Failing Islamic States - 2011

[MarkOttawa]

Two useful pieces:

STRATFOR:

Egypt: The Distance Between Enthusiasm and Reality
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110213-egypt-distance-between-enthusiasm-and-reality

WSJ:

Understanding the Muslim Brotherhood
In 1979, Western thinkers were quick to call the Ayatollah Khomeini 'moderate' and 'progressive.'
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&tbs=nws%3A1&q=%22It%27s+what+the+good+people%22&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

It's what the good people on West 40th Street like to call a "Times Classic." On Feb. 16, 1979, the New York Times ran a lengthy op-ed by Richard Falk, a professor of international law at Princeton, under the headline "Trusting Khomeini."

"The depiction of [Khomeini] as fanatical, reactionary and the bearer of crude prejudices seems certainly and happily false," wrote Mr. Falk. "What is also encouraging is that his entourage of close advisers is uniformly composed of moderate, progressive individuals."

After carrying on in this vein for a few paragraphs, the professor concluded: "Having created a new model of popular revolution based, for the most part, on nonviolent tactics, Iran may yet provide us with a desperately needed model of humane governance for a third-world country."

Whoops.

The Times is at it again. Last week, the paper published an op-ed from Essam El-Errian, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood's Guidance Council, who offered this soothing take on his organization: "We aim to achieve reform and rights for all: not just for the Muslim Brotherhood, not just for Muslims, but for all Egyptians." Concurring with that view, Times reporter Nicholas Kulish wrote on Feb. 4 that members of the Brotherhood "come across as civic-minded people of faith."..

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Rifleman62]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/losing_ground_across_mideast_ARysFD44h1u3rbZKzza2JI

New York Post

O's losing ground across mideast

Peter Brookes

It would be easier to forgive the Obama administration's lackluster handling of the political crisis in Egypt over the last couple of weeks if things were going our way elsewhere in the Middle East. Unfortunately, they're not.

Start with Iran. Despite two years of engagement, Tehran is still developing nuclear weapons -- significantly shaking stability in the Middle East as they do.

And, sorry: Neither cyber ops like the "Stuxnet" computer virus (which we may have been behind) nor UN-prescribed economic sanctions seem to have put much of a hitch in the giddyap of Iran's runaway nuclear horses.

Despite the president saying that a nuclear Iran is "unacceptable," Iran may become a card-carrying member of the Mushroom Cloud Club this year; some experts believe it already has gathered enough uranium for at least a couple of A-bombs.

Not to mention that its ever-expanding space-launch and satellite programs have put Tehran closer to developing an ICBM capable of reaching the US homeland -- all while our missile-defense programs lag behind the threat.

Then there's Syria, where the Bush administration recalled the US ambassador five years ago over probable Syrian involvement in the assassination of a former Lebanese prime minister. Obama ended Damascus' "time-out" this year by sending a new ambassador -- signaling that it's OK that President Bashar Assad continues his anti-US stance, steps up his crackdown on political opposition and delays any progress on finding peace with his neighbor Israel.

Washington also appears to be looking the other way on Damascus' lack of cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency on Syria's (covert) nuclear program, its growing alliance with Iran and its continuing financial, moral and military support of Hamas and Hezbollah.

And don't forget about Lebanon right next door, where, on the administration's watch, both Iran and Syria have dug their claws in again -- after the Cedar Revolution loosed their near-death grip on the country in 2005. Tehran's and Damascus' proxy Hezbollah was recently able to bully its candidate into the prime minister's job, setting back US (and Israeli) interests.

In Iraq, where the remaining 50,000 US troops will be leaving this year, there's concern about growing Iranian influence due to American inattention -- threatening to create an arc of Persian power across the Middle East's midsection.

Meanwhile, the Middle East peace process -- where success, the Obama administration insisted, would set everything right with the region -- has gone nowhere in the last two years.
Instead, America's relations with Israel hit new lows on a regular basis; we're no closer to a two-state solution for the Israelis and Palestinians, and Hamas still has an iron grip on Gaza.

It doesn't end there.

