Hasn't the UN demoonstrated it's worthiness as a leading body by stopping the Rwandan genocide?

Question

Shouldn't the US consult the UN before any international actions?

Answer 1

The UN was just headed by an African who did nothing in his ten years on power to stop the genocide in any of the African nations where it is a problems.

The UN is corrupt and ineffective, it can not work as long as people like Koffi Annan are ther concerned more about the wining, dining and pocket lining instead of discharging the duties of his office.

Answer 2

Isn't it convenient that those in the US who use the Rwandan genocide to bash the UN forget that the UN security council resolution which cut the UN peacekeeping force (UNAMIR) to only 5500 men, thus allowing the genocide to happen, happened at the behest of the United States (which had no troops in Rwanda)?. The US used its influence at the United Nations to discourage a robust UN response. On June 15 1993, France announced that it would send troops in to stop the killing. On June 22, the UN Security Council gave this gave its blessing to this intervention; French troops entered Rwanda from Zaire the same day. US troops helping in humanitarian projects did not arrive until September (sources 1-3).

Since the fall of the USSR, the US has excercised its veto at the UN security council more times than any other veto holding country (source 4). The UN will remain a powerless organisation as long as the US prevents it from doing anything that would help world peace but go against the interests of the US.

Answer 3

The US has been successful in discrediting the UN-I wonder if it has to do with the $10 billion the "US Coalition" took over from the UN Oil for Food "scandal"-money that was promptly "lost". That was included in the cash

Shortly before US and British forces invaded Iraq, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan suspended the programme and evacuated more than 300 workers monitoring the distribution of supplies.

On 28 March 2003, Secretary-General Annan, the United States, and Britain asked the Security Council to ensure that nearly US$10 billion in goods Iraq ordered and already approved, including US$2.4 billion for food, could enter the country when conditions allow. The resolution under discussion made clear that the chief responsibility for addressing humanitarian consequences of the war would fall to the United States and Britain if they took control of the country. This refers to the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention on the responsibilities of the occupying power.

On 22 May 2003, UN Security Council Resolution 1483 granted authority to the Coalition Provisional Authority to use Iraq's oil revenue. The Programme's remaining funds of $10 billion were transferred over a 6 month winding-up period to the Development Fund for Iraq under the Coalition Provisional Authority's control; this represented 14% of the Programme's total income over 5 years.

The programme was formally terminated on 21 November 2003 and its major functions were turned over to the Coalition Provisional Authority

In May of 2003, following the Invasion of Iraq the Development Fund for Iraq was set up. United Nations resolution 1483 transferred the authority to authorize expenditures from Iraq's oil revenue from the United Nations to the Coalition Provisional Authority. The fund also received money from seized Iraqi bank accounts. The Coalition Provisional Authority was to administer this fund, on behalf of the Iraqi people.

Paul Bremer lead the Coalition Provisional Authority. During his administration Ambassador Bremer was criticized by some for spending down over 90% of the Development Funds for Iraq. Less than 5% of the $18 billion Congress had set aside for reconstruction were spent during that period.

There are tons of links at the bottom of each page-but the Bremer cash that is "unaccounted for" inculeds the $10 billion UN money. The US handled it so much better than the UN, didn't they???????

Answer 4

Not only no, but hell no. The US is the only UN member that has the balls to back up the UN resolutions. Ever hear of resolution 1441? Authorization for use of force in Iraq? UN wasn't actually going to use the force it authorized itself to use. It is a hollow, worthless organization that has been investigated for corruption, fraud and child rape. I would no more put the sovreignty of the UN at the level of the US as I would put it above it.

Answer 5

You call that a success story? Hundreds of thousands killed. If that's what you want running the show, ok.

Answer 6

The US isn't in the habit of 'consulting' ANYBODY!
They think they have all the answers, hence their regular vetos.
Why doesn´t the US 'enforce' resolutions condemning Israel?