More proof that the UN is irrelevent

[YogsVR4]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...235480,00.html

VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Iran hopes talks with Europe on easing tensions over Tehran's nuclear ambitions are not dead, but it does not fear U.N. Security Council action if it continues activities linked to uranium enrichment, the country's top negotiator said Friday.

Ali Larijani also said South Africa was one of ``several'' countries that has responded positively to his call to expand talks on Iran's nuclear program beyond the three European nations most recently negotiating with Tehran.

"With the power it enjoys in the region, there is no way that Iran can be worried about the threat of the Security Council,'' Larijani said of the possibility of referral at an upcoming board meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The envoy, considered a hard-line backer of Iran's right to the full nuclear cycle, said he hoped his country would present new ideas within a month aimed at reducing suspicions about its nuclear agenda.

Larijani on Thursday urged other nations besides France, Germany and Britain to open talks with his country on its nuclear program, apparently hoping to bring in more sympathetic negotiators. He said he hoped the talks with the ``European Three'' would continue nonetheless.

``We never close the door on negotiations,'' he said Friday.

``I have not come to the conclusion that the European capacity ... has already been exhausted'' in finding a solution that permits Iran to exercise its right to enrich uranium while dispelling suspicions about what it plans to do with the material produced, he added.

Tehran says its program is only aimed at producing electricity and insists it has the right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to build a uranium development program.

Uranium is enriched by turning the raw ore into gas, which is then spun in centrifuges. Enriched to a low level, it can be used as fuel for a reactor; at a high level, it can be used for a bomb.

The talks suffered a blow earlier this month when Iran rejected the Europeans' central proposal - an offer of economic incentives in return for permanently giving up uranium development. Tehran also resumed uranium conversion at its plant in the central city of Isfahan.

Bringing other nations into the negotiations would likely weaken what has been an unusually unified front by Europe and the United States, pressuring Iran to accept limits

Larijani spoke after meeting with IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei for discussions focusing on his country's decision to resume uranium conversion despite international pressure not to do so.

Diplomats say a report being prepared by ElBaradei for the Sept. 19 meeting of the IAEA's board of governors, will disclose new details on Tehran's experiments with small amounts of plutonium, a key component of nuclear weapons.

Larijani acknowledged that ``there are a number of areas where the agency (still) had questions'' relating to its three-year investigation of Iran's nuclear program prompted by the discovery of nearly two decades of illicit activities - including some with possible weapons applications.

The United States, which accuses Iran of seeking to develop atomic weapons, dismissed Iran's suggestion for more countries to join the talks as a ``typical tactic of the Iranian government designed to change the subject.''

Europe also responded coolly to Larijani's call.

Britain's Foreign Office said there was ``no basis for negotiation with Iran until they respond'' to an IAEA resolution adopted earlier this month that calls on Iran to suspend reprocessing activities at the Isfahan plant. The EU countries called off a negotiating session scheduled for Aug. 31 because of the resumption of work there.

French Foreign Ministry spokesman Jean-Baptiste Mattei said France, Britain and Germany were not really alone in the talks with Tehran since they were acting on behalf of the 25-nation European Union.

Iran's new ultraconservative president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said this week his government would draw up new proposals for negotiations. Iranian officials have made clear they expect the talks to focus on allowing Tehran to proceed with its program while setting up guarantees to ensure it is not developing weapons.

In Vienna, Larijani said he expected Ahmadinejad's initiative to be ready within a month.

-------------------------------------------------------------

I think Iran is a dangerous place to be if you have any dissagrement with the current leaders, but I don't think they're stupid. They will develop nukes knowing that the international community will do nothing. They will also flaunt them once they have them in an effort to intimidate Israel and become the dominate power through the middle east. Given all that, they are not crazy enough to give them to anyone who would actually use them. They know nukes will be repaid with nukes.

The Iranians have come to the conclusion that the international community is composed of spineless bureaucrats. And they would be right.

