Ignorance on the UN and Zimbabwe.
Wretchard notices some comments at the BBC's website.
The most astonishing one is:
That comment, my friends, is nothing but 190 proof willful blindness. How can one not see what the UN really is? The UN is an institution where Robert Mugabe's government is held on equal moral ground to that of the US, the UK, France, Germany etc. To add to the problem, there are more nations willing to look out for a Mugabe thugocracy because they could be the next target than nations willing to stand u for justice.
I would also ask Mr. Seyforth what sort of action other than "Words and oral warnings" would do? Sanctions? As we see again, the UN is being investigated for circumventing its own sanctions. Perhaps, he thinks the "Oil for Food" scandal is a witch hunt, but what did years and years of sanctions do to Saddam? They gave him license to starve his people (while hoarding supplies and building palaces) and blame it on the sanctions.
Shall, the UN make war on such nations? As has been proven time and time again UN forces (without assistance from the US) are unable to even keep rag-tag armies in check, unable to protect the refugee camps they "guard". The other problem with that approach (as far as the UN is concerned, is most nations think Humanity has transcended war that is humanity itself) would never sanction it. Look at Iraq, the only approach the UN was willing to consider was actions that were proven by time NOT to work.
No Mr. Seyforth, the UN is not the answer to Zimbabwe and is unlikely to ever be the answer to such situations unless it is more selective about membership which is highly unlikely.
The most astonishing one is:
I feel the United Nations should be granted the power to act in a really positive way to bring dictators to heel. Words and oral warnings do nothing to rid an oppressed people of a despot dictator. Any action taken would have to be ordered and directed by the United Nations and not the president of the United States of America and any of his cohorts Edward Seyforth, Halifax, Canada
The Belmont Club - Good questionsThat comment, my friends, is nothing but 190 proof willful blindness. How can one not see what the UN really is? The UN is an institution where Robert Mugabe's government is held on equal moral ground to that of the US, the UK, France, Germany etc. To add to the problem, there are more nations willing to look out for a Mugabe thugocracy because they could be the next target than nations willing to stand u for justice.
I would also ask Mr. Seyforth what sort of action other than "Words and oral warnings" would do? Sanctions? As we see again, the UN is being investigated for circumventing its own sanctions. Perhaps, he thinks the "Oil for Food" scandal is a witch hunt, but what did years and years of sanctions do to Saddam? They gave him license to starve his people (while hoarding supplies and building palaces) and blame it on the sanctions.
Shall, the UN make war on such nations? As has been proven time and time again UN forces (without assistance from the US) are unable to even keep rag-tag armies in check, unable to protect the refugee camps they "guard". The other problem with that approach (as far as the UN is concerned, is most nations think Humanity has transcended war that is humanity itself) would never sanction it. Look at Iraq, the only approach the UN was willing to consider was actions that were proven by time NOT to work.
No Mr. Seyforth, the UN is not the answer to Zimbabwe and is unlikely to ever be the answer to such situations unless it is more selective about membership which is highly unlikely.
posted by Marcus Aurelius at 10:58 AM
<< Home