Key Arab partners in places like Jordan and Saudi Arabia must be unnerved by how the Obama administration got caught flatfooted by Egypt's turmoil, had trouble finding its "voice" -- and seemingly had no plan for influencing the outcome.

There's still hope for a positive ending in Egypt -- but that's far from guaranteed at this point. Lots of nightmarish scenarios could come to pass instead, including an Islamist takeover of the Cairo government.

Unless the Obama administration gets its Middle East act together soon and starts to get some traction on these pressing problems, our influence will continue to wane, undermining vital US interests.

If things don't change, we're not going to like what -- or who -- steps in to fill the void the Obama administration's policies are creating in the Middle East

Peter Brookes is a Heritage Foundation senior fellow and a former deputy assistant secretary of defense.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Some serious research at Taylor Empire Airways on sexual harassment (and more, "Lara Logan’s sexual assault") in Egypt:

Poisoned environment
http://taylorempireairways.com/2011/02/poisoned-environment/

Just a note in keeping with Chris Taylor's blog--Imperial Airways used to serve Egypt with flying boats:
http://www.flightglobalimages.com/pictures_1571623/-february-imperial-airways-began-regular-operation-of-southampton-alexandria-services-with-c-class-flying-boats-the-first-service-was-by-g-aduw-castor-the-aircraft-had-departed-on-6-february-but-returned-with-oiled-plugs%3B-rough-water-prevented-dep.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[57Chevy]

UN Chief Deeply Troubled by Bahrain Violence

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Thursday he is deeply troubled by the violent crackdown on anti-government protesters in the Gulf kingdom of Bahrain. The U.N. chief also said there is "no turning back" on promised elections and reforms in Egypt, where he urged leaders to start working together.

Mr. Ban acknowledged that each country and situation is unique, but he called for respect for human rights on all sides as change sweeps the Middle East.

"Throughout this period, the United Nations has been clear and consistent in supporting basic human rights and freedoms. Above all, we have insisted on respect for the rights of peaceful protest and assembly, freedom of the press and access to information," he said.

Mr. Ban told reporters that he is deeply troubled about reports of violence in the small Gulf kingdom of Bahrain, where several protesters were killed when riot police fired tear gas and beat demonstrators demanding political reforms.

"Here as elsewhere, violence should not be used against peaceful demonstrators and against journalists.  It must stop," said the U.N. chief.

'"Those responsible must be brought to justice. In responding to peaceful protests, authorities have an obligation to respect human rights. There should be no violence from any quarter.  I urge all parties to exercise restraint."

The secretary-general said that in a number of countries, transitions have been initiated and reforms have been promised, and he urged leaders to deliver on those promises. He also urged leaders to listen to the frustrations of their people, especially their large youth population.

"Many young people have been frustrated by their inability to participate, with decent jobs and freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of communication should be fully guaranteed," said Mr. Ban. "Those have been largely neglected in the region.  That is the lesson which the leaders should learn and try to change, as soon as possible, reflecting such strong voices from their own people."

On Egypt, where weeks of protests succeeded in unseating President Hosni Mubarak, Mr. Ban said he welcomes public commitments that have been made on the holding of elections as part of a transition to democratic, civilian rule.  He said those commitments must be fulfilled and there can be no turning back.

He added that the United Nations stands ready to assist in any way.

                                        (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)

 

[GAP]

The majority in Bahrain are Sunni Shia, but ruled by the minority Sunni....most of the activists are Shia....They may have legitimate concerns, but there also may be an invisible backer, especially if any change affects the continuance of the US bases....

Correction on the majority segment....

 

[MarkOttawa]

'Twixt the devil and the deep blue sea:

U.S. Takes Cautious Line on Fifth Fleet's Base
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703561604576150662599202064.html

Unrest in Bahrain is putting the future of a key U.S. ally in doubt, a microcosm of how the Middle East's roiling political landscape is challenging U.S. policy in the region.

A U.S. ally in a geographically strategic perch, Bahrain is positioned near the world's most important oil reserves, and its Sunni government has been seen as a reliable bulwark against nearby Shiite-led Iran. At the center of U.S. strategy there is the headquarters of the U.S. Fifth Fleet—a base that is home to 3,000 military personnel who oversee the 30 naval ships and some 30,000 sailors that patrol the Persian Gulf and Arabian and Red seas.