[tenguzero]

I read an interesting article in the recent TIME magazine that marked the 60th of the Hiroshima bombing as its cover. The person who wrote this particular article in there (about the nuclear balance of the world) made a good point, in that, while numerous countries have or can make "the Bomb" no civilized country would actually consider using it. Sure, they may flaunt it (hell, the Cold War was pretty much 4 decades of a U.S./Soviet "who's dick is bigger" contest) but there are enough countries in the world who could just use it right back (like what you said, Yogs) and NO ONE wants to be responsible for starting a nuclear war. This is why the future of nuclear weapons programs really only has two options: either EVERYONE who can make them has them, or NO ONE has them. This is why the U.S. and the various European powers powers really have no right to halt Iranian nuclear expansion, unless we are willing to halt our own. Same goes with North Korea. Every country that currently has nuclear capabilities has questionable actions on their history books, the only difference being some are more recent than others. That doesn't mean that the country hasn't changed -- history is just that: the past.

Nuclear ambition is not something that can be curbed by some draconian exclusion policy. Slowed maybe, but the outcome is inevitable. It's just a part of existing in our post-nuclear, globally connected age. Let's face it, we ALL knew from the beginning that launching the A-bombs was the start of the largest can-of-worms opening in recorded history -- for the first time man had the tools to literally obliterate himself. It's well documented that this very issue was utmost on the list of concerns for Truman, his cabinet, and all of the scientific community involved in it. We chose to take the course of action that we did, and, as predicted, others soon followed suit. Taking actions against countries now making their own strides toward this goal is the equivalent of crying over spilled milk. Of course, the concern is that countries deemed "unstable" may be less prudent in handing over their secrets and materials to far more unscrupulous parties, but again, that would be quite a level of irresponsibility, as any country knows that the possibility is always there for that unscrupulous party to turn it back on them.

Until (or if) the day comes when universal disarmament is possible, the name of the game for nuclear weapons is control, and the key to control is responsibility. Could countries like Iran or North Korea potentially handle their weapons in an irresponsible manner? Of course they could, but then again we shouldn't be the ones to talk *cough* Operation Chrome Dome *cough*

Broken Arrows anyone?

[AlmostStock]

By saying the UN is irrelevant does this mean you agree with those who are calling for the US to get out? Choosing not to be part of the world community, even with its flaws, doesn't seem prudent to me. Whether you like it or not, the UN is here and will go on, with or without the US.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by AlmostStock

By saying the UN is irrelevant does this mean you agree with those who are calling for the US to get out? Choosing not to be part of the world community, even with its flaws, doesn't seem prudent to me. Whether you like it or not, the UN is here and will go on, with or without the US.

Wanting to get rid of a corrupt organization, that purports itself as representing the world, when it really is nothing more than an organization attempting to control said world, does not equate to not wanting to be a part of the world community.

Although I do agree that we need to get the F out of Iraq, and leave everybody there to kill themselves, instead of our soldiers.

[Cbass]

My god Yogs, are you still on about the UN? I thought the whole "hate the UN" thing died out in early 2004.

[MagicRat]

International diplomacy is very complicated. Iran is fishing around for a better deal from other nations. Dispite the fact that they are turning out to be quite good at this kind of diplomacy is in no way a sign that the UN is ineffectual.
The fact they are negtiating shows the UN system, for better or worse, is working.

Besides, whats the alternative?
Nuke them, or invade?
Maybe we should ask Pat Robertson

[DGB454]

Originally Posted by tenguzero

Until (or if) the day comes when universal disarmament is possible, the name of the game for nuclear weapons is control, and the key to control is responsibility. Could countries like Iran or North Korea potentially handle their weapons in an irresponsible manner? Of course they could, but then again we shouldn't be the ones to talk *cough* Operation Chrome Dome *cough*

Broken Arrows anyone?

"Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2003. Its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Ministry of Intelligence and Security were involved in the planning of and support for terrorist acts and continued to exhort a variety of groups that use terrorism to pursue their goals. Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati publicly encouraged Iraqis to follow the Palestinian model and participate in suicide operations against Coalition forces."

"Could countries like Iran or North Korea potentially handle their weapons in an irresponsible manner?"

"Of course they could" ???

The key word is potentially. Any country could potentially do a lot of things but willingness to do them is an entirely different matter.

