User talk:JF Mephisto/Archive 2

The UN
First I'd like to say that I enjoy robust intellectual debate, and as such I thank you for your counter-argument. I insist on keeping my debates as friendly and civil as possible, so please, whatever I may argue below, please take it as an intellectual argument ONLY, and in no way as any sort of personal attack. :)

I completely understand how the UN operates. And if its "Charter", for which you seem to have such inexplicable reverence for, is written in such a way so as to prohibit the UN or any member state from taking any action to prevent a genocide, then I say the "UN Charter" isn't worth the paper it's written on and should be flushed down the toilett. I simply have no respect for immoral laws, or in this case, laws that prohibit moral actions to be taken.

From the article on the Rwandan Genocide:


 * UNAMIR's Force Commander Lieutenant-General Roméo Dallaire became aware of plans for the genocide in January of 1994. He sent a cable to the then head of UN peacekeeping, Kofi Annan, for authority to defend Rwandan civilians - many of whom had taken refuge in UN compounds under implicit and sometimes explicit promises of protection. Throughout January, February and March, he pleaded for reinforcements and logistical support. The UN Security Council repeatedly refused his pleas. Annan's faxed response had ordered Dallaire to defend only the UN's image of impartiality, forbidding him to protect desperate civilians waiting to die. Next, it detailed the withdrawal of UN troops, even while blood flowed and the assassins reigned, leaving 800,000 Rwandans to their fate.

I never claimed to be any great fan of the UN at all. I suppose you're right, though, that it's the Security Council that is ultimately to blame for the failure, and that Anan was just following orders. Nontheless, it would seem that he had the opportunity on countless occasions to do the right thing and disobey those orders, and, in the result, save the lives of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. But he chose to do his "duty" instead, and follow his orders. Romeo Dallaire, on the other hand, a true man of conscience, later suffered a complete nervous breakdown over the whole thing and was so distraught and filled with guilt that he even attempted suicide several times. Anan, on the other hand, doesn't seem the least bit troubled by it. Had Dallaire had the necessary forces he was so desperately pleading for, yet still been denied permission to intervene, I honestly believe that this good man of conscience would surely have done the right thing, and disobeyed any contrary orders from his superiours in order to prevent a genocide from occuring.

Nonetheless, you seem to have missed the entire subtext of my post, which was its main point. It wasn't just about Anan and the UN, but rather an attempt to expose the double standard that Israel is so constantly subjected to. I was implicitly referring to Ariel Sharon's indictment for war crimes by that kangaroo court in Belgium. His "alleged war crimes", involving a tragic situation, and facts that are, to say the least, so much more disputable and so much more unclear to anyone, a situation that was so much more complex, and, not that even one death is not a tragedy of immense proportions, involving so much less loss of life (I believe that some of the most liberal estimates are at about 2,000 killed,) than the Rwandan Genocide, that there's simply no comparison. In Rwanda, a good part of a million innocent lives were lost. Yet while it draws such an immense amount of sympathy, nobody seems have any interest in holding anyone accountable for it. All this to say that the double standard that Israel is constantly subjected to is glaringly obvious.

In any case, I wish you a very Happy New Year and a Good-YomTov. Am Israel Chai! :)

All the best, JF.

Lewis

Loomis 22:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Loomis,


 * I still think you're fundamentally misunderstanding the role of the UN and how its institutions work. First, I don't hold "inexplicable reverence" for the UN Charter, but I am more than willing to defend it when things are being asked of the UN which it simply does not provide for. You can lecture from your high horse as much as you want about flushing the Charter down the toilet, but the fact of the matter is that the Charter does not prevent action against genocide, and accusing Kofi Annan or the General Secretariat over the Rwanda Genocide is simply incorrect. In fact, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted in 1948, compels member states to prevent and punish genocide. However, that's dependent on the member states actually taking action through the UN Security Council - which, I repeat, is not Kofi Annan but America, Britain, China, Russia and France (the permanent veto-wielding members). Please properly read the quote from the Rwandan Genocide:


 * UNAMIR's Force Commander Lieutenant-General Roméo Dallaire became aware of plans for the genocide in January of 1994. He sent a cable to the then head of UN peacekeeping, Kofi Annan, for authority to defend Rwandan civilians - many of whom had taken refuge in UN compounds under implicit and sometimes explicit promises of protection. Throughout January, February and March, he pleaded for reinforcements and logistical support. The UN Security Council repeatedly refused his pleas. Annan's faxed response had ordered Dallaire to defend only the UN's image of impartiality, forbidding him to protect desperate civilians waiting to die. Next, it detailed the withdrawal of UN troops, even while blood flowed and the assassins reigned, leaving 800,000 Rwandans to their fate.


