5 ms·

China and North Korea appear to have a side-deal for fishing rights which violates U.N. economic sanctions against North Korea.

me_me_me 6y ago
I think UN should have a vote about it to decide on the panelty. Oh wait, it was veto'ed again. UN like a League of Nations is rather a sad joke (well, apart from peace keeping missions).
- xoa 6y ago
  >UN like a League of Nations is rather a sad joke Well, the UN ultimately mostly reflects actual geopolitical reality. It's not actually a world government, there is no world government. It has the power nation-states choose to give it. The countries that wield vetoes? They also generally wield real "vetoes" IRL, ie., they've got nukes/massive militaries/economies. The formal legal veto they have in the UN merely reflects that if there was no UN, they'd have options on things they didn't like regardless. A basic point of the UN was to try to prevent WW3, and in that respect it did pretty well. For all the ideals, a lot of the core parts of it are pretty pragmatic about the limitations embodied by definition in anything "international". It seeks consensus and to avoid hot conflicts, and the former is pretty important to avoiding the latter. Obviously it's not entirely without power of its own, particularly various kinds of soft power. But that soft power has sharp limits without hard power backing it, which is a very sticky wicket in most scenarios that make the news.
  - Roritharr 6y ago
    Very well put. It's one of the things I decry often when talking about european politics. If Europe wants to be taken seriously, it can't just be the French having a medium sized stick to back their soft power.
    - NicoJuicy 6y ago
      Europe invests 1%-2% in their military. By comparison, Russia invests 5%-6%, but it's GDP is similar to Italy, i'd claim the "stick" ( if required) is a bit larger than you might expect :) After all, it's mostly a numbers game.
    - me_me_me 6y ago
      Europe is one of the biggest economical block, there is already a lot of soft power EU can exert via tariffs and bans. Military is not as important as it used to be. Russia is not going to attack EU country ever. Who is going to buy their gas and oil? They had to use the 'greenmen' to attack mainland Ukraine in attempt to reduce international backlash.
  - valuearb 6y ago
    The UN hasn’t prevented nuclear war, it’s accomplished virtually nothing in its long history. It’s the League of Nations with better PR. Geopolitical reality doesn’t require letting authoritarian regimes chair your human rights committees. The UN would be a far more effective and useful body if it took away the right to vote from authoritarian regimes. The idea of providing a UN vote to a dictator or kleptocrat who doesn’t allow a real democracy in their own country is absurd.
    - ethbro 6y ago
      > The UN hasn’t prevented nuclear war, it’s accomplished virtually nothing in its long history. Last "nuclear war" was on 9 August 1945. UN formed on 24 October 1945. > Geopolitical reality doesn’t require letting authoritarian regimes chair your human rights committees. Yes, it does. If they have large militaries and/or economies. > The UN would be a far more effective and useful body if it took away the right to vote from authoritarian regimes. The idea of providing a UN vote to a dictator or kleptocrat who doesn’t allow a real democracy in their own country is absurd. No, it wouldn't. The point of the UN is to avoid war, not to spread democracy [1]. The structure of the UN is a consequence of that aim. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_the_United_Nations#Chapter_I:_Purposes_And_Principles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_the_United_Nations#...
      - kohtatsu 6y ago
        Are you not aware of what's going on in Xinjiang? (Or Tibet or to practitioners of Falun Gong or even christianity in China) From the first article of the first charter: > 2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace; > 3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends. Democracy or not they do not belong on the UN Human Rights Council.
- peroporque 6y ago
  If you favor war over dialog, then your opinion would be understandable. Thankfully, most people don't. So it's a good thing the UN exists. It's a forum of dialog, not a parliament to make laws.
  - dependenttypes 6y ago
    It's not as if you can't do dialog without the UN.
    - brnt 6y ago
      And the US could be free without the Union, but it makes it an afwul lot easier regardless.
    - peroporque 6y ago
      Please read at least one book on international diplomacy, then come back.
- dragonelite 6y ago
  The UN is a paper tiger by design, at the core its nothing more then a forum for UN permanent members to talk with each other. And to make sure red lines are well defined and not accidentally being crossed.
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  > well, apart from peace keeping missions Which were responsible for the Haiti cholera outbreak as well as its cover-up. The UN is worse than useless.