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by MagicRat

International diplomacy is very complicated. Iran is fishing around for a better deal from other nations. Dispite the fact that they are turning out to be quite good at this kind of diplomacy is in no way a sign that the UN is ineffectual.
The fact they are negtiating shows the UN system, for better or worse, is working.

Besides, whats the alternative?
Nuke them, or invade?
Maybe we should ask Pat Robertson

Swing and a miss. I never said they should be prevented from having nuclear arms.

The UN system is a miserable failure. Its influence and respectablitity have long flown out the window. The fact any negotiations took place is because Iran, England, Germany and France took it upon themselves to do it. The UN was the stick the Europeans were using. That stick resembles a wet noodle.

Whether you like it or not, the UN is here and will go on, with or without the US.

The key point being the US should be out of the UN. Once that happens, you'll be amazed at how fast it falls into dust like the League of Nations did.

[2strokebloke]

Yogs, the UN has already fallen into the dust. I don't think that the U.S. leaving the UN would somehow make it even less respectable.

[AlmostStock]

The main reason many in the US are against the UN is because they refused to rubber stamp and legitimize this questionable Iraqi war. Yet in this case the system of checks and balances (that the US actually set up) worked, and did not allow for the legal start of this war. This is what the majority of the world wanted so therefore the UN DOES represent the world.

It was only because the Bush administration was hell bent on bombing Iraq silly (flipping off the entire world community in the process) no matter what the world community said, that we now find ourselves in a mess with no good options. It looks like the UN was relevant after all.

Haven't we alienated ourselves enough already? I fail to see how dropping out of the UN (and telling the rest of the world to go f*** themselves yet again) will benefit anyone. I know the UN has some problems, but so does our government. So why not TRY TO FIX THEM?

[TheStang00]

im all for dropping out of the UN. maybe we were a little hell bent on attacking iraq, but the UN did agree with the resolution that said we should. its pathetic that they can make 17 resolutions threatening one nation and not take action on a single one. i think the UN is completely irrelevant. its also corrupt... oil for food. no wonder they didnt want to enforce anything on iraq. all we did was take fullfil the latest resolution... whether you like it or not. team america even pokes fun at the UN. when kim jong il is threatened by hans blix and hans says if he doesnt comply they will send him an angry letter. its the truth, they dont do shit. if we withdrew from all foreign affairs the world would be in a lot of shit. think of all the people we help (or try to help depending how you look at it). hell if it werent for us tellin isreal not to kill the palestinians constantly they might already be all dead.

[Sticky]

Originally Posted by TheStang00

if we withdrew from all foreign affairs the world would be in a lot of shit. think of all the people we help (or try to help depending how you look at it). hell if it werent for us tellin isreal not to kill the palestinians constantly they might already be all dead.

I think it's time we just backed out of foreign affairs and focused on domestic issues. This way we can put tax dollars towards ourselves and not others. Plus it'd give terrorists no reason to attack us.

[T4 Primera]

Huge UN reforms are in the pipeline, but some people just seem intent on sabotage.

Bolton Already Obstructing Reform

It hasn't taken John Bolton long to undermine U.N. reform efforts. Weeks before world leaders from 170 countries are to gather in New York to discuss "the most sweeping changes at the United Nations in its 60-year history," the U.S. delegation led by Bolton has "thrown the proceedings in turmoil" with demands for a "drastic renegotiation" of the draft reform plan. Never mind that the current document is the result of "nearly a year of intensive negotiations" in which the United States "has been a regular participant" and so "has had a major impact on the document to date." Bolton has decided to introduce at the last minute more than 750 amendments that would "eliminate new pledges of foreign aid to impoverished nations [and] scrap provisions that call for action to halt climate change and urge nuclear powers to make greater progress in dismantling their nuclear arms." Bolton was sent to the UN not to reform it, but to weaken it, and he’s already hard at work.