 * The UN Security Council did NOT authorise reinforcements and logistical support! To accuse Annan of just following orders is utterly bizarre. First, it is the role of the Security Council to provide for those things. There is no part of the UN Charter that would allow the General Secretary to send in troops unilaterally, without the consent of member states, and can you imagine any of the major countries allowing such powers? Even if he could, where on earth do you think the troops are going to come from? The UN operates on less staff than Saatchi & Saatchi! All troops belong to member states, and for them to be sent into a conflict zone requires a resolution under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. It's really that simple. If you need to apportion blame for the Rwanda Genocide, look to the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia. It was their responsibility to come to agreement on a plan of action to stop the genocide, and to implement it with troop commitments. They simply didn't, until it was too late. The only burden that can be shouldered by the Secretary General (or the head of the peacekeeping forces, as Kofi Annan was at this point) is that perhaps not enough diplomatic shuttle work was done to promote agreement between the permanent UNSC members. Still, the responsibility for that action lay with the permanent members and nobody else. Annan had no power to change Romeo Dallaire's mandate any more than Dallaire himself or Bob the Hotdog Vendor from Timbuktu - if he'd changed the specifications of the mission to preventing genocide, he'd have been breaking international law. Besides which, Dallaire only had 2,500 troops - not enough to stop the genocide even if he'd desired it (and he undoubtedly did). Extra troops would have needed to be authorised by the UNSC. The only way the genocide would have been stopped is if the permanent members of the UN Security Council came to a consensus on preventing it. Now a quote of yours:


 * Had Dallaire had the necessary forces he was so desperately pleading for, yet still been denied permission to intervene, I honestly believe that this good man of conscience would surely have done the right thing, and disobeyed any contrary orders from his superiors in order to prevent a genocide from occurring.


 * First, he didn't have the forces. He had 2,500 troops. Any more troops would have to be authorised by the UNSC. There is no where else for the troops to come from. Do you have some sort of impression that the UN has a private army? Second, Kofi Annan was ordering Dallaire to respect the decision (or lack thereof) of the UN Security Council. It had not decided to alter the mandate of UNAMIR (Dalllaire's mission) to allow it to prevent genocide, nor provided it with the troops to do so. This is not a matter of opinion or argument - you're simply factually wrong when you imply that Annan or Dallaire could have unilaterally prevented the genocide: not only would it be against international law, but it was simply not physically possible without troop and logistical reinforcements from the UNSC. There is a dramatic chasm between your perceptions and what the UN actually is. It is not an independent sovereign nation with its own army: it is a club of nations which requires the agreement of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council for action. It's that simple. When people talk about the failure of the UN, they mean (or should mean) "the group of nations which form the United Nations" - not some sort of powerful supranational organisation headed by Kofi Annan with powers to act outside its agreed mandate. Even the Wikipedia article on the United Nations points out the blame of the UNSC for failure to prevent the Rwanda Genocide. Anyway, I feel like I'm getting to the point where I'm simply repeating myself now, so I'll simply end with the suggestion that you read the UN Charter and understand how it operates. Your idea of how the UN operates and can operate is a million miles from the reality of the situation - you need a better grasp of the fine details.


 * Finally, I don't disagree that Israel has often had a raw deal from the United Nations, from 1948 onwards. I am myself Jewish. But you have to understand the difference between Security Council resolutions and General Assembly resolutions. The first are the powerful ones, and the ones over which the five permanent members hold vetoes. The second are conducted on a simple majoritarian basis by the entirety of the General Assembly. And frankly, if you're holding out for a majority of countries on the planet to be willing to vote down resolutions against Israel, I think we're going to be waiting for a long time. There are many more Arab and Muslim countries than pro-Israeli Western ones - and that's not even counting those who are willing to support anti-Israeli resolutions for political reasons. But it doesn't matter. General Assembly resolutions are non-binding, and simply express the will and feelings of the General Assembly, not mandate nations within the UN to action. In almost all matters of real power, it's the UN Security Council that is in charge.


 * I believe in the UN. It is far from a perfect organisation, but there are ways to improve it (most of them geared around making it much easier to have consensus in the UN Security Council - probably by restricting veto powers. Not to mention the various administrative faults it has suffered, amongst them the oil-for-food scandal. The latter is going to be resolved to a great degree by upcoming reforms at the hands of Ban Ki-Moon). And you have to remember that we're only talking in terms of prevention of genocide and ensuring peace and stability. We haven't even touched on the massive humanitarian role that the UN plays in disaster zones; in providing education and sanitation; in protecting the rights of women, minorities and the disabled; in promoting global causes like action on global warming, deforestation, and so on, and so on. It is simply inconceivable that we could cope without it, or without it being replaced by a more powerful organisation that fulfills and expands its current roles. That's why I cringe when I see people like yourself glibly dismissing the entire organisation or condemning it for faults that lie not with its ethos or the organisation itself, but in the same old political problems of (dis)agreements between nation states (in this case the UN Security Council). I believe that our best hope for the future in terms of nuclear proliferation, global peace and stability, humanitarian aid, third world development and environmental protection and regeneration lies with the UN. In its improvement and increased strength. I believe we’d live in a much more dangerous and less hopeful world if the UN disappeared. The resulting instability would be unimaginable, not least for Britain (my country), Canada (yours) and Israel (ours). I really hope you’ll consider that in future.


