| Author |
Message |
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
 Sat Nov 20, 2004 12:50 am Chirac: U.N. should decide on wars |
|
| Quote: |
Chirac: U.N. should decide on wars
LONDON, England (CNN) -- French President Jacques Chirac continued a fence-mending but at times edgy state visit to Britain Friday by reaffirming that the United Nations should decide on foreign interventions.
"It's not for any given country to consider that a situation is open to stepping in and interfering," he told a question-and-answer session with students at Oxford University, according to the UK's Press Association.
"It's up to the international community to do so and particularly the U.N., which alone has the authority to interfere," he said in remarks apparently aimed at the United States.
The French president -- who backed a U.N. solution over Iraq -- added that if countries took such action of their own accord, it would "throw the door wide open to hosts of reason to wage wars under the guise of legitimate interference."
On Thursday, Chirac and British Prime Minister Tony Blair tried to put differences over the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq behind them, telling a joint news conference they both wanted a peaceful and stable future for the country. (Full story)
CNN European Political Editor Robin Oakley called it "glassy smiles and gloss over time."
Oakley said that Chirac and Blair were careful not to inflame their differences over Iraq -- and both made plain their eagerness to do anything they can to revive the Middle East peace process.
But later the French leader took on a harsher tone, warning Blair that his drive to spread democracy across the world alongside U.S. President George W. Bush could be confused with a new colonialism.
In a speech to the International Institute of Strategic Studies, PA reported, Chirac went on to set out his own distinctive view of international relations.
Chirac stressed the importance of dialogue between Europe and "the world's major poles" -- China, India, Brazil, Russia and various trading blocs.
"For although our memory is sometimes short, the peoples submitted to the West's domination in the past have not forgotten and are quick to see a resurgence of imperialism and colonialism in our actions."
On Friday in Oxford, Chirac again pointed to stressed the strength of links between Britain and France. He admitted, PA reported, that there had been "one or two differences" on Iraq, but said the countries have "never worked in closer co-operation" than in the fight against terrorism.
Chirac also focused on Europe's relationship with America. Speaking of the enduring nature of the trans-Atlantic alliance, he said the link is "strong and cannot be challenged by anybody."
"North America and Europe ... I think are predestined to work together because they share history, the same background and values."
Friday morning Chirac laid a wreath at the Windsor Castle tomb of King Edward VII, the British monarch in power when the Anglo-French "Entente Cordiale" was signed 100 years ago.
The wreath of flowers, depicting the red, white and blue of the French flag, marked the centenary of the agreement, signed on April 8, 1904.
The French leader and his wife stayed overnight at Windsor Castle, where the hospitality was lavish.
There was a late-night performance of "Les Miserables" and a black-tie dinner hosted by Queen Elizabeth II.
Guests included Blair and leading figures in arts, fashion and Anglo-French relations. Among the 136 dining in the historic St. George's Hall were Arsenal Football Club manager Arsene Wenger and his wife, designer Nicole Farhi.
Singing star Michael Ball returned for the performance of "Les Miserables," which was staged in the castle's Waterloo Chamber -- named for Britain's most famous victory over the French. It was diplomatically relabeled the "music room" for the night.
The queen had intended to greet Chirac, but his motorcade was delayed and he arrived 20 minutes late.
During dinner, the queen -- dressed in a bright cream-colored dress -- proposed a toast: "To the people of France. Vive l'Entente Cordiale."
In a brief speech, she said the century-old alliance was "above all about the people of our two countries getting on with each other and working with a common purpose."
Chirac then rose to say in a five-minute speech in French that he was "deeply moved" by the queen's invitation.
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/11/19/uk.chirac.daytwo/index.html
|
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Nov 21, 2004 1:40 pm |
|
Bah! The UN should NOT be the one to dictate whether a country can defend itself or not!
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Sun Nov 21, 2004 1:46 pm |
|
Meh. Unless they ever get real power (Which, most likely, the majority of countries would not agree to) it would be laughable. In fact, the very proposition of it is laughable. They don't have the power to decide much of anything in the first place. They can barely keep nuclear sanctions working...or rather, they don't.
-------signature-------
Not the doctor... yet
|
|
|
borgslayer
Rear Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 2646
Location: Las Vegas
|
| Sun Nov 21, 2004 5:05 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Bah! The UN should NOT be the one to dictate whether a country can defend itself or not! |
The point Chirac is making is not self-defense reasons but on the other reason which is "You cannot attack other countries without U.N. Permission."
