United Nations Charter and their current actions

[Theory5]

I was reading the United nations charter, mainly the preamble and the part of about the security council. Preamble to the United Nations Charter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I became interested in this after reading a couple articles from the brookings institute mainly this one: http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2009/0930_iran_sanctions_salehi_isfahani.aspx

and the one about the G-20 summit.

The title of the Iran sanctions one: "Iran Sanctions: Who Really Wins?" implies that it is not about reaching a safe conclusion which both parties are satisfied, but that it is about beating Iran into submission...

I couldnt find a straight answer for what the G-20 really is, wikipedia just had articles on when and where they were happening.

But back to the U.N. They state in their preamble that they want to

"...to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind..."

as well as

"...to regain faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small..."

And in the security council, I belive it is chapter 5 Article 26:

In order to promote the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world's human and economic resources, the Security Council shall be responsible for formulating, with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee referred to in Article 47, plans to be submitted to the Members of the United Nations for the establishment of a system for the regulation of armaments.

 

 

So, from what I understand, the UN is supposed to keep disputes to talking, and help make the world a better place through talking out problems and co-operation. So whats all this about Iran making nukes? Why should the US have nukes but Iran can't? Why are these so called security council permenant members allowed to have nukes but not Iran?

 

Then there is the part about Article 26 (quoted above) that is about pro-disarment. Since US occupation of the middle east, mutations and lukemia in newborns has gone up by 600% thanks to Depleted Uranium. Why doesnt the rest of the UN step in and stay we cant use it? What happened with the UN when we invaded the middle east? Where was the UN when Darfur was happening? What about when the UN pulled out their peace keepers in that other african country, which I cant remeber the name right now.

 

Sorry about these edits I just keep thinking of things.

If the UN is supposed to allow everbody to work everything out peacefully, why are there permenant members (the so called first world countries) and non-permanent members which can be barred from being relelected by the permanent members. Why cant all the countries be allowed to join, as long as they are all spokemen/women for their people and not just themselves?

It seems to me that the UN hasnt lived up to what they originally where supposed to do. Comments? Opinions?

[Buffy]

The basis for the contention on the issue with Iran is that Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NNPT). To oversimplify it, it says that the people who sign agree:

• To not build nuke bombs if they don't have them.
  
• To not transfer nuke bomb technology if they do, and try to reduce what they have
  
• To publicly announce any peaceful nuclear technology projects
  
• To submit to international inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify any such projects
  

Iran signed it, and there have been indications--that the IAEA has at least questions about--that Iran has worked on developing technology that is only useful in the manufacture of weapons-grade fuel, assisted Syria in starting up a development program, and refused inspections by the IAEA. Thus, they are arguably in violation of the treaty.

 

The UN Security council has enforcement powers under the treaty, and have imposed some mild sanctions, mostly because Russia and China--who have both economic and political interests in not antagonizing the Iranians--have used their veto powers to prevent any significant sanctions.

 

Israel and India have both refused to sign the NNPT, so they are not bound by it. In theory, Iran could withdraw from the NNPT, but they have not felt that it was in their interests geopolitically to do so, and they prefer to simply deny any intentions beyond peaceful use.

 

The real distinction is between those who adapt their purposes to reality and those who seek to mold reality in the light of their purposes, :rolleyes:

Buffy

[Theory5]

The basis for the contention on the issue with Iran is that Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NNPT). To oversimplify it, it says that the people who sign agree:

• To not build nuke bombs if they don't have them.
  
• To not transfer nuke bomb technology if they do, and try to reduce what they have
  
• To publicly announce any peaceful nuclear technology projects
  
• To submit to international inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify any such projects
  

Iran signed it, and there have been indications--that the IAEA has at least questions about--that Iran has worked on developing technology that is only useful in the manufacture of weapons-grade fuel, assisted Syria in starting up a development program, and refused inspections by the IAEA. Thus, they are arguably in violation of the treaty.

 

The UN Security council has enforcement powers under the treaty, and have imposed some mild sanctions, mostly because Russia and China--who have both economic and political interests in not antagonizing the Iranians--have used their veto powers to prevent any significant sanctions.

 

Israel and India have both refused to sign the NNPT, so they are not bound by it. In theory, Iran could withdraw from the NNPT, but they have not felt that it was in their interests geopolitically to do so, and they prefer to simply deny any intentions beyond peaceful use.

It would be helpful if these news articles mention this stuff.

Isnt one of the NNPT's things supposed to be disarment? What are the majors powers doing to disarm their nukes? I know the US got rid of a bunch a while back but why are the major powers still allowed to have nukes?

 

The real distinction is between those who adapt their purposes to reality and those who seek to mold reality in the light of their purposes, :doh:

Buffy

 

hey, that was just how I saw it.I did not know all the facts, and as a result I wrote a thread based on what I saw.

[Buffy]

It would be helpful if these news articles mention this stuff.

I know. Journalism in America is totally sucky these days. I long ago dropped my subscription to Time and now only read The Economist (who's latest add campaign is "Think Responsibly" which I *love*): sad I have to go to the UK for real news...