 * Regards,
 * JF Mephisto 11:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * JF,


 * 1) I disagree with many of your assertions and can offer ample evidence to refute them;


 * 2) I don't like being self-congratulatory, but I'm far more educated in the law in general, and the UN in particular than you apparently believe;


 * 3) Please take this as advice to you to be more effective in getting your point across to others: You desperately need to tone down your rhetoric, and most importantly, avoid at all costs any personal remarks, as I did in my previous reply. Otherwise your arguments will come across as insulting, (as is the case here,) and no one will have any interest in taking them seriously (as is again the case here);


 * 4) As such, as I mentioned in my previous reply, I have no interest in engaging UNCIVIL debate.


 * Loomis 13:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Please go ahead and offer that ample evidence. I'd be very interested to see how you can refute the very text of the UN Charter. It might be more effective to actually deal with my assertions than simply say you can.


 * 2) If you don't like being self-congratulatory, then don't. I find it hard to believe that you have a greater understanding of the issues than I said given your fantastic assertion that Kofi Annan could be tried for war crimes regarding Rwanda. I shall wait with baited breath for the time when you replace the assertion of your greater knowledge with an actual demonstration.


 * 3) I don't accept that I was insulting towards you. For one, I didn't call you any names or call your intentions into question. Second, if I didn't think your knowledge was lacking in certain areas, I'd have no reason to dispute what you were saying in the first place. Would you prefer that I pretended the chasm between your view and mine was a matter of opinion rather than you simply being factually wrong? We aren't discussing the relative merits of abortion - we're discussing whether or not the UN organisation in general and Kofi Annan in particular are to blame for the Rwandan Genocide, as opposed to the inaction of the UN Security Council. Only one of us is right, and I'm pretty sure it isn't you. Though if you do want to talk about insults, I'd suggest that responding to a two-page, comprehensive and detailed response to your post with a paragraph of claims that you're correct - without bothering to actually argue why - might give me more excuse for grievance. I disagree with you, think your opinions are factually incorrect, and (for reasons I'm pretty sure I adequately explained) consider your knowledge in the relevant area to be lacking. Telling you that, while refraining from namecalling, is more or less the point of argument.


 * 4) Perhaps your aversion isn't so much to my manner of debating (which I don't accept has been uncivil in the least), but to actually finding some way to defend your assertions instead of merely claiming you can? Can you tell me in what way I'm incorrect in saying that you were wrong to suggest Kofi Annan or Romeo Dallaire could be held accountable for not stopping the Rwanda Genocide, given that it was the role of the Security Council to prevent it and that both Annan and Dallaire were legally and practically incapable of doing so? I'm sorry, but claiming that you can prove something is not the same as actually doing so.


 * Regards,
 * JF Mephisto 14:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

JF,

I'm simply at a loss as to why you keep quoting the "UN Charter", chapter and verse, over and over and over again, ad nauseum. You seem to live in some lofty place, far above the rest of us, where there exist such fantastic notions such as the almost divine infallability of "international law" and the "the UN Charter". I'm not sure if you're familiar with Swift's Gulliver's Travels, but you appear to be the very embodiment of a Houyhnhnm. Yet, I still retain more faith in your humanity to actually conclude that much yet.

Maybe that's the problem here. I live down here on Earth. Down here with the Yahoos. And this planet I live on can be a nasty place. And I believe that sometimes, just sometimes, blind obedience to "international law" and blind faith in the UN can actually be more of an impediment to world peace than an aid to it. In fact, many political philosophers argue that the UN's predecessor, the League of Nations, did more harm in preventing WWII (and with it the Holocaust) than good. It's my belief that these organizations lead many to a false sense of security. And a false sense of security can be a very dangerous thing.

You speak (rather rudely I'd say,) of me "lecturing from my high horse". You then go on to lecture me quite condescendingly: ''"[Y]ou have to understand the difference between Security Council resolutions and General Assembly resolutions. The first are the powerful ones, and the ones over which the five permanent members hold vetoes. The second are conducted on a simple majoritarian basis by the entirety of the General Assembly. And frankly, if you're holding out for a majority of countries on the planet to be willing to vote down resolutions against Israel, I think we're going to be waiting for a long time. There are many more Arab and Muslim countries than pro-Israeli Western ones - and that's not even counting those who are willing to support anti-Israeli resolutions for political reasons. But it doesn't matter. General Assembly resolutions are non-binding, and simply express the will and feelings of the General Assembly, not mandate nations within the UN to action. In almost all matters of real power, it's the UN Security Council that is in charge".''