SENDING REFORM BACK TO STEP ONE: Bolton has also suggested that one option "would be to return to square one and launch line-by-line negotiations on the document." With diplomats warning that the "most determining factor is shortage of time" between now and September's summit, this strategy is a clear effort to throw a wrench in the gears of U.N. reform. A top U.N. General Assembly today warns of just that: "[T]he big risk now is that [other countries] will see this big shopping list as an opportunity to return with their own shopping lists and then the whole thing may unravel." It seems that Bolton’s real motive is to turn the September world summit into a fiasco, either by making sure that nothing is agreed to, or that the consensus document is devoid of any significant reform.

THE WAR ON THE WAR ON POVERTY: As President Bush has pointed out, "Persistent poverty and oppression can lead to hopelessness and despair. And when governments fail to meet the most basic needs of their people, these failed states can become havens for terror." Yet John Bolton wants to eliminate most of the portions of the draft document that address alleviating global poverty. His amendments "call for striking any mention of the Millennium Development Goals, and the administration has publicly complained that the document's section on poverty is too long." Moreover, Bolton has told foreign delegates that he is concerned "about a provision of the agreement that urges wealthy countries, including the United States, to contribute 0.7 percent of their gross national product in assistance to poor countries."

FOR BOLTON, SIZE MATTERS: The Bush administration's true commitment to U.N. reform can also be judged by the importance it has placed on the draft document's length. The administration's official response to the draft, released earlier this month, includes sentences such as "the document is too long and not worded in a manner that heads of state normally agree to or endorse," "The development section is over 15 pages long," and "the section on security...focuses far too much on disarmament rather than nonproliferation; it is also too long." In recent days, John Bolton has suggested "that the entire document could be scrapped and replaced with a brief statement," or at most "a punchier three-page version." How in the world do you construct a more dynamic and effective U.N. with a three page document? The fact is you don’t.

BOLTON OPPOSES TOUGH POSITION AGAINST GENOCIDE: Apparently the Bush administration hasn't learned the lessons taught by the Rwandan genocide of 1994 and the ongoing genocide in Darfur, during which the international community failed to intervene effectively in cases of mass human rights violations. The Washington Post reports that the Bush administration "opposes language that urges the five permanent members of the Security Council not to cast vetoes to halt genocide, war crimes or ethnic cleansing." (American Progress feels differently, and has launched the Responsibility to Protect program to present our case.)

source: http://www.americanprogressaction.or...257&ct=1352241

[AlmostStock]

Good post T4. ^^^ Very informative but worrisome.

Originally Posted by TheStang00

im all for dropping out of the UN... .... if we withdrew from all foreign affairs the world would be in a lot of shit.

What? How would this be a good thing?

[twospirits]

Originally Posted by TheStang00

team america even pokes fun at the UN. when kim jong il is threatened by hans blix and hans says if he doesnt comply they will send him an angry letter.

Great, just great, now we are bringing in excerpts from a puppet movie.

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

The key point being the US should be out of the UN. Once that happens, you'll be amazed at how fast it falls into dust like the League of Nations did.

Which I do believe was one of the steps that lead to World War. hmmm yeah thats a good thing.

Originally Posted by AlmostStock

Haven't we alienated ourselves enough already? I fail to see how dropping out of the UN (and telling the rest of the world to go f*** themselves yet again) will benefit anyone. I know the UN has some problems, but so does our government. So why not TRY TO FIX THEM?

So true, who are we to say that the UN is corrupt. When within our own government we have politicans and leaders that are corrupt. Are we to be the example?

Originally Posted by Cbass

My god Yogs, are you still on about the UN? I thought the whole "hate the UN" thing died out in early 2004.

hmmm maybe we should introduce threads about the draft and even it out.

Seriously, the one thing that I continue seeing with these I hate UN, Lets get out of the UN type of threads is that not once have I seen a solution to fixing it. Yeah we get out, it (the UN) crumbles or ends up headed and controled by China, we isolate ourselves from world affairs and let nations become more powerful and deadly that would make Japan and Germany from WW2 look like tiny specks in the sand. Is that a good thing? The only good thing would be if if we did that, we can use the money and resources to fix our internal problems such as healthcare, immigration, security etc, but that will never happen cause we have our noses stuck everywhere where it don't belong. Therefore instead of turning tail and avoiding the situation, why not try to fix it so history will not repeat itself (as what happened with the League of Nations).

TS out