 

Isnt one of the NNPT's things supposed to be disarment? What are the majors powers doing to disarm their nukes? I know the US got rid of a bunch a while back but why are the major powers still allowed to have nukes?

Well, the NNPT does "encourage" disarmament, but because of the elaborate Kabuki Dances that the principal players seem to have to go through due to political pressures.

 

In practice, the major players work out bilateral agreements--most of this activity has been between the US and Russia, since they have between them 90-odd% of the world's nukes, and really are the main ones that have the ability to reduce their stockpiles without any appreciable impact on the "balance of terror power".

 

Its important to realize that the leaderships of all of the nuclear powers dramatically less likely to have any intent to use their weapons, and the only argument for keeping them is that "other guys have 'em, and what if al Qaeda got one?"

 

This is far more powerful than it might seem, NOT because it would be useful to be able to retaliate, but due to the internal *political* pressure.

 

Can you imagine how ballistic the Republicans would go if Obama announced unilateral reductions in nukes? You wouldn't be able to hear a thing over the screams of "Treason!"...

hey, that was just how I saw it.I did not know all the facts, and as a result I wrote a thread based on what I saw.

And thank you for doing so! No one learns if no one asks any questions...

 

It is better to know some of the questions than all of the answers, :doh:

Buffy

[Donk]

UK news still isn't that great - too much personality stuff, too little fact. "If there's no conflict, there's no story", so it's in their interests to stir up conflict whenever they can.

 

You can sometimes get sandbagged by an unexpected truth in UK drama, though. A few years ago they screened The Amazing Mrs Pritchard, about a supermarket manager who said "a plague on both your houses" and stood for election, only to find that the electorate felt the same and that she'd become Prime Minister.

 

The reason it came to mind when reading this thread is one of her "sandbagging" moments, when the defence chiefs were explaining about the budget to replace our ageing nuclear weapons stock. "Why do you need more bombs? You haven't used the last lot yet?" :doh:

[Theory5]

I know. Journalism in America is totally sucky these days. I long ago dropped my subscription to Time and now only read The Economist (who's latest add campaign is "Think Responsibly" which I *love*): sad I have to go to the UK for real news...

I know how you feel, I go to bbc.com for decent international news.

 

Its important to realize that the leaderships of all of the nuclear powers dramatically less likely to have any intent to use their weapons, and the only argument for keeping them is that "other guys have 'em, and what if al Qaeda got one?"

When people say something like that I like to ask them if they know about the 60 minute war. The hypothical time it would take for all the nuclear powers lauch their nuclear stockpiles and obliterate most of the world.

 

This is far more powerful than it might seem, NOT because it would be useful to be able to retaliate, but due to the internal *political* pressure.

 

Can you imagine how ballistic the Republicans would go if Obama announced unilateral reductions in nukes? You wouldn't be able to hear a thing over the screams of "Treason!"...

Funny, You know how during elections everbody was screaming Socialist? I recently watched the new michael moore movie (Capitolism: A love story) and it mentioned that. It turns out that the younger generations didnt know what a socialist was, and after looking it up they decided they could agree with most of it.

I wouldnt be suprised if this generation might encourge some changes like that. I guess we will have to wait and see. :-)

[Buffy]

When people say something like that I like to ask them if they know about the 60 minute war. The hypothical time it would take for all the nuclear powers lauch their nuclear stockpiles and obliterate most of the world.

You may not remember how bad it used to be. Those Russian folks did think that eliminating the the US was a necessary step to achieving socialist nirvana. You know, Fallout Shelters. Domino Theory.

 

It was a scary time. As bad as it might still seem, it's really much better now. Honest.

Funny, You know how during elections everbody was screaming Socialist? I recently watched the new michael moore movie (Capitolism: A love story) and it mentioned that. It turns out that the younger generations didnt know what a socialist was, and after looking it up they decided they could agree with most of it.

Yah, but just you watch, they'll all be *Fascist* Socialists! :hihi:

 

So send me a salami, and try to smile somehow, I'll look for you when the war is over... :P

Buffy

[freeztar]

You may not remember how bad it used to be. Those Russian folks did think that eliminating the the US was a necessary step to achieving socialist nirvana.

And it's ironic that it only took the election of Obama. :hihi:

 

:P

 

YouTube - World News Polka http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pwskm3No4PI&feature=related

[Theory5]

You may not remember how bad it used to be. Those Russian folks did think that eliminating the the US was a necessary step to achieving socialist nirvana. You know, Fallout Shelters. Domino Theory.

I wasn't alive back then :-)

But from what i understand the word 'communist' back then was pretty much the same thing as the 'terrorists' now.

 

And people are still as naive and intolerant now as they were back then.

It was a scary time. As bad as it might still seem, it's really much better now. Honest.

 

Yah, but just you watch, they'll all be *Fascist* Socialists! :shrug:

 

So send me a salami, and try to smile somehow, I'll look for you when the war is over... :evil:

Buffy

 

Such comforting words. :evil:

A couple of weeks ago we walked by a building that still had an old fallout shelter sign on it. I should ask about rent...