Why would you so condescendingly assume that I don't know the difference between the UNGA and the UNSC? I never mentioned the General Assembly. Perhaps, instead of burying your head in each minute detail of the "UN Charter", and naively living in some utopia where "international law" = "absolute justice", it might be more fruitful for you to take a look at the history of the UN Security Council resolutions concerning Israel. You know...the ones that count...the ones that involve matters of "real power"...the ones that "mandate nations with the UN to take action." Check out the List of the UN resolutions concerning Israel. Skip over the UNGA resolutions, you know, the ones that don't count, and skip over to the 100 UNSC council resolutions concerning Israel. Do you agree with every one of them? Do you believe that Israel should abide by every one of them?

A personal favourite of mine is UNSC 487. That's the one where all 15 members "condemned" Israel for it's "violation of international law" in destroying Iraq's nuclear power plant at Osiraq in 1981. What a terrible thing Israel did! How nasty of those Israelis for violating the almighty "international law"! What's your take on that one? Was Israel wrong? If Iran develops nukes, and let's just imagine it would be just as easy for Israel to wipe those out too, whould you disapprove of that? If you have any respect for "international law" you'd better! There couldn't be a more "illegal" act than flying into a foreign country and bombing certain of its "civilian, peaceful, power generating installations"!

As for Annan and the Rwandan Genocide, just a little quote from an article on the man:

"In his book Shake Hands with the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda, ex-General Roméo Dallaire who was force commander of the UNAMIR claims that Annan has been overly passive in his response to the 1994 Tutsi genocide in Rwanda. Gen. Dallaire explicitly stated that the then Undersecretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations held back UN troops from intervening to settle the conflict and from providing more logistic and material support. For example, he claimed that Annan failed to provide any responses to Dallaire's repeated faxes asking him for access to a weapons depository, something that could have helped defend the Tutsis. Dallaire concedes however that Annan was a man whom he found extremely "committed" to the founding principles of the United Nations".

You don't know me all that well, and so I suppose I can forgive your ignorance concerning my knowledge of the law and world affairs. Surely, though, you must concede that Dallaire has a pretty good grasp of how the UN works. Are you saying that he too should do his homework and reread the UN Charter, in order to finally raise himself to the level of understanding of the UN and its functions that you seem to have?

Dallaire apparently seems to be quite confident that Annan could have done a great deal more. Do you disagree with Dallaire? In terms of additional "forces", it doesn't appear that Dallaire was even asking for any. All it would appear he was asking for was "logistic and material support", such support that he apparently believed Annan himself could provide. We're not talking about committing thousands of additional troops from various nations as you imply. Just some "logistic and material support". And why did Annan fail to reply to the faxes asking him for access to a weapons depository? Of course, Dallaire then concedes that Annan was a man whom he found extremely "committed" to the founding principles of the United Nations". Of course he was! Kofi Annan was a good soldier! And as a good soldier, he turned a blind eye to what was going on, and I have to say it again, just followed orders.

You can lecture me all you want about "the UN Charter" and quote whatever articles, sections, subsections, rules, regulations, whatever. When a genocide is about to happen, all that MUST be thrown out the window. If I were in Annan's position, first of all, I'd give Dallaire every ounce of support within my power. Even if "the UN Charter" explicitly prohibited me from doing it, at the pain of losing my job, I'd go ahead and approve the intervention of the UN forces that were already there, arrange for whatever "logistical and material support" Dallaire seemed to think that Annan himself could personally approve of, answer Dallaire's damned faxes, and then give him access to the weapons depository. I'd then go to the UNSC and each of its member states and implore them to reconsider their decision. Finally, should they still refuse, and should I have gotten to the point where I could no longer be of any use within the UN, I'd call a news conference at which I'd publicly resign my post in disgust, and do my best to expose to the world what was going on.

Edmund Burke once put it so aptly: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." JF, I'm really dissappointed in you. You, of all people, a fellow Jew, a fellow member of a people who once suffered so terribly for very similar reasons, because another people were more devoted to "the law", "the rules", "the regulations", to "the governing authority" than to plain, simple, common decency. Because "good people did nothing". I'm sure you share with me the same dedication: "Never Again"!

Yet it's happened again. Why? Because international law says this, and the UN Charter says that, and the UNGA has this power, and the UNSC has that power, and so on and so on and so on.

Fuck it all! 800,000 died because some of us were too busy with rules and regulations do just take a step back and fucking do the right thing! The UN could have prevented this immense tragedy, and Kofi Annan could have done a whole lot more to help. But he didn't. For me that's a God-damned disgrace, and to me, the UN is a God-damned disgrace of an organization for letting it happen. And Annan is a God-damned disgrace, and a poor excuse for a human being at that.