The Bahrain base isn't the most important U.S. base in the Middle East, but it oversees all of its naval operations there, a critical task. While it could conceivably be moved, former officials say no other country has been as reliably welcoming to the U.S. presence as Bahrain.

"Could we find some other place to put a fleet headquarters? Probably we could," said Anthony Cordesman, a defense analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "But if Bahrain becomes unstable, if it comes under Iranian influence...[that] threatens the entire structure of world oil markets."

The U.S. has so far been relatively quiet in condemning Bahrain's moves against protesters. President Barack Obama, at a news conference this week, pointedly avoided criticizing Bahrain's leaders as he eventually did amid building protests against Egypt's now-deposed Hosni Mubarak.

But the State Department on Thursday expressed its sharpest concerns yet over the events in Bahrain, highlighting the delicate path it continues to carve between guarding its longtime alliances in the region and supporting its emerging democracy movements.

On Thursday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke with her Bahraini counterpart to express "deep concern about recent events and [urge] restraint moving forward," according to a State Department official...

American ties to Bahrain go back to the 1940s, when U.S. Navy vessels first began to use the port. The U.S. took over the navy base in Bahrain from the British in 1971.

Though Bahrain was heavily used in the Gulf war, the U.S. presence remained modest until Sept. 11, 2001, when the U.S. dramatically rebuilt its naval presence in the Persian Gulf. Today the base is a logistics resupply point and command and control node. Two carrier battle groups, one led by the USS Carl Vinson the other by the USS Enterprise, are under Fifth Fleet command.

Bahrain has little in the way of its own energy reserves and a small military. But its location near key Saudi fields, and its rulers' pro-American track record, have given it outsized importance. U.S. efforts to build up defense cooperation among the Arab gulf states would be undermined if Bahrain's Sunni royal family were to be replaced with a pro-Iranian administration.

Some analysts see Iranian influence among the Shiite protesters in Bahrain, and few doubt Tehran would like to see the U.S. forced to pull out of the kingdom. "It is a natural goal of Iran to try and expel the Fifth Fleet from Bahrain," said Elliott Abrams, a former senior State Department official...

I suspect many of these troops are Baluchs:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/africa-mideast/bahrains-crackdown-shows-the-limits-of-a-revolution/article1910989/

...
It was a familiar pattern: In each of the past four decades, whenever people – usually Shia Muslim Bahrainis – protested too vehemently for political or economic reform, the government summoned the same forces.

And the forces have been specially chosen for the task. They are almost entirely made up of foreign nationals, mostly Sunni Muslims from Pakistan; often with contempt for Shiites whom they regard as heretics. The forces’ officers hail from Bahrain, Saudi Arabia or Jordan.

“It’s not like a domestic police force or army,” said Barry Rubin, director of the Global Research in International Affairs Centre in Herzliya, Israel. “These guys are paid to beat people such as these protesters and to do it without feeling.”..

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Two posts on Canada's role at the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute's 3Ds Blog:

1) J.L. Granatstein - Canada and Cairo: What Influence?
http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=106

What’s all the cheering about? Yes, it was heartening to see the crowds of young and old Egyptians in Cairo demonstrating more or less peacefully in recent weeks, while the army stood by, its arms folded. Yes, it is always wonderful to see a despot — and he was no benevolent one — like Hosni Mubarak toppled.

But what is next? The assumption in the Canadian media, just as much as on the streets of Cairo, seems to be that democracy will inevitably follow. Perhaps. Democracy is always a good thing, but unfortunately there is absolutely no guarantee that anything approximating democracy will flow from these events.

We need to remember that it was the Egyptian military that took over from Mubarak, and these men are a collection of faceless generals all interested in protecting their stolen wealth and acquired perks. In the background lurk even hungrier colonels, eager for their turn at the trough. And in the anterooms waits the Muslim Brotherhood, the only organized political grouping in Egypt, one that has hitherto been outlawed but semi-tolerated. Its credo is Islamist, anti-Semitic, and bitterly anti-Israeli.