Basically to point out that the War in Iraq was not all for self-defense reasons but for mere liberation or removing that evil dictator.
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Sun Nov 21, 2004 5:55 pm |
|
naaaaaahhhh, dont think it should be up to them, the thought talking to afganistan and other terrorist countrys is the answer to ending the problems with them
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Nov 21, 2004 6:28 pm |
|
We don't need to get a permission slip from such a corrupt organization to go to war.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Sun Nov 21, 2004 9:33 pm |
|
So we should throw away using and organization which, we created, Not only that, but throw away an organization which has kept peace in near war situations for years?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Nov 21, 2004 10:41 pm |
|
| Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | | So we should throw away using and organization which, we created, Not only that, but throw away an organization which has kept peace in near war situations for years? |
I don't give a damn about the past anymore. Now, they are a corrupt, pointless organization.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Mon Nov 22, 2004 8:52 am |
|
I agree with you that it's useless, but have you even considered why it doesn't work? It's because none of the other countries apart from the 6 main ones can do anything basically. So they doen't try. Then in the big 6 (the security council) all that has to happen is one country blocks something and it can't pass. When you have countries like America, Russia and France as part of the council then nothing is going to be agreed on as they have such different views.
|
|
|
borgslayer
Rear Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 2646
Location: Las Vegas
|
| Mon Nov 22, 2004 5:31 pm |
|
The United Nations are doing humanitarian work in Haiti, Angola, and Sudan. They are also doing a lot of peacekeeping missions all over the world. So dont be saying the organization is useless. Without the U.N the conflict in bosnia would still be going on, and Sudan's mass killings would still be continuening and gett worst.
You should thank the U.N. because they are the ones who really respond to big humanitarian disasters. Without the U.N. the world would probably be in chaos.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Nov 22, 2004 5:48 pm |
|
| borgslayer wrote: | The United Nations are doing humanitarian work in Haiti, Angola, and Sudan. They are also doing a lot of peacekeeping missions all over the world. So dont be saying the organization is useless. Without the U.N the conflict in bosnia would still be going on, and Sudan's mass killings would still be continuening and gett worst.
You should thank the U.N. because they are the ones who really respond to big humanitarian disasters. Without the U.N. the world would probably be in chaos. |
They are helping a little bit, but they do little good anymore. Now I do admit that UN approval would be necessary for a war that's not for defense, like Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Mon Nov 22, 2004 6:45 pm |
|
| borgslayer wrote: | The United Nations are doing humanitarian work in Haiti, Angola, and Sudan. They are also doing a lot of peacekeeping missions all over the world. So dont be saying the organization is useless. Without the U.N the conflict in bosnia would still be going on, and Sudan's mass killings would still be continuening and gett worst.
You should thank the U.N. because they are the ones who really respond to big humanitarian disasters. Without the U.N. the world would probably be in chaos. |
Yeah like they are helping in Iraq. Oh wait no they aren't. Because we decided not to get a permission slip from them to go to war. Now they are acting like pouty children and won't get involved. They have the power to help end this conflict faster but they choose to let people die. How Humanitarian of them....
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Tue Nov 23, 2004 4:55 pm |
|
| borgslayer wrote: | The United Nations are doing humanitarian work in Haiti, Angola, and Sudan. They are also doing a lot of peacekeeping missions all over the world. So dont be saying the organization is useless. Without the U.N the conflict in bosnia would still be going on, and Sudan's mass killings would still be continuening and gett worst.
You should thank the U.N. because they are the ones who really respond to big humanitarian disasters. Without the U.N. the world would probably be in chaos. |
I doubt the world would be in chaos if it didn't exist. I should have mentioned it before, what I meant was the war deciding bit of the UN, rather than the aid giving branches. But about the killing in Sudan - they are useless there mostly. I seem to remember an ultimatum being given months ago for the Sudanese government to stop helping the Jangeweed and help the people who were homeless. If they didn't then the UN would start doing something about it. Glad to see that has happened.  All thats happened is it has gone out of the medias and so most of the publics attention. The attrocities are still happening.
|
|
|
Defiant
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 04 Jul 2001
Posts: 15946
Location: Oregon City, OR
|
| Tue Nov 23, 2004 4:57 pm |
|
The UN was created to moderate the world, and if someone gets out of line, appropriate action will be taken. The UN should be in control of whether or not nations can use military force. They are at least objective enough to see the facts. Bush didnt. He went on a hunch, which was WRONG. False intelligence, that the UN refuted. But not that it would do any good, Bush turned his back on the UN when he went to Iraq, so he wouldnt listen anyways. What a prick.