I'll say it, because I mean it. I would just hope you'd join me in saying it:

NEVER AGAIN

Loomis 03:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Loomis,


 * I'm simply at a loss as to why you keep quoting the "UN Charter", chapter and verse, over and over and over again, ad nauseum. You seem to live in some lofty place, far above the rest of us, where there exist such fantastic notions such as the almost divine infallability of "international law" and the "the UN Charter". I'm not sure if you're familiar with Swift's Gulliver's Travels, but you appear to be the very embodiment of a Houyhnhnm. Yet, I still retain more faith in your humanity to actually conclude that much yet


 * First, for whining about my supposed rudeness and then going on to be far ruder than I could have attempted, fuck you. It’s not a question of me worshipping the UN Charter; it’s a question of actually dealing with the issues at hand. You claimed that Kofi Annan could be tried as a war criminal over UN inaction regarding Rwanda. This was simply factually wrong, for the simple reason that the UN Charter, under which the organisation operates, makes it the job of the UNSC to take action over instances of Genocide, not the General Secretariat. It’s really that simple. If we were talking about American politics, I’d probably be talking about the American Constitution. Besides which, insulting me for over-reverence for the Charter isn’t going to change the fact that the Charter is the relevant document, and that it’s pretty clear in making you wrong. Perhaps you would care to remember that this entire conversation was started by your pea-brained assertion that Kofi Annan could be tried as a war criminal. Now, considering the relevant laws, and even common fucking sense, he simply could not. First, because he was legally unable to do anything about it. The General Secretary of the UN does not have the power to intervene in foreign countries. Interventions must be agreed upon by the UN Security Council. It’s ‘’that simple.’ Second, because even if he did have the power (which he doesn’t), the United Nations has no private army – the troops have to be provided by member states. What’s he supposed to do, grab a pistol and stop the genocide himself? Now, in what sort of retarded, upside-down universe could Kofi Annan be considered criminally responsible for the Rwanda Genocide? Perhaps instead of putting your hand to your forehead and proclaiming ‘never again’ (something on which we both obviously agree), it would be more appropriate to consider the facts at hand. You aren’t going to win the argument on Kofi Annan’s criminal responsibility by reminding me of the barbarity of the genocide, sorry. There are no points for melodrama.


 * Maybe that's the problem here. I live down here on Earth. Down here with the Yahoos. And this planet I live on can be a nasty place. And I believe that sometimes, just sometimes, blind obedience to "international law" and blind faith in the UN can actually be more of an impediment to world peace than an aid to it.


 * Really? Then perhaps you ought to have been pressing the Canadian government to break international law and send troops to stop the genocide? Or America, Britain, France, China and Russia. Any of them could have sent troops to stop the genocide, but didn’t. Instead, you’re going to place the blame on the one man in all of it who could not have sent troops – Kofi Annan, who was legally and practically incapable of doing so. It isn’t Annan you should be accusing of blind faith to law, it’s all the countries that were practically capable of stopping the Rwandan genocide but simply chose not to because of international law. If you go there, I’m willing to join you in that. After no agreement could be reached at the UNSC, the United States and Britain should have intervened unilaterally. It’s strange that you take the blame from where any rational person can see it should be apportioned and place it at the step of someone who simply could not have done anything about it.


 * You don't know me all that well, and so I suppose I can forgive your ignorance concerning my knowledge of the law and world affairs. Surely, though, you must concede that Dallaire has a pretty good grasp of how the UN works. Are you saying that he too should do his homework and reread the UN Charter, in order to finally raise himself to the level of understanding of the UN and its functions that you seem to have?


 * I would, if Dallaire had been saying the same thing as you – which he isn’t. Dallaire said that he wished Annan had allowed him access to a weapons depository so he could defend the Tutsis. Fair enough, but which Tutsis? It wasn’t the Tutsis in general, as you seem to be intimating. It was Tutsti refugees. You’re forgetting that there was no mandate for UNAMIR to stop the genocide. Its mandate was to help implement the Arusha Peace Agreement, by protecting Kigali, coordinate humanitarian assistance and help in clearing minefields. After the violence broke out, its mandate was changed to allow it protect refugees. At no point did the Security Council charge it with stopping the genocide. Perhaps allowing Dallaire access to the depository would have helped in the protection of refugees, but I hardly think I need point out that the ‘’genocide’’ was the rather more pressing problem, and the one we’re discussing. Don’t you think rather more blame for what happened lies with the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China for not agreeing to change UNAMIR’s mandate to preventing the genocide and providing it with the troops to do so? I have no doubt that Annan should have allowed Dallaire access to the depository, as it may have helped to bolster his defence of the refugees. I’m also sure that Annan regrets not doing so. You know what might have helped a lot more? The UNSC increasing the UNAMIR mandate from 2500 peacekeeping troops to a force able to prevent the genocide and not just protect a handful of refugee camps. Annan is not responsible for that, the UN Security Council is.


 * Edmund Burke once put it so aptly: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." JF, I'm really dissappointed in you. You, of all people, a fellow Jew, a fellow member of a people who once suffered so terribly for very similar reasons, because another people were more devoted to "the law", "the rules", "the regulations", to "the governing authority" than to plain, simple, common decency. Because "good people did nothing". I'm sure you share with me the same dedication: "Never Again"!


