quote:

The United Nations should withdraw all of its workers from Iraq until the security situation improves, the body's staff union has said.

Link.

I imagine that has something to do with this:

More ministers pull out of crumbling Iraq cabinet

And also this:

As British Leave, Basra Deteriorates

Violence Rises in Shiite City Once Called a Success Story

Not to mention this little problem for some Iraqis:

Iraq interpreters 'abandoned' by UK

quote:

The Government has been accused of abandoning 91 Iraqi interpreters who have risked their lives to help British forces.

The individuals and their families have reportedly been told they will not be given favourable treatment for asylum in the UK, despite the danger of retribution from militants.

More on the no-win situation the Maliki government seems to find itself in and why the UN may see fit to get its staff out:

His neighbors in Turkey are attempting to force him to crack down on the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) which both Turkey and the U.S. have branded as a terrorist organization. The problem is, he's lost so much support from different factions, he cannot afford to be tough with the Kurdistan Alliance which is harboring the PKK, and he has to appease Massoud Barzani who is the architect of the policy in the Kurdistan Regional Government giving the PKK safe haven in Iraq. So Maliki has agreed to "cooperate" with Turkey, but he reserves the right to let Parliament have the final say.

quote:

Turkey, Iraq agree to cooperate

The Turkish and Iraqi Interior Ministries had been negotiating such a pact, but the official said al-Maliki was caught off-guard when asked to sign an agreement Tuesday.

The official said al-Maliki refused to sign the anti-terrorism pact because of Kurdish objections to a description of the PKK as a terrorist organization.

So the threat of incursion by Turkey has not been clearly averted yet, and the real issue is the not whether the U.S. would "let" it happen, it's whether if something is done to deal with the PKK what may happen with internal political alliances in a crumbling government.

quote:

Iraq's cooperation could possibly avert a Turkish incursion, which is opposed by Washington. The United States says the PKK is a terrorist group, but U.S. forces are consumed by chaos elsewhere in Iraq and want to preserve the Kurdish-dominated north as a rare spot of relative stability.

Al-Maliki's already shaky government has been hit with a series of Cabinet desertions by both Shiite and Sunni Arabs, although the Kurdish portion of his coalition has held fast so far. But some members are questioning their participation, and the prime minister may be wary of angering the Kurds.

quote:

The PKK, which has had bases in northern Iraq for decades, has killed tens of thousands in attacks since taking up arms for autonomy in southeastern Turkey in 1984.

Turkey's patience has been running thin amid escalated fighting that has left about 80 Turkish soldiers dead so far this year.

Another version from Al Jazeera: No Iraq-Turkey pact on separatists

If anybody wants a really good chuckle.

WHAT THE UN DOES FOR PEACE

Yes, the unilateralist imperialist idealists (specifically the Neoconservatives) are certainly at odds with the globalist idealists, the globalist realists, and the liberal international rationalists on the issue of the UN. Funny as anything can be. Leads one to speculate that chaos theory in I.R. may reign supreme when all is said and done.

Wow... that is a lot of really big words?

What does it all mean?

"What does it all mean?" probably means the questioner doesn't study International Relations (I.R.) theories, may not even be peripherally aware of them.

quote:

"What does it all mean?" probably means the asker doesn't study International Relations (I.R.) theory.

OOOoooo Conceptual Models, You know I hate those. There are always pieces left over, not enough stickers and the instruction are generally in a foreign laungage.

What I do know, Is the practical application of the past and current application of the UN mandate. Fairly good understanding of UN rules, laws, powers and convictions. I suppose in a conceptual model I would think the Un is more

The UN is an empty shell of latté sipping, spineless bureaucratic liberals that spend far to much time mental masturbating, have cause more problems in the this world then they have ever fixed.

Sorry... no fancy word.

I get so confused by those big words...

unilateralist imperialist idealists (specifically the Neoconservatives)

are we talking about Obama still? Or just the whole Democratic Party? Sorry, except for the Gollum.

quote:

The United Nations should withdraw all of its workers from Iraq until the security situation improves, the body's staff union has said.

Come on... You have to laugh at the cut and run mentality of the UN. Who's own preamble

quote:

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security

Boy a little hard to do from the safety and security of the UN building in New York, with the comforting protection of the US. If the UN had ANY balls/spine/conviction/principles they could easily maintain international Peace and Security. But... hard to do when you are constantly showing your backside to everyone as your running away

quote:

Originally posted by /rén:
"What does it all mean?" probably it means the questioner doesn't study International Relations (I.R.) theories, may is not even be peripherally aware of them.

Looks like I nailed it.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: /rén,

quote:

Looks like I nailed it.

So did I...

quote:

The UN is an empty shell of latté sipping, spineless bureaucratic liberals that spend far to much time mental masturbating, have cause more problems in the this world then they have ever fixed.

Since the UN never mandated this war, why should they stay.

