Alan K. Henderson's Weblog

What event could this be about? The bombing of Nagasaki? Nope, that anniversary is tomorrow. Soviet invasion of Manchuria? Right date, wrong event. Nixon's resignation speech? Not exactly a festive occasion (except for Democrats), but not what I had in mind. Opening of Mauthausen? Some genuine horror there, but I'm thinking of a travesty that continues to this day.

On August 8, 1945, the United States ratified the United Nations Charter, becoming the third nation (after Nicaragua and El Salvador) to join the UN.

The UN and its charter are worthless. Aggressor nations (and pretenders to nationhood, in the case of the Palestinians) don't care about anything emanating from the UN they don't find agreeable. FrontPage Magazine has an example from the UN's earliest days:
After World War II the General Assembly of the United Nations confirmed the inalienable right of the Jewish people to a state of its own in its ancient homeland, which would be divided into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. The Jewish people formally accepted the famous resolution adopted by the General Assembly on November 29, 1947; the Arab nations rejected it out of hand. On May 15, 1948, with the conclusion of the British Mandate, seven Arab armies invaded Palestine with the avowed purpose of destroying the State of Israel in its infancy.
The article quotes Trygvie Lie, the first UN Secretary-General:

"During the next hours and days, events crowded upon us. The Arab states launched their invasion of Palestine with the end of the Mandate. This was clear aggression, and that. failure to meet it could easily lead to the ultimate downfall of the United Nations, just as the mishandling of the Manchurian and Ethiopian cases in the 1930's had led to the collapse of the League of Nations."
Let's go to something more recent - Darfur. FPM has the floor once again:

Earlier this month, the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on Darfur released its report on the crisis in Darfur and concluded that while it appeared that there had been serious breaches of international humanitarian law committed by the perpetrators of the atrocities (which according to the report included Sudanese officials), the legal elements of the crime of genocide have not been satisfied. The significance of this conclusion cannot be over-emphasized, because what was classified a year ago as the worlds worst humanitarian crisis, will now be placed on the "backburner" in terms of priority on the United Nations agenda.
What does the Charter say about the UN addressing such issues?

[T]he principle of non-intervention/interference is subject to the provisions of Chapter VII [quoted verbatim earlier in the article]. Under Chapter VII however, before states can act militarily towards another state or entity, the Security Council must first establish that a breach of peace of act of aggression exists (article 39). The Security Council can then, in the interim period, ask the transgressing state to cease and desist its actions, thus giving it a chance to right itself (article 40). If that fails, then and only then, (legally speaking) can the Security Council "take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security".
So has the UN played by its own rules? No.

The situation in Darfur has been a textbook example of just how the enforcement provisions of Chapter VII hinder states from acting collectively or unilaterally fro[m] protecting. On 30 July 2004, nearly a year after the atrocities began, the Security Council finally passed a resolution determining that a threat to peace and international security existed in Darfur, and formally invoked Chapter VII. Eight months later no action has been taken, and massacres and displacement occur on a daily basis.
A year ago, Rush Limbaugh fashioned a Commander-in-Chief Test, asking the hypothetical test-taker how he or she would have respond to certain situations faced by past presidents. At the end is a long list of hyperlinks related to foreign policy issues of today, particularly concerning Iraq. Here are the links under the subheading "Why the Iraq War Was Legal."

(1991 Ceasefire Saddam Breached)
(UN Resolutions on Iraq)
(WH.gov: Saddam Hussein's Defiance of United Nations Resolutions)
(Scotsman: Attorney General Advised Blair War Was Legal - Butler)
(Age Australia: Yes, This War Is Legal)
(United Nations Security Council Resolution #678)
(United Nations Security Council Resolution #687)
(United Nations Security Council Resolution #1441)
(United Nations Charter Article 51)
(United Nations Charter Chapter VII)
(WFB's Latest: Should We Have Gone to War?)
Note how many of the links pertain to the United Nations.

If even the UN won't pay attention to what the UN says, who will?

The downfall won't come soon enough.

Update: The US government could raise a lot of money if it auctions off the right to rip the UN flag to shreds, should our leaders ever develop the spine to evict those thugs and appeaseniks from Manhattan.

Update: Here I recommended transforming a vacated UN building into "a hostel for refugees fleeing the sort of oppressive regimes the UN ignores." That sentiment also mentioned here.

Labels: History, World