 * You have no fucking right to raise that issue with me. You have no right to compare the Rwandan genocide with the Shoah for the sake of winning a fucking debate on Wikipedia. It had nothing to do with people being devoted to “the rules” – the rules were changed with the consent of the German people. A people whose rulers, largely with their support, went on to commit the Holocaust. How the fuck is that remotely comparable to the United Nations not coming to agreement over preventing genocide in Rwanda? What the fuck does any of it have to do with obeying rules, as opposed to finding a consensus to take action? It’s not even remotely comparable to the situation at hand, and you should know better than to bring it up to win arguments. Any country on this planet with an armed forces and the ability to transport it carries more blame than Kofi Annan when it comes to devotion to “the law” – they were capable of breaking it and preventing the Rwandan genocide. Kofi Annan and the administration of the UN as a whole were not practically capable of anything. It’s you, as a fellow Jew, who should know better: you should know better than comparing the worst crime in human history with anything, let alone something completely different in the hopes of "winning" an internet debate. Shame.


 * Skip over the UNGA resolutions, you know, the ones that don't count, and skip over to the 100 UNSC council resolutions concerning Israel. Do you agree with every one of them? Do you believe that Israel should abide by every one of them? A personal favourite of mine is UNSC 487. That's the one where all 15 members "condemned" Israel for it's "violation of international law" in destroying Iraq's nuclear power plant at Osiraq in 1981. What a terrible thing Israel did! How nasty of those Israelis for violating the almighty "international law"! What's your take on that one? Was Israel wrong? If Iran develops nukes, and let's just imagine it would be just as easy for Israel to wipe those out too, whould you disapprove of that? If you have any respect for "international law" you'd better! There couldn't be a more "illegal" act than flying into a foreign country and bombing certain of its "civilian, peaceful, power generating installations"!


 * Do you agree with every law the Canadian Parliament or the Knesset have passed? I’d guess not. Do they therefore deserve to be considered irredeemably disgraced and abandoned? No! The vast majority of UNSC resolutions since 1950 concerning Israel are not condemnatory. Most are neutral (for example, Resolution-242, at the end of the Six-Day War), or in condemnation of attacks against Israel. Those few that remain are almost all on issues on which there is substantial disagreement amongst the Israeli public – for example, condemnation in Resolution-1544 adopted in 2004 of the demolition of homes in southern Gaza. It’s simply not true to make out that the UNSC, despite all its faults (not preventing the Rwandan genocide among them, as I’ve said) is in anyway biased against Israel. The United States and Britain are two of Israel’s biggest supporters (especially the former) and both wield vetoes on the council. Besides, we are talking about the (dis)agreements of the most powerful countries on the planet .That’s what the UNSC is – it isn’t an institution like the UN Development Fund for Women, it is America, France, Britain, Russia and China. Is the UN organisation or its intended purpose to be blamed for those disagreements? Do you think those disagreements would cease to exist if the UN disappeared? No, they would be intensified because there would be no where to work them out. I agree with you about Osiraq, but it still isn’t relevant. Israel had the practical capability to go ahead and bomb it in its own defence, even if it was technically illegal (pre-emptive as opposed to preventive action is not mentioned under the UN Charter, but with upcoming UN reforms the legality of it will probably be settled). Kofi Annan, even if he decided to break international law and step outside of his boundaries and order Dallaire to start preventing genocide, could not provide the troops to do so.This isn’t a question of blind devotion to international law, as I’ve already told you. It’s that legally and practically Kofi Annan was incapable of stopping the Rwandan genocide. You can scream about it until you turn blue in the face, but that doesn’t change the fact that charging Kofi Annan with criminal responsibility for the Rwandan genocide is completely and utterly bizarre. And what’s even more bizarre is that you use the phrase “just following orders”. Annan was given no orders. Orders didn’t even come into it. Annan took no active role in deciding what to do about the genocide. It was the responsibility of the UNSC to do something about the Rwandan genocide – they were the ones with the ability. You still have this woeful misperception about the UN; that somehow it has sovereign powers to intervene in countries as it wishes and that in the case of Rwanda its all-powerful leader decided to obey international law and not do anything. That is so far off the page it isn’t even funny. The UN is a collection of nation states, the most powerful collection of which has the ability to decide to intervene in countries, and then do it under the united name of the UN. The General Secretariat (or, in the case of Kofi Annan, the under secretariat for peacekeeping), is there to administrate and facilitate agreement. It is not there to tell the member states what to do, or to force them into anything. I don’t know how much longer I can accept that you don’t know this, as opposed to just being deliberately obtuse: Kofi Annan was legally and practically incapable of stopping the Rwandan genocide. That responsibility lay with the UN Security Council, which is composed of America, Britain, France, Russia and China. Please, just think that over several times until it sinks in.


 * Yet it's happened again. Why? Because international law says this, and the UN Charter says that, and the UNGA has this power, and the UNSC has that power, and so on and so on and so on.