And just offstage, cheering on the development of as much chaos as possible, sit the ayatollahs of Iran, seeing the opportunity to spread their anti-Americanism and enmity to the “Zionist entity.”

So what should the Canadian position in all this be? The Harper government had it exactly right during the demonstrations: stability was important and an orderly transition was critical. That still remains the correct position, despite what the Jeffrey Simpsons and Jim Traverses might write in their columns. The reality is that Canada has never had much influence in the Middle East, and such as it has today should be directed toward promoting stability...

2) Mark Collins - Canadian Suez Policy was not About the Middle East
http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=105

A letter of mine sent to the Toronto Star that was not published:

    "Re: Travers: Once a Middle East player, Canada now a spectator, Feb. 12
    http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/937508--travers-once-a-middle-east-player-canada-now-a-spectator 

    Mr. Travers fails to understand what Canadian policy - as much Prime Minister St. Laurent’s as External Affairs Minister Pearson’s - on Suez in 1956 was really about.  Their main concern was not the Middle East.  It was rather finding a way to avoid a complete falling out between the U.S. (which strongly opposed Western military intervention) on the one hand and the U.K. and France (who were attacking Egypt in collusion with Israel) on the other.  It was feared that such a major falling out would be to the great benefit of the USSR, which was just suppressing Hungary.  The main point was to maintain NATO Cold War solidarity, not to bring peace to the Middle East.  The second point was trying to avoid the Soviets’ gaining substantial ground in the Third World generally in reaction to perceived British-French neo-colonialism..."

Mark
Ottawa

 

[a_majoor]

Some people just aren't getting it:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/02/mile-high-building-has-official-go.html#more

Mile high building has official go ahead

Saudi Arabia-based Kingdom Holding Company, headed by Prince Al Waleed Bin Talal, is going ahead with its plan to build a 1.6-kilometre-high tower in the Red Sea port city of Jeddah. Report from October, 2010

The mile high tower has been covered here before

Despite an economic slowdown in much of the world and falling oil prices design work has continued on the Smith and Gill penned Kingdom Tower in Jeddah. The intentions are to create what will be the tallest building in the world, although as of yet no one has much idea of just how tall it will be. Heights mentioned have gone all the way from 1,001 metres upwards.

 

[57Chevy]

High time for some UN intervention in Bahrain
                                              _________________________

Bahrain troops shoot at protesters, many hit: Ex-MP

MANAMA — Bahraini security forces shot at protesters near Pearl Square on Friday and wounded at least 23, a former Shiite lawmaker said, a day after police forcibly cleared a protest camp from the traffic circle in Manama.

"We think it was the army," said Sayed Hadi, of the Wefaq bloc that resigned from parliament on Thursday.

Another Wefaq MP, Jalal Firooz, said demonstrators had been elsewhere, marking the death of a protester killed earlier this week when riot police fired tear gas at them.

The demonstrators then made for Pearl Square, where army troops who took it over after Thursday's police raid opened fire, Firooz said. Police had no immediate comment.

Lebanon's Hezbollah-run al-Manar television quoted a doctor at Salmaniya hospital in Manama as saying 25 wounded had been admitted, two of them with serious wounds.

"This is a peaceful protest," the doctor, Mahmoud Abbas, told al-Manar. "How can it be confronted with bullets? There is a humanitarian disaster. We cannot handle this."

Witnesses said about 20 police cars had driven toward the square after the initial shooting..

Four people were killed and 231 wounded when riot police raided the protest camp in the early hours of Thursday, when most of the demonstrators were sleeping.

Soldiers in tanks and armoured vehicles later took control of the square, which mainly Shiite protesters had hoped to use as a base similar to Cairo's Tahrir Square, the heart of protests that toppled Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on Feb. 11.

                                (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)

 

[Journeyman]

High time for some UN intervention in Bahrain

:rofl:

I love when the week ends with laughter.

