank G
23:49 Frank G
23:49 Seafarious
23:45 Super Hose
23:42 Frank G









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com