NZ and the UN Security Council

September 27th, 2009 at 7:26 am by David Farrar

Some parts of the are an embarrassing disgrace, such as the Human Rights Council. NZ was campaigning for a seat on that, and fortunately we abandoned that for Obama to allow the US to rejoin.

The is one of the few parts that really is worthwhile, and I think will have a fair chance of gaining a place. We were successful the last time we stood.

Tags: , , ,

31 Responses to “NZ and the UN Security Council”

  1. Viking2 (11,138 comments) says:

    No. All of it is a disgrace, a blight on the ever suffering taxpayers of many nations. The same money can be better spent than propping up a lot wanna be’s and ex has beens that infest the place.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Pete George (22,851 comments) says:

    It’s easy to be critical of plenty of the UN. But what would the world be like if it never had a UN? It’s quite possible WW III would be history, and so could the human race be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. LUCY (359 comments) says:

    Im with Viking2 on this one. The whole place is a disgrace. I can see absolutely no benefit to NZ to be an active part of that place.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Rob Salmond (260 comments) says:

    This is smart politics from Key, becouse he gets to appear ambitious without having to deliver anything. Whether the substance of the candidature is a good one, however, is another story…

    I think we are a long shot for 2015-2016. Within WEOG, we are often viewed as part of the CANZ group for semi-rotating stuff like UNSC membership (and membership of all sorts of other things, too). Australia will likely serve in 2013-2014, meaning a NZ election in 2015 would mean four years of CANZ membership of UNSC in a row, and six of eight years in a row if Canada gets the term it is seeking in 2011. I don’t think the Europeans would be super keen on that. Also, Australia has waited for 28 years since its previous term, while NZ is looking to serve twice within 22 years as a substantially smaller nation. I don’t see the Europeans lining up for that, either.

    Of course, if the 2008-2011, 2011-2014, and 2014-2017 governments in NZ can pull this off, it would be a super achievement. But I think the deck is stacked against them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Alan Wilkinson (1,816 comments) says:

    I don’t often agree with Matt McCarten, but his article today on Gadaffi’s speech is excellent:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10599799

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    What’s the big deal, anyone with 35 million an a ego to match can throw their names in the hat. Besides what do we know about security, the Dear One told me that we live in a benign part of the world and don’t have to worry about this sort of stuff. And the Dear One knows everything.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Gina (9 comments) says:

    This announcement has been coming for awhile – MFAT officials have been mentioning it in speeches at a number of conferences I have been at for the last couple of years. Announcing it means that MFAT have already put in a bit of leg work and think that they have a decent chance of getting it.

    Going for a Security Council spot takes a lot of lobbying, and costs a lot of money. They wouldn’t have made that final decision to publicly announce it without having lobbied a few states in the last couple of years and gotten some positive indications from governments.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Alistair Miller (557 comments) says:

    @Side Show Bob, I think the direct quote was a “…benign strategic environment…” and was made in the context of disbanding the air force and putting all the assets up onto trademe. She had to do that because she was saving up, like any good mum. Her favoured son had asked for a train set for Christmas and she had to sell some stuff she no longer had any need for to pay for it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Well the UN human rights council will not only be a disgrace but a very well funded and powerful disgrace after the Copenhagen panic session.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. reid (15,954 comments) says:

    Alistair, she knew perfectly well what she was doing. Disbanding the strike force was one of the first acts of the 5th Liarbore govt and throughout the term of that execrable regime she committed act after act to get rid of all the pointy things in order to reconfigure the defence force into peacekeeping operations. One of the cutest things she did was committing a significant part of the budget toward purchasing all those useless LAVs in order that no funds were available for other equipment.

    Her actions deliberately and significantly weakened the defence forces which is normally called traitorous. The fact the MSM never called her out when it was obvious from the start what she was doing, is a quite extraordinary abrogation of their role as the Fourth Estate.

    Even when the events of 911 gave the obvious lie to her comment, no change in direction was made, nor demanded. Fucked in the head doesn’t even begin to describe it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    Alan Wilkinson- I usually agree with you but how is the western world expected to take a terrorist like Gadaffi seriously – especially when he (and McCarten) advocate for another bunch of terrorists to have a separate state?

    “He even argued the Taleban had a right to form a state too. This is also worthy of further discussion.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. tvb (4,208 comments) says:

    What does NZ know about international security when we have the Labour Party wanting to play domestic politics with the issue. Eventually the Labour Party does come into line but not without damaging important relationships in the meantime. Australia does not have this problem. Were Australia to face a serious threat to its security where would the Labour Party stand on that. I suspect they would not do anything and I bet the Australian Labour Party thinks so too. NZ has probably the only deep water capability in the South West Pacific – supposing the US wants access to that (nuclear weapons and all) to assist with a security threat to Australia – would NZ help?? I bet the NZ Labour Party would make it politically difficult to assist. So if it gets down to NZ or Australia for the security Council it would be Australia.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. TripeWryter (715 comments) says:

    I don’t often agree with Matt McCarten, but his article today on Gadaffi’s speech is excellent:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10599799

    Alan Wilkinson: agree

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. tvb (4,208 comments) says:

    Yes I think McCarten’s piece is thoughtful. The comment about one secular state for “greater” Israel is interesting. I agree the situation in Israel is apartheid. If anyone saw the film District 9 they would get some idea how Israel treats the Gaza strip.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Alan Wilkinson (1,816 comments) says:

    Patrick, you don’t have to agree with everything Gadaffi said to think it was worth some consideration instead of being ignored and dismissed out of hand as the MSM did.

    Confining the Taleban to a small geographic area is worth thinking about surely, considering the major issues Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan currently present?

    The Taleban themselves are not necessarily terrorists, appalling enough as they are. Most of the terrorists come from places like Saudi Arabia. Eliminating the Taleban would be nice, but controlling them might be achievable when elimination is not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. backster (2,079 comments) says:

    I think KEY should take his own advice over the No Smacking bill and stick to fixing the economy rather than trying to buy another ego position on the United Nations Security Council. As GINA commented it will cost plenty. CLARK’s position cost about 100 million and we can expect to see KEY’s contributions to this den of corruption