Friday, January 26, 2007

UN Ready To Move On Kosovo

Yes, you read it right. The UN is ready to reveal it's plan on Kosovo and has even gone as far as, to brief diplomats on the long-awaited plan. It's been close to eight years, since the UN sunk their teeth into this international problem. Now, we see the fruits of the long hours of sweating in anguish, over this issue. Now, we get to see those results, right?

Not so fast.

From the Houston Chronicle:

Russia is pressing for more time to examine a U.N. proposal for the future of Kosovo, Western and Russian officials said Friday, underscoring a widening rift between Moscow — a key ally of Serbia — and the United States and its European allies.


Are we really surprised? Just when we think that a slow-moving inefficient organization could actually be ready to move on something, here comes Moscow with objections under the guise of needing to study the plan more closely. I mean come on here, it's not like we have witnessed the hurried ramrodding of something, here. It's been eight years. What could they possibly see fit to change, now?

This is a prime example of why many people are losing faith and confidence in the UN. Everyone wants to drive the damned train. As a result, the train sits in the damned station while everyone tries to be the engineer.

Can anyone see why I am so very critical of the UN? Can anyone see why I have no confidence in it?

The EU and UN have been looking at the Iran situation and predictably, we are seeing the same kind of results. Except with Iran, no one can agree on how to talk about the plan, much less formulate one. If the utility of the UN in the Kosovo case holds true to the one with Iran, maybe we can expect a rough draft in, by 2012.

15 comments:

All_I_Can_Stands said...

Can anyone see why I am so very critical of the UN? Can anyone see why I have no confidence in it?

I would question the sanity of anyone who has any confidence in the UN.

I don't really see any liberals who have confidence in it, but they are abhore the concept of disbanding it.

Anonim said...

Honesty is not diplomats' strong point. And the Oscar in honesty category surely goes to Americans.

I never understood conservative Americans' disgust towards the UN. The reasons must, I am guessing, go back to domestic American politics during the founding of the UN. Whatever... The fact is, the UN is a useful organization at many levels. The inherent difficulty of attaining worldwide consensus may render it ineffective on contentious issues. But isn't that the nature of the beast? Or, was the UN supposed to end the power game altogether?

Looking forward to a world government under Clinton & Clinton! Seriously, it can happen, can it not?

LASunsett said...

Anonim,

//I never understood conservative Americans' disgust towards the UN.//

I can't speak for everyone that is disgusted with the UN, but my disgust is due to the extremely inefficient performance in the last 25 years or so. You can certainly create a list of the UN accomplishments, over the years. But I can also create one that lists its failures, equal to or greater than the one that lists the successes.

LASunsett said...

AICS,

The thing that is so ironic is, member nations will use it as a measuring stick when it is convenient for them to do so. But they will quickly disregard it, when they are the target of a resolution that calls them into accountability.

BabyHair said...

That's just human nature. No person or nation wants to be criticized or punished for anything.
Regarding Kosovo, I believe that the Serbian minority must be respected and given rights to participate in the government. The Albanians can't do the same thing as the Serbians did to them when Milosovic was in power.
I believe in the traditional nation-state. Every nation should decide for themselves within their own country how they should rule. Hopefully, they will treat everyone fairly and justly irregardless of ethnicity, color or religion.

Always On Watch Two said...

If the utility of the UN in the Kosovo case holds true to the one with Iran, maybe we can expect a rough draft in, by 2012.

Ahem. Iran is not waiting another five years to move along with its own plans.

This appeared on the WaPo's web site today:

TEHRAN, Iran -- Iran said Sunday it needs time to review a plan proposed by the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency that calls for holding off on imposing U.N. Security Council sanctions if Tehran suspends uranium enrichment.

The International Atomic Energy Agency chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, proposed the simultaneous time-out plan during the World Economic Forum in Switzerland in an effort to end the standoff between the West and Iran over the Islamic republic's suspect nuclear program.