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Tue Nov 23, 2004 5:02 pm |
|
For the outlined reasons I mentioned above there is almost no chance of the UN giving a mandate with any war. Take Sudan for example. It hasn't got anything as far as we know that could be a political influencing factor yet innocents were being killed. Why didn't the UN do anything?
|
|
|
Defiant
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 04 Jul 2001
Posts: 15946
Location: Oregon City, OR
|
| Tue Nov 23, 2004 5:04 pm |
|
Because...your mom! 
I dont run the UN, I cant answer that, and you know it. Its up to the UN. Theyre not a bunch of idiots who stand by and let horrible things happen every day, they are intelligent people who pay attention to the politics of the world, whats going on, and they do things about problems. Alot of things arent their business, but what those things are, I cannot say. Im not in the UN.
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Tue Nov 23, 2004 5:15 pm |
|
The problem as I said before is that all that is needed is one of the security council to veto anything and then it cannot be passed. Almost every major type of people are represented apart from Arabs in it, so they are unlikely to agee on anything. It's why nothing ever happens a lot of the time.
|
|
|
Defiant
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 04 Jul 2001
Posts: 15946
Location: Oregon City, OR
|
| Tue Nov 23, 2004 5:17 pm |
|
I doubt that is true! They wouldnt let some obvious flaw like that ruin the justice process.
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Tue Nov 23, 2004 5:25 pm |
|
It basically is though, because some countries provide more funding and also when it was created some wanted the ability to be able to stop something if it was totally against their wishes. I find it a flaw, but there doesn't seema way to give it up. The countries in the council wouldn't agree.
|
|
|
Defiant
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 04 Jul 2001
Posts: 15946
Location: Oregon City, OR
|
| Tue Nov 23, 2004 5:27 pm |
|
I have no basis of fact to continue arguing this point. Its all speculation. Therefore, I will stop talking, unless you would care to provide a source for something.
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Tue Nov 23, 2004 5:50 pm |
|
| Quote: | P-5 Members:
Although the Security Council has a total of 15 members, only five of these members-China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States-have a permanent seat on the council. Known as the "P-5" (permanent-five), these are the only states that may veto resolutions before the council. (Vetoes are allowed only on non-procedural questions.) |
http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/unsc.htm
Sorry, I got the number on the permanant council wrong, it's not 6, it's 5.
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Tue Nov 23, 2004 6:59 pm |
|
| Defiant wrote: | Because...your mom!
I dont run the UN, I cant answer that, and you know it. Its up to the UN. Theyre not a bunch of idiots who stand by and let horrible things happen every day, they are intelligent people who pay attention to the politics of the world, whats going on, and they do things about problems. Alot of things arent their business, but what those things are, I cannot say. Im not in the UN. |
Yes they are....
|
|
|
borgslayer
Rear Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 2646
Location: Las Vegas
|
| Tue Nov 23, 2004 7:21 pm |
|
I hear the U.N. are sending 500 tons worth of relief efforts to liberia to help the ivory coast refugees. Now lets say the UN never existed? those people would starved, and suffer.
Just because the U.N. didnt support the war on Iraq doesnt mean they are all corrupt and evil.
The UN is good for the world so we should all accept it.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Tue Nov 23, 2004 7:40 pm |
|
Have we even HEARD of Oil For Food ?
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Wed Nov 24, 2004 9:57 am |
|
| borgslayer wrote: | I hear the U.N. are sending 500 tons worth of relief efforts to liberia to help the ivory coast refugees. Now lets say the UN never existed? those people would starved, and suffer.
Just because the U.N. didnt support the war on Iraq doesnt mean they are all corrupt and evil.
The UN is good for the world so we should all accept it. |
I'm not saying that theyv are. Some of them are, yes. And a lot of the aid giving wings are actually doing really well apart from the time it usually takes for them to decide if they should give aid. What doesn't work properly is the war making side of it, they never agree on a war because one of the 5 permanant members veto it. Some of the time this is right, like in Iraq - for the reasons that were given anyway, WMD. But say for a situation like Sudan they also won't act there when they should if they are to enforce their mandate.
|
|
|
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