 

[aesop081]

High time for some UN intervention in Bahrain

I doubt that poorly-worded, mild-language request to stop would have any effect.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Conference of Defence Associations' media round-up:

Arab World: The real politics have yet to begin
http://www.cdaforumcad.ca/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1298050856/0#0

Note:

The Economist provides a map of the Arab world with key statistics and facts for each state.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/02/arab_league_map

Mark
Ottawa

 

[57Chevy]

I love when the week ends with laughter.

I doubt that poorly-worded, mild-language request to stop would have any effect.

Shooting innocent people while they sleep in not a laughing matter
I was referring to this:

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Thursday he is deeply troubled by the violent crackdown on anti-government protesters in the Gulf kingdom of Bahrain.
---
He added that the United Nations stands ready to assist in any way.

Read the full article here: UN Chief Deeply Troubled by Bahrain Violence

Have a nice weekend just the same guys.

 

[Journeyman]

Shooting innocent people while they sleep in not a laughing matter

I was referring to this:

He added that the United Nations stands ready to assist in any way.

Agreed that shooting people in their sleep is not a laughing matter.

Believing that the League of Nations II is capable of doing anything useful in this current situation is laughable.

Coming back to further defend the UN, while failing to offer up even a single thought on what substantive actions the UN could do, borders on embarrassing.


ps - the Secretary General being "deeply troubled" is not really a substantive contribution.

 

[OldSolduer]

He added that the United Nations stands ready to assist in any way.Agreed that shooting people in their sleep is not a laughing matter.

Believing that the League of Nations II is capable of doing anything useful in this current situation is laughable.

Coming back to further defend the UN, while failing to offer up even a single thought on what substantive actions the UN could do, borders on embarrassing.


ps - the Secretary General being "deeply troubled" is not really a substantive contribution.

Once again, epic FAIL. The UN has been hijacked.  :rage:

 

[MarkOttawa]

Many moons ago:

CANADA'S PROPOSED PEACEKEEPING REFORM:
A RAPID REACTION FORCE FOR THE UNITED NATIONS
http://library.jid.org/en/mono35/alvarado.pdf

BY
LIEUTENANT COLONEL MAX G. ALVARADO, CANADA
...
Canada, a nation with considerable peacekeeping experience, recognized the problem and
initiated a study to examine ways the UN could be more responsive and effective in handling
international crises. The study, involved consultations with peacekeeping experts from various nations,
took a year to complete, and was presented to the UN in September 1995. The report is a
comprehensive package which suggests substantial reforms are needed, throughout the UN, in the short
to mid-term as well as in the future, if peacekeeping is to become efficient and viable. The main thrust of
the report is mid term reform based on the "vanguard concept." It entails providing the UN with a multinational,
multi-disciplinary force of about 5,000 personnel available for rapid deployment upon approval
of the Security Council. The force would consist of a small, permanent HQ established within the
Secretariat controlling units selected from standby forces contributed by UN members...

To what extent does this still exist?

SHIRBRIG: The Future of Canada’s Contribution to UN Peace Operations?
http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo8/no2/army-armee-eng.asp

...In the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide, the nation  played a leading role in the establishment of the Multinational Standby High Readiness Brigade for UN Operations (SHIRBRIG) to provide the United Nations with a rapid reaction capability for the initial six months of a peace support operation. Since SHIRBRIG declared its availability for UN operations in January 2000, Canadians have figured prominently in SHIRBRIG deployments to the UN missions in Ethiopia-Eritrea, Liberia, and most recently, Sudan. Canada held the Presidency of SHIRBRIG in 2003, and provided the brigade commander, Brigadier-General Gregory Mitchell, from January 2004 until summer 2006...

Answer: It's been shut down:
http://www.shirbrig.dk/html/2009.htm

Mark
Ottawa

 

[57Chevy]

Believing that the League of Nations II is capable of doing anything useful in this current situation is laughable.
Coming back to further defend the UN, while failing to offer up even a single thought on what substantive actions the UN could do, borders on embarrassing.

Your thinking that the UN is incapable of doing anything borders on embarrassing.

Your discrediting the possibilities of UN intervention does not only border it, but is truly embarrassing.
From your profile, quote  "If in doubt, choose silence"
Please practice what you preach.