"Time should be allocated to see if the plan has the capacity to solve the (nuclear) case," Ali Larijani, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, told reporters during a joint news conference with Russia's national security adviser, Igor Ivanov. He did not elaborate.

[...]

"If we begin to install centrifuges we will publicly announce it," Saeedi said. Earlier, Hossein Simorgh, spokesman for the Iranian nuclear agency's public relations department, also said new centrifuges had not been installed at Natanz, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

Those remarks appeared to contradict lawmaker Alaeddin Boroujerdi, who said Saturday that Iran was currently installing the 3,000 centrifuges....


Bluff and bluster? How to tell?

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

Is the UN about to go the way of the League of Nations? Could be. More and more, the UN is becoming irrelevant and a laughing stock.

LASunsett said...

AOW

//Iran is not waiting another five years to move along with its own plans.//

This is very highly probable. Tick tock, tick tock.

//Is the UN about to go the way of the League of Nations?//

Also an event, that is a very high-probability.

LASunsett said...

Baby Hair,

//Regarding Kosovo, I believe that the Serbian minority must be respected and given rights to participate in the government. The Albanians can't do the same thing as the Serbians did to them when Milosovic was in power.//

There's another human nature moment. Very often the causes that many take up are not motivated by the desire for equality, but for a desire for empowerment. Very often, it's not about justice, but revenge.

Greg said...

The question is why one wouldn't be disgusted with the UN. Oil-for-Food is just the latest example of an organization that is rife with corruption and whose members are mostly concerned with self-aggrandizement, rather than actually solving world problems. Seriously - this organization was up to its neck in stealing food and medicine from children in Karbala and Mosul so that they and their buddy, Saddam Hussein, a modern-day Hitler, could make some money. And aside from fraud, is there anything big the UN has ever accomplished? Anything?

Anyway, you guys are right to bring up Iran. Iran is looking at what happened to North Korea following its test of a nuclear bomb. Namely, nothing. Nothing except "strong condemnation." So Iran figures it might as well go right ahead. The mullahs can handle a little "condemnation" from the UNSC.

The UN is seriously useless. They are too afraid to enforce their own resolutions, if they even have the guts to pass a resolution in the first place. The UN is nothing more than a massive money pit, which is too bad, because it has the potential to be a great tool for international peace and stability.

Greg said...

Oh, BTW, Kosovo. Yes, I remember the US/NATO operation to save civilians from slaughter, while the UN looked on. Imagine if NATO had waited to act until authorized by the UNSC. NATO would still be waiting b/c Russia would still be opposed.

Eg, Darfur. UN needs more talking on Darfur. Talk talk talk. The Chinese are opposed to any action b/c of their oil interests in Sudan. So nothing happens b/c UNSC only acts with consensus. Ho-hum. God Bless the UN.

Greg said...

NATO - now there's an international organization that (sometimes) puts its money where its mouth is.

All_I_Can_Stands said...

Anonim said,

The inherent difficulty of attaining worldwide consensus may render it ineffective on contentious issues. But isn't that the nature of the beast? Or, was the UN supposed to end the power game altogether?

The problem is that there are certain items that should easily gain concensus yet even those pieces of low hanging fruit are stopped by the agendas of the various members. The result is paralysis when it comes to anything important. The UN is then held up as THE entity. Sovereignty of individual countries is challenged or restrained by THE entity.

Basically when you weigh the cost and trouble put into it against what you get out of it, it is a no-brainer that it should be dissolved.

LASunsett said...

Greg,

//Iran is looking at what happened to North Korea following its test of a nuclear bomb. Namely, nothing. Nothing except "strong condemnation."//

Now, now. You forgot there were a few strongly worded statements issued with those strong condemnations.

LASunsett said...

Greg,

//NATO would still be waiting b/c Russia would still be opposed.//

It just goes to show that it's a damned good thing Russia never joined NATO. As it is now, I think we are at the point where we are regretting the day, we allowed China to become a permanent member of the UNSC.

LASunsett said...

AICS,

//The result is paralysis when it comes to anything important.//

Well said. Paralysis is certainly the operative word here.