 * I’m sorry, but that’s not how international politics works. You have an awfully simplistic and childlike view of the world: something bad is happening, so therefore it can immediately be stopped. It doesn’t work like that. What you’re asking for is an all-powerful international benevolent dictatorship. What we have – the only thing we can have – is international organisations which are driven by the need for consensus, and defined in terms of treaties, laws and conventions. In the case of genocide, the United Nations are compelled to act in preventing it and punishing it. That is done by way of a Chapter 7 intervention, agreed upon by the UN Security Council. It is not the role of Kofi Annan. It is not even the role of the world’s most powerful country, the United States, who would not be willing and should not be expected to intervene in every such situation given the difficulty of domestic politics (which in the case of Rwanda was a very embarrassing and politically damaging intervention in Somalia less than a year earlier). It is the role of the United Nations Security Council. And the UNSC failed. Not Kofi Annan, not the general secretariat or the under secretariat of peacekeeping, but the UNSC. Simple.


 * Fuck it all! 800,000 died because some of us were too busy with rules and regulations do just take a step back and fucking do the right thing! The UN could have prevented this immense tragedy, and Kofi Annan could have done a whole lot more to help. But he didn't. For me that's a God-damned disgrace, and to me, the UN is a God-damned disgrace of an organization for letting it happen. And Annan is a God-damned disgrace, and a poor excuse for a human being at that.


 * Thank you for the histrionics. If I ever need someone to play Erin Brockovich in a made-for-TV movie, I’ll be sure to give you a call. Back in the real world, the reason the Rwandan genocide took place was not because of people’s preoccupation with “rules and regulations.” It was because the UNSC simply failed to come to agreement on sending troops to prevent it. That’s it. And yes, the United Nations in the form of America, Britain, France, Russia and China are a disgrace for not coming to that agreement. And yes, Kofi Annan should have done more to facilitate that agreement (something he has said he regrets: please see here - his regret was that he didn't do more to rally international support and encourage action from the UNSC - hardly a war crime, and certainly much better than what the UNSC did). But that doesn’t mean the entire United Nations should be thrown into the bin, though it must be extremely pleasant to live in a world where it’s possible to have everything done right, and if it isn’t, sack everyone involved and damn the consequences. The UN needs reform: for example, it must be made much easier to achieve agreement on issues like the Rwandan genocide, and much harder to prevaricate or prevent action. There must be a mechanism for forcing immediate consultation when such things happen. There have to be penalties for countries that use the United Nations only as a forum to grandstand or try to get what they want, without doing anything to achieve its aims of global peace and stability. And all those things must, and will, be dealt with. But it’s easy to forget the situations where it has performed reasonably well - for example the Suez Crisis, East Timor and Sierra Leone. And to forget the potential it has to do much, much better given the correct reforms and the willpower. Not to mention its massive, unsung role in humanitarian and environmental efforts through its many institutions which are far too valuable to be thrown away because of its faults, none of which are insurmountable. And the last thing we can do, as Jews, is to make the past treatment of Israel from the General Assembly (and, very rarely, the Security Council), into some kind of litmus test for our support. The United Nations is about more than Israel or the Rwandan genocide or oil-for-food or any of the other fuck-ups. It’s about creating a future for the planet in which conflicts can be resolved peacefully, and action taken to prevent the most egregious offences against humanity; to promote peace, international development and to lift billions out of poverty and conflict into prosperity. It’s to achieve action on the massive threats of nuclear proliferation and global warming, deforestation and overpopulation, arms trafficking and international terrorism. There’s simply no hope without an organisation like the United Nations, and it’s incredibly short-sighted, not to mention unforgivably dangerous, to suggest that it should be abandoned in favour of a survival-of-the-fittest free-for-all with no care for what happens in a decade’s or a century’s time. And you’re the one who is the god-damned disgrace and a poor human being for suggesting otherwise. Grow the fuck up. And, by the way, feel free to make this into a general discussion on the United Nations if you want, but be man enough to admit you were completely and utterly incorrect to suggest that Kofi Annan could be charged with war crimes over Rwanda (and do me the favour of telling me who those "some" were who would "go so far as to suggest" it - I'd be interested to know who else is simultaneously competent enough to use a computer and incompetent enough to suggest something like that).


 * Regards,
 * JF.
 * JF Mephisto 14:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This has got to be one of the most absurd "discussions" I've ever had. It all apparently began with your reaction to my post on the RefDesk. I'll reproduce it for convenience:


 * "Calling Rwanda a UN "failure" is one hell of an understatement, considering its magnitude (800,000 dead) and relative preventability of it, in comparison to certain other far less bloody, far more complex and far less clear-cut instances of the failure of a third-party to prevent a tragedy from occuring, where some of the figures involved were indeed charged by some to be war criminals. Some would go so far as to charge Kofi Anan as a war criminal for his deliberate inaction, if only the political sensibilities of the powers-that-be were any different."