Once again, epic FAIL. The UN has been hijacked.  :rage:

So then you must understand that I agree with Mr. Seggie

Marc of Ottawa,
Thanks for the SHIRBRIG information.

That being said.

As soon as someone speaks of UN intervention it is too easy to envision a bunch of blue helmets
racing to the aid of the oppressed.
That may be a part of the big picture but it is quite far from the reality of the policies and functioning of the UN body.

It is a well known fact that the pen is a mighty weapon.
When applied properly, the UN has proven countless times the world over that its intervention no matter the type or method used has had a prevailing effect.
That initial intervention is first applied through carefully selected dialogue aimed directly at the heart of the problem.
If and where required it will further intervene by initiating trade embargos etc via those countries within the partnership.
In this case,
and it should be noted as a fine example of further UN intervention.
The British and French unilateral pressure regarding certain exports to Bahrain.
UK arms export licenses under review for MENA states
Britain, France halt security exports to Bahrain and Libya
Britain and France halted exports of some security equipment to Bahrain and Libya after violent clashes between security forces and anti-government protesters in both Arab states.
(That article continues at link)

The initial UN dialogue urging restraint including the condemnation of unlawful acts committed, are seemingly weak in nature to some but they carry the weight and intent of the combined nations.
In my opinion, the State in question (Bahrain) harkened quickly to those demands after some additional action was taken by UN member states.

Result: Crown Prince calls upon political associations to dialogue.
And the latest news:
Bahrain opposition meets to agree demands

MANAMA, Feb 20 (Reuters) - Bahrain’s opposition parties met on Sunday to discuss demands they will present to the Gulf Arab country’s rulers, as protesters gathered in a central Manama square clamouring for immediate political change.
Protesters swept back into Pearl Square late on Saturday after Crown Prince Sheikh Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa ordered troops and armoured vehicles to withdraw and offered to lead a national dialogue after days of unrest that left six dead.

Article continues at link....
                              (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think, 57Chevy, that you failed to note the emphasis in JM's statement. Absent another team like Ralph Bunche, Mike Pearson and Brian Urquart and/or something akin to another "uniting for peace" resolution (UNGA Res 377 (1950)), the UN is a "captive" of either or both of:

1. UNSC vetoes (welded by any one of Britain, China, France, Russia and/or the USA); or

2. Block voes in the UNGA.

This leaves the Secretary General and the UN, itself, limited to hand wringing and platitudes - neither of which offers much anything useful towards acceptable solutions to the Islamic Crescent's latest round of crises.

But, what should the UN do, indeed, what should it be able to do n these situation? In my view: Sweet Fanny Adams. These are domestic, internal matters for the states involved. Let us remember, please, why the UN exists. In 1948 the original UN members agreed that they, the whole world, needed:

    * to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

    * to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

    * to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

    * to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Neither these fundamental purposes nor the more recent (and legally/morally dubious) Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine did or does give the UN any mandate to interfere in the internal affairs of members, absent a real, pressing threat of the "scourge of war," or the "obligations of treaties."

In other words, not only is JM quite correct in saying that UN is hamstrung in the current situation, but that is at it should be. The form of government most likely to meet the legitimate demands of the people of Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Libya and Tunisia is for those peoples, only, to decide and they, alone, have the right to alter and abolish their current governments and replace them with ones which derive their just powers from the consent of those peoples. (Allusions to the US Declaration of Independence are intentional.)

The UN is not the answer to all our problems; sometimes, as now, in the current situation, it is part of the problem - or would be if it was able to do anything except whinge and blather.

 

[57Chevy]

I think, 57Chevy, that you failed to note the emphasis in JM's statement. Absent another team like Ralph Bunche, Mike Pearson and Brian Urquart and/or something akin to another "uniting for peace" resolution (UNGA Res 377 (1950)), the UN is a "captive" of either or both of:
1. UNSC vetoes (welded by any one of Britain, China, France, Russia and/or the USA); or
2. Block voes in the UNGA.

