NZ's Vote at the UN

[Peter M 2]

Or should I say non vote.

If New Zealand can't support a UN resolution calling on investigations of possible war crimes then just what does it support.

This is a summary of NZ's UN speech in connection with the Goldstone report.

"

The representative of New Zealand said his delegation had abstained from the vote. It believed in a just and comprehensive solution to achieve peace in the region, and he called on all parties to resume talks. At the same time, there should be no impunity. New Zealand would have preferred that the issue would have been considered by the Human Rights Council, as originally agreed. He objected to the continued bias against Israel in the handling of the issue by the Human Rights Council.

He said it was regrettable that Israel had not presented its version to the Mission. The United Nations mission was a Fact Finding Mission and not a judicial inquiry. The international community should not pass judgment as though it had been. New Zealand could not endorse a resolution that endorsed a Council report on a special session that included a biased one-sided resolution.

"

In 99% cases NZ would support anything that brings to justice to victims of war crimes. However it seems the 1% is when it concerns Israel.

[kiwijah 0]

with the US. I'm ashamed.

[Philocon 1]

Interestingly Richard Goldstone is a South African Jew and a supporter of the state of Israel. Yet the USA, Israel NZ and several other countries are accusing him of being biased against Israel.

We are in the minority here as the vote was 114 to 18 to send it to the Security Council with 44 including NZ not having the balls to commit on the issue. Even with the abstentions it was still a 2-1 vote. However many of theose voting against or abstaining were powers with a veto on the Sercurity Council.

It's nothing new. Our record of voting on this issue at the UN has been nothing short of apalling. We have joined those who choose to ignore Israel's violation of UN resolutions but show no such tolerance to other countries who breach UN resolutions and Security council resolutions.

The only semblance of some sort of balanced approach in our attitude on this issue was in the last 10 years but that appears to have gone with this administration and a return to the status-quo going back decades. So much for an independent stance in our foreign policy. The Zionist lobby in Washington can influence & intimidate any administration Democrat or Republican but now it's arm reaches all the way to Wgtn as well.

Goldstone is a respected international jurist, a Jew, a white South African, a supporter of Israel. the Israeli's were expecting a biased report from him and now they are claiming they got one. The only thing is the bias they are accusing him of was not the one they anticipated.

The key points in the report were:

That both Hamas and Israel were guilty of war crimes;

Both the leadership of Hamas and Israel should investigate and actively prosecute those war crimes;

The UN should refer the allegations and the report to the International Criminal Court.

Seems we and the USA only want to use the UN & the ICC when it applies to countries we don't like.

Shame on Mr Goldstone for not producing a report with the right bias. If lawn bowlers can produce the right bias when required, why can't he?

[Properispomenon 1]

The UN really is a waste of time, Philocon...

You say 'The UN should refer the allegations and the report to the International Criminal Court'.

Erm, I am picking that the US would use its veto to allow no such thing.

Not sure if Hamas has any allies with vetos of their own - Russia? China? - but I think they'd probably take a similar path...

[Philocon 1]

The UN really is a waste of time, Philocon...

You say 'The UN should refer the allegations and the report to the International Criminal Court'.

Erm, I am picking that the US would use its veto to allow no such thing.

Not sure if Hamas has any allies with vetos of their own - Russia? China? - but I think they'd probably take a similar path...

Don't entirely agree with you on that but partly I do. There is widespread recognition that the UN is overdue for reform. The current structure of the Security Council with the five veto power is a hangover from WWII and the Cold War era.

But it is not totally useless and irrelevant. Many of its agencies do some very worthwhile things and there are many positive achievements we often overlook. Look at the mess we got into when Bush Jnr and his neocon friends decided the UN was irrelevant and the revealed truth was that written under divine guidance in the Pentagon and based on what passed for the imaginations of Bush Jnr, Rush Limbauer and their friends.

Problem is that the very powers who cause the biggest UN problems I mentioned are the ones with the critical powers to help, block or hinder attempts to reform it. Also exactly how do we reform it. The reform ideas touted by the former Bush administration and their neocon allies would hardly have been an improvement. The Bush administrations decision to bypass the UN and attack it at every opportunity added to it's already existing limitations. Their idea was for a compliant organisation that would rubber stamp what they were already doing. Some of those groups would have regarded even John Key as a radical ultra leftist marxist adventurer and Rodney Hide as a dangerous liberal. just look at some of the comments of the republican party right which is reassuming the ascendency again there at present. They condemn some conservative European countries & conservative parties as too left wing, they see Canada as a left wing socialist state despite it having a Conservative party govt and their equivalent of our Labour Party the New Demcrats has always been a minor partner in any Liberal led govt coalition. They'd probably even confuse Grahame Noblet with Che Guevara - scary not just for me but for Grahame and Che as well!

The Obama regime's return to working with the world body does raise a glimmer of hope but just that - a glimmer. It might turn out to be the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel - a train coming towards us.

Perhaps the biggest change would come not from the UN but from the USA if the majority entitled to vote actually did instead of just mainly those wedded to what JK Galbraith called "The Politics of Contentment."

[Properispomenon 1]

The UN, indeed, needs major reforms...

Ones I can see that leap out include:

1. A transfer away from the current United States base.

2. A fairer funding system - last time I looked, 25% of the budget was paid for by the U.S. No wonder the U.S. treats it with such disdain...

3. No nation to have any power of veto.

4. Wider powers that would enable the U.N. to intercede in any conflict (include civil wars) and to take any punitive action against recalcitrant states that it voted for.

5. Yep, a U.N. army, too...

[Philocon 1]

The UN, indeed, needs major reforms...

Ones I can see that leap out include:

1. A transfer away from the current United States base.

2. A fairer funding system - last time I looked, 25% of the budget was paid for by the U.S. No wonder the U.S. treats it with such disdain...

3. No nation to have any power of veto.

4. Wider powers that would enable the U.N. to intercede in any conflict (include civil wars) and to take any punitive action against recalcitrant states that it voted for.

5. Yep, a U.N. army, too...

Yes a good starting point but the big problems are to get the veto powers to give up their vetoes; Finding an alternative funding that would maintain equity remove the overbearing US base as you say and help foster a more positive attitude from them. You might also see a different attitude from Israel and other mid east players in such a situation. However again the problem could come from the influential US Zionist lobby that might react negatively to anything they see as undermining theirs and Israel's hegemony in the region. likewise conservative Arab states that see not only their interests threatened by a just solution to the problem there (which they pay lip service to) but also their own power and survival from their own people at home.

Also getting agreement to move beyond the present peacekeeping powers and consensus approach would also be a major negotiating step. But as I said a good starting point. Big question is - is there a will there to change? The answer to that could carry a govt health warning. "The answer to this question could endanger your health and cause depression." ( Being a non smoker I am not familiar with the exact wording on cigarette packets these days.)