The absurdity of it all is that I don't even think we disagree on my the real point I was trying to make. I tend to find rhetorical devices rather than literal English as a far more effective ways of conveying a point. Most readers are able to decipher these tongue-in-cheek remarks and understand my point. Unfortunately, it would appear that unlike most others at the RefDesk, the obvious subtext of my remark (which even included a hyperlink to the Sabra and Shatila Massacre) seems to have gone completely over your head. And please, don't accuse me of "backtracking". In my very first response to your post, I tried to clarify the tongue-in-cheek nature of my post. I even tried to clarify it so you'd better understand what my real point was. So, without any insult towards you, I'll repeat my point in simple English:

My argument was NOT AT ALL about the UN, and ALL about world community's obvious anti-semitic, anti-Israel mentality that subjects Israel to double standards that it does not impose on others.

This mentality has branded Ariel Sharon as a war criminal for what was at the very worst a fuck-up in Lebanon leading to the deaths of some 2,000 Palestinians. He's even been indicted by that Belgian Kangaroo Court for war crimes due to this incident. Yet no one has ever come anywhere near as close to criticizing Annan for his fuck-up in Rwanda, which you yourself appear to agree was a fuck-up (you conceded yourself that he had his "regrets"). My comment about Annan being a war criminal was obvious hyperbole. I don't believe that Sharon or Annan are "war criminals". Have you noticed that throughout our entire discussion, I never once suggested that Annan should be indicted for war crimes? My tongue-in-cheek remark was meant to highlight the fact that had there not existed in the world community that obvious and apparent anti-semitic, anti-Israel bias, Annan would have suffered at least as much criticism as Sharon. Yet obviously he didn't. My point was, that if the world considers Ariel Sharon to be a "war criminal" (which I believe is a ridiculous notion), then, by the same standards, a fortiori, Kofi Annan should be considered all the moreso as a "war criminal" (which I also believe is ridiculous). The comment was obviously meant as a satirical jibe at the world's anti-semitic and anti-Israel bias. Unfortunately you missed it.

However, I would at the very least expect you to acknowledge that your interpretation of my remark was mistaken, however innocently.

I have to give you credit though. Somehow you managed to bait be into a whole big flame war over the UN, which I'll repeat, had nothing to do with my remark, and got me totally off track with regards to the point I was trying to make. We disagree about the UN. Fine. I'm ok with that, I'm ok with the fact that not everyone shares my views, and I'm able to "agree to disagree". Are you? Can we please "agree to disagree" on the whole UN thing, as, once again, the pros and cons of the UN had little to nothing to do with my remark.

You know, when I think about it, the way "flame wars" develop tend to serve as a great microcosmic analogy for how some REAL wars develop. They tend to begin with a relatively small offensive act (perceived or real), based on a difference of opinion or miscommunication, one which can easily be nipped in the bud if both parties are willing to sit down and defuse whatever tension has developed. Unfortunately in many cases this is not achieved, and the level of animosity tends to escalate into tragic violence, at which the process tends to take a life of its own, beyond the control of either party.

JF, let's please try to end this "flame war" which has developed between us. Let's please just "agree to disagree" on the UN thing.

I'll admit that at times my language can at times be rather mildly arrogant or condescending, but that's a far cry from referring to me as "Pea-brained" or "Retarded". If for whatever reason you feel compelled to continue with the same "Fuck you!", "Grow the fuck up" (and I'm only picking a select few) type language, please, and I'm serious here, I have absolutely no interest in hearing back from you. If you find it impossible to get your message across without further polluting my talk page with such vulger and abusive language, let me make this as clear as is humanly possible: PLEASE, DO NOT RESPOND. THIS DEBATE IS OVER.

On the other hand, having tossed you an olive branch, I hope you'll accept it. Should you wish to further discuss anything, as I said from the very beginning, I'm always open to civil, friendly "robust intellectual debate".

All the best,

Lewis

Loomis 18:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Please support complement EU !!!
Hi,as a EU supporter maybe you´d like to support this: I´m trying to implement the 'EU' in the city-templates of European city articles. The EU should be mentioned next to the country; like country : Spain / EU  Please support the enhancement in these templates and argue for the innovation if you want to. Would be great.
 * Template:Infobox City Poland
 * Template:Infobox Town GR
 * Template:Infobox Municipality pt
 * Template talk:Major French Cities
 * Template:Infobox City Spain
 * Template:Infobox Town DE
 * Template:Infobox CityIT
 * Template:Infobox London

all the best Lear 21 22:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Mediation
Hi there, I have just taken on the Northern Ireland case as a Mediator. If you approve of me to be the mediator, reply here, and state whether you like public or private mediation. Thanks,  ¿¡Exir  Kamalabadi?! Join Esperanza! 23:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Mediation 2
Seeing as the Northern Ireland page is pretty stable (see some of the involved user's explanation on the mediation page, most notably the last comment), I would like to ask whether you think the problem has been already solved, and should the mediation case be closed. Thanks.  ¿¡Exir  Kamalabadi?! Join Esperanza! 11:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:B-mccarthy-rovers.co.uk.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:B-mccarthy-rovers.co.uk.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Quentin X 13:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)