I say US out of the UN, please!

quote:

Originally posted by sleepless:
Since the UN never mandated this war, why should they stay.
I say US out of the UN, please!

When has the UN ever mandated a war? Their purpose is to prevent wars or escalation of violence.

Did the UN mandate Hezbollah/Israel war?
Sudan?
Haiti...
And for a list of more possible ones: List of United Nations peacekeeping missions

As far as US/UN relations, yes and no (IMHO).

Well like I said I think the US should just leave the UN and move the headquarters elsewhere.
End of story.

quote:

Since the UN never mandated this war, why should they stay.

Must I post the UN charter preamble again.
to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security
Doesn't say anything about them mandating anything. Would like to know just how much power the UN could have.... well if they in fact ever developed a spine.

quote:

Chapter 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

quote:

Article 43
All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

quote:

Chapter 45
In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee

Well.... here is a 180.

UN to broaden role in Iraq

So, the UN doesn't listen to its staff either.

Perhaps Bush wants the UN more involved so it can take over "ownership" of the "war".

What is the UN's current member agreed mandated role in Iraq? What conditions in Iraq are required for the UN/International Community to meet it's commitments to Iraq? Are those being met now?

Here are some suggested documents to give you some clues to begin looking for this information:


This page from the UNAMI site has a whole list of them: UN IRAQ: Web Protal for UN Agencies working in Iraq

Specifically this document is the "Compact" that lays out the role of the UN and its membership involvement:
The International Compact with Iraq - A Shared Vision, A Mutual Commitment

Mid year progress report for 2007:

The International Compact with Iraq: 2007 Mid-Year Progress Report


Here is the UN's version of their Security Council consensus to expand its role in Iraq:

Strong Security Council consensus for UN to have expanded role in Iraq – top official

Sue N., maybe the UK and the US should both leave the UN.

They really should just deal with the jobs in Africa, etc. and leave the really important work to the BIG countries in the world.

quote:

Originally posted by Sue N:
So, the UN doesn't listen to its staff either.

Perhaps Bush wants the UN more involved so it can take over "ownership" of the "war".

I am not sure if you follow the Democratic Party that much, but I have seen over the past couple of years that some have suggested just talk to the UN and others and they somehow would be willing to step into Iraq and fix the problems.

Honestly, it is more of the "lets talk our problems away". So I see no one is going to step up and accept responsibility (ownership). For example: it was like pulling teeth for the small force in Lebanon.

quote:

Perhaps Bush wants the UN more involved so it can take over "ownership" of the "war".

Like that will ever happen....

Well... here are the options. feel free to list the pro's and con's if it makes everyone feel better.

1 - Good report in September, Things improve life goes on.

2 - Bad report in September, things are the same or getting worst; Congress grows a set and defunds the war. We leave, chaos and civil war ensue, then possible peace, life goes on.


So then you’re left with the UN. While I enjoy the zeal of Sleepless’s point that we should kick the UN to the curb, I don’t see that as a short term option. But IF, option one does go to fruition, then that concretes the uselessness of the UN as a world peacekeeping body, then yes… tear it down for a starbucks.

OR

If the UN grows a set, stop being such a bunch political pansies step up or step in as the peacekeeping force it was originally designed for, Brow beats the US into a subservient role in the overall peacekeeping and calls on all the member states to the UN Charter to participate in squaring Iraq around, exerts it’s dominate role in global peace, then JUST maybe the UN can go about fixing all the problems it has created and finally and with authority settle the disputes of the world without the bureaucratic bullshit they generally bog down in. Stopping the genocide in Darfur should not be sent to committee, for month’s, on the legal definition of Genocide.

quote:

Originally posted by sleepless:
Since the UN never mandated this war, why should they stay.

I say US out of the UN, please!

I agree!

Dump that money sucking useless impotant drain on our economy.
That is one give away program that needs to be scrapped. Koffi Annan gave a new meaning to coruption.

Okay, I think the US doesn't want the UN and vice versa, so it seems a friendly parting of ways.

Why not leave the UN, they are useless to our cause. We don't want peace in Iraq??!!!! Just oil, and I don't think the UN ,"does" securing oil for American interests very well. Am I wrong, if so please let me know

quote:

Why not leave the UN, they are useless to our cause. We don't want peace in Iraq??!!!! Just oil, and I don't think the UN ,"does" securing oil for American interests very well. Am I wrong, if so please let me know

Nice... you had me going there for a minute.

quote:

Originally posted by sleepless:
Sue N., maybe the UK and the US should both leave the UN.

They really should just deal with the jobs in Africa, etc. and leave the really important work to the BIG countries in the world.

lol. I can't see them giving up their places. Not that the Bush Administration is a team player; they only talk to the UN when it suits them.

I'd say the security council needs revision.

The UN has a number of branches; some of them more effective than others.

Sometimes its role should more properly be to just keep talking so nobody actually does anything, same as parliaments.