me_me_me 6y ago

I think UN should have a vote about it to decide on the panelty. Oh wait, it was veto'ed again. UN like a League of Nations is rather a sad joke (well, apart from peace keeping missions).

xoa 6y ago
>UN like a League of Nations is rather a sad joke Well, the UN ultimately mostly reflects actual geopolitical reality. It's not actually a world government, there is no world government. It has the power nation-states choose to give it. The countries that wield vetoes? They also generally wield real "vetoes" IRL, ie., they've got nukes/massive militaries/economies. The formal legal veto they have in the UN merely reflects that if there was no UN, they'd have options on things they didn't like regardless. A basic point of the UN was to try to prevent WW3, and in that respect it did pretty well. For all the ideals, a lot of the core parts of it are pretty pragmatic about the limitations embodied by definition in anything "international". It seeks consensus and to avoid hot conflicts, and the former is pretty important to avoiding the latter. Obviously it's not entirely without power of its own, particularly various kinds of soft power. But that soft power has sharp limits without hard power backing it, which is a very sticky wicket in most scenarios that make the news.
- Roritharr 6y ago
  Very well put. It's one of the things I decry often when talking about european politics. If Europe wants to be taken seriously, it can't just be the French having a medium sized stick to back their soft power.
  - NicoJuicy 6y ago
    Europe invests 1%-2% in their military. By comparison, Russia invests 5%-6%, but it's GDP is similar to Italy, i'd claim the "stick" ( if required) is a bit larger than you might expect :) After all, it's mostly a numbers game.
  - me_me_me 6y ago
    Europe is one of the biggest economical block, there is already a lot of soft power EU can exert via tariffs and bans. Military is not as important as it used to be. Russia is not going to attack EU country ever. Who is going to buy their gas and oil? They had to use the 'greenmen' to attack mainland Ukraine in attempt to reduce international backlash.
- valuearb 6y ago
  The UN hasn’t prevented nuclear war, it’s accomplished virtually nothing in its long history. It’s the League of Nations with better PR. Geopolitical reality doesn’t require letting authoritarian regimes chair your human rights committees. The UN would be a far more effective and useful body if it took away the right to vote from authoritarian regimes. The idea of providing a UN vote to a dictator or kleptocrat who doesn’t allow a real democracy in their own country is absurd.
  - ethbro 6y ago
    > The UN hasn’t prevented nuclear war, it’s accomplished virtually nothing in its long history. Last "nuclear war" was on 9 August 1945. UN formed on 24 October 1945. > Geopolitical reality doesn’t require letting authoritarian regimes chair your human rights committees. Yes, it does. If they have large militaries and/or economies. > The UN would be a far more effective and useful body if it took away the right to vote from authoritarian regimes. The idea of providing a UN vote to a dictator or kleptocrat who doesn’t allow a real democracy in their own country is absurd. No, it wouldn't. The point of the UN is to avoid war, not to spread democracy [1]. The structure of the UN is a consequence of that aim. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_the_United_Nations#Chapter_I:_Purposes_And_Principles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_the_United_Nations#...
    - kohtatsu 6y ago
      Are you not aware of what's going on in Xinjiang? (Or Tibet or to practitioners of Falun Gong or even christianity in China) From the first article of the first charter: > 2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace; > 3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends. Democracy or not they do not belong on the UN Human Rights Council.
peroporque 6y ago
If you favor war over dialog, then your opinion would be understandable. Thankfully, most people don't. So it's a good thing the UN exists. It's a forum of dialog, not a parliament to make laws.
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  It's not as if you can't do dialog without the UN.
  - brnt 6y ago
    And the US could be free without the Union, but it makes it an afwul lot easier regardless.
  - peroporque 6y ago
    Please read at least one book on international diplomacy, then come back.
dragonelite 6y ago
The UN is a paper tiger by design, at the core its nothing more then a forum for UN permanent members to talk with each other. And to make sure red lines are well defined and not accidentally being crossed.
dependenttypes 6y ago
> well, apart from peace keeping missions Which were responsible for the Haiti cholera outbreak as well as its cover-up. The UN is worse than useless.