The UN and Lebanon
UN & LEBANON
UN Charter via Wikipedia
Lebanon is a UN member, a charter signatory of the United Nations. Israeli is a later joining member of the United Nations.
Prior discussions of international law at this blog do not undermine the United Nations or its charter which constitute the basic code of international conduct; and which guarantees peoples human rights world-wide.
That is why this blogging entry is following the piece about war crimes activity. UN resolutions 1559, and 1680 both address the security and restoration of Lebanon. Security of Israel vis a vis her neighbors remains a UN problem requiring a general regional security conference and an enlarged UN Peacekeeping force. UNIFIL is the name for asmall UN force present in South Lebanon - but a force to small to police or buffer agressive nations.
That UN action was working and in partial place at the outbreak of this war -- abandoned even if for 9-10 days by the state of Israel and watched by the G-8 especially the United States. Only France called for an immediate ceasefire -- speaking as the less enabled UN should have.
Lebanon and Israel both earn the protection of the United Nations by membershp - by being peoples of this one world of ours -- but both have responsibiliteies to enforce the UN Charter via their governments and in joined action with other nations.
When the Secretary-General of the UN, the Security Council calls for a ceasefire, he should be able to order it done with an expectation of a greater collective force to stop war, to save lives. Rather than commend a ceasefire or negotiate a ceasefire with the good UN offices - he must order the member nations to cease fire .. to cease war and return their dispute to the UNITED NATIONS, and that order must be obeyed.
A military injunction to save lives must be delivered by a UN command to stop war.
This is possible only if none of the five permanent members of the Security Council veto that UN instruction (they may always abstain), and allow a motion to force a ceasefire or some other UN action of the Security Council to proceed by majority.
Since recognition, the United States has never joined a major UN action against Israel's activity. The Suez War, with a Birtish and Israeli back-down was as close as the US got. In that case, Britain might have vetoed any halting UN action.
In 1949-50 Korea, the USSR abstained at the UN Security Council, and allowed the UN to proceed against North Korea.
This archaic permanent veto, generally permits the UN from functioning fully for peacekeepng - especially in resolving Palestine, Israel, and Lebanon.
The United States can spare the veto, and help an objective UN and world community address the Israeli inflammation in Lebanon, and that nations re-construction.
Lebanon pertinent UN resolutions: 1559 & 1680, are the basis for peace and reconstruction of one kindling point in Lebanon's post-Syria past. Only the United States and Britain would likely veto a stronger immediate Security Council resolve to order a cessation of hostilities; serving the force to effect it if disobeyed. Israel's condemnation need not be reacehd in imposing an immdeiate ceasefire on both sides. Liablities wiould be addressed in post-hostilities litigation.
Lebanon sought and received UN assistance to restore her nation -- that UN benefaction - that UN duty - that UN assistance - should not be squandered.
When a nation claiming sel-defense acts with martial force; a surplusage of force makes that nation an agressor.
It is certainly the desire and sense of the people of the world that war be discarded, that only via the UN or other true collective defense should martialforce be used against another nation.
That big gun -- barring an emergency self-defense - should be aimed by the agency of the people of the world -- the UNITED NATIONS.
UN Charter via Wikipedia
Lebanon is a UN member, a charter signatory of the United Nations. Israeli is a later joining member of the United Nations.
Prior discussions of international law at this blog do not undermine the United Nations or its charter which constitute the basic code of international conduct; and which guarantees peoples human rights world-wide.
That is why this blogging entry is following the piece about war crimes activity. UN resolutions 1559, and 1680 both address the security and restoration of Lebanon. Security of Israel vis a vis her neighbors remains a UN problem requiring a general regional security conference and an enlarged UN Peacekeeping force. UNIFIL is the name for asmall UN force present in South Lebanon - but a force to small to police or buffer agressive nations.
That UN action was working and in partial place at the outbreak of this war -- abandoned even if for 9-10 days by the state of Israel and watched by the G-8 especially the United States. Only France called for an immediate ceasefire -- speaking as the less enabled UN should have.
Lebanon and Israel both earn the protection of the United Nations by membershp - by being peoples of this one world of ours -- but both have responsibiliteies to enforce the UN Charter via their governments and in joined action with other nations.
When the Secretary-General of the UN, the Security Council calls for a ceasefire, he should be able to order it done with an expectation of a greater collective force to stop war, to save lives. Rather than commend a ceasefire or negotiate a ceasefire with the good UN offices - he must order the member nations to cease fire .. to cease war and return their dispute to the UNITED NATIONS, and that order must be obeyed.
A military injunction to save lives must be delivered by a UN command to stop war.
This is possible only if none of the five permanent members of the Security Council veto that UN instruction (they may always abstain), and allow a motion to force a ceasefire or some other UN action of the Security Council to proceed by majority.
Since recognition, the United States has never joined a major UN action against Israel's activity. The Suez War, with a Birtish and Israeli back-down was as close as the US got. In that case, Britain might have vetoed any halting UN action.
In 1949-50 Korea, the USSR abstained at the UN Security Council, and allowed the UN to proceed against North Korea.
This archaic permanent veto, generally permits the UN from functioning fully for peacekeepng - especially in resolving Palestine, Israel, and Lebanon.
The United States can spare the veto, and help an objective UN and world community address the Israeli inflammation in Lebanon, and that nations re-construction.
Lebanon pertinent UN resolutions: 1559 & 1680, are the basis for peace and reconstruction of one kindling point in Lebanon's post-Syria past. Only the United States and Britain would likely veto a stronger immediate Security Council resolve to order a cessation of hostilities; serving the force to effect it if disobeyed. Israel's condemnation need not be reacehd in imposing an immdeiate ceasefire on both sides. Liablities wiould be addressed in post-hostilities litigation.
Lebanon sought and received UN assistance to restore her nation -- that UN benefaction - that UN duty - that UN assistance - should not be squandered.
When a nation claiming sel-defense acts with martial force; a surplusage of force makes that nation an agressor.
It is certainly the desire and sense of the people of the world that war be discarded, that only via the UN or other true collective defense should martialforce be used against another nation.
That big gun -- barring an emergency self-defense - should be aimed by the agency of the people of the world -- the UNITED NATIONS.
posted by scotty of course at 7:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home