If I failed to note an emphasis in both of JM's statements perhaps he should have been more specific regarding his position concerning UN matters and not rely so heavily on an assumption.
My initial brief remark "High time for some UN intervention in Bahrain" was in reference to Mr. ki-Moons' ending statement from the article posted in reply #223, of the previous page,(which may or may not have been read) quote " The United Nations stands ready to assist in any way".
I added that because they were shooting innocent people while they were sleeping. Of which I found to be "way out of line".
And therefore "high time for........."
(the use of the word "some" in my quote was for whatever assistance the UN may have been purposed to propose)
Those responsible for such actions are criminal and hopefully they will be dealt with accordingly.

This leaves the Secretary General and the UN, itself, limited to hand wringing and platitudes - neither of which offers much anything useful towards acceptable solutions to the Islamic Crescent's latest round of crises.

I don't think the UN has offered a solution to the Islamic crises nor should it undertake to do so.

But, what should the UN do, indeed, what should it be able to do in these situation?.

First and foremost the UN is providing a means of much needed dialogue between the governing body and its people.
They are providing for reflection the violent response the government enacted upon their own people. They also provide a means of recognition by supporting the demands of the people that have been made toward the governing body.
The UN states are not without other avenues that can be readily utilized where the need arises, notwithstanding veto action within the body.
Member states may assume an action or response within its own internal dealings with the given state without paying
heed or submitting to pressure from the other member states.

In my view: Sweet Fanny Adams. These are domestic, internal matters for the states involved.

In a lot cases that would be an acceptable truth. Diddly squat.  (this is not the case here)
Bahrain did make mention of disregarding any external pressure on internal affairs. As if the whole world would look the other way.
As mentioned, their own reflection bears witness to the keeping within their own law, in that, it is against the principals of Islamic law to use violence against their own people.

Let us remember, please, why the UN exists. In 1948 the original UN members agreed that they, the whole world, needed:
    * to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
    * to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
    * to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
    * to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.

Quite right and very true.
A gathering of wise phrases for reflection and study.
Of which are found the reason for the UNs view and grounds for support of the people in the current ME uproar.
Except for a doctor likening the outright massacre of innocent people to war there has been no emphasis made to any
possibility of war. If UN intervention was based solely on the possibility of saving future generations from the scourge of war
then it would not be possible for the UN to intervene under any circumstances.
(IMO that particular statement should be amended or deleted) 

Neither these fundamental purposes nor the more recent (and legally/morally dubious) Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine did or does give the UN any mandate to interfere in the internal affairs of members, absent a real, pressing threat of the "scourge of war," or the "obligations of treaties."
In other words, not only is JM quite correct in saying that UN is hamstrung in the current situation, but that is as it should be.

The UN emphasis is not being placed on possibilities of the "scourge of war" in this case as mentioned above, but more so on relative details pertaining to the current situation that are also outlined within the same Charter and noted above, "fundamental human rights", "dignity" etc.
In fact, noting that the UN has only offered the possibility of dialogue and perhaps strong condemnation, as such there is no physical interference with the internal affairs of that nation.

The form of government most likely to meet the legitimate demands of the people of Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Libya and Tunisia is for those peoples, only, to decide and they, alone, have the right to alter and abolish their current governments and replace them with ones which derive their just powers from the consent of those peoples.

That's right, and these people should not be slaughtered by their own rulers when trying to do so.
Corruption may be a lasting problem in our world but authoritarian rule is soon to be extinct.

(Allusions to the US Declaration of Independence are intentional.)

No one has made demands to install some sort of Middle East Declaration of Independence modelled after the US of A.
Their demands can be seen as being more relative to the French "Droit de L'Homme".
Their demands are clear. They are based on basic human rights that should be enjoyed by all peoples in all the world, and the UN makes well known its position and stands by it.

The UN is not the answer to all our problems; sometimes, as now, in the current situation, it is part of the problem - or would be if it was able to do anything except whinge and blather.

True enough.
It is well known that the talking of peace (peace talks) kill more people than if there was a war.
However, it is in the best interest of all people to contribute to the peace process no matter the time and place.
And no matter who they think they are.
  to the UN

* edited to remove an error

 

[Journeyman]

..... authoritarian rule is soon to be extinct.

I disagree



Yes, this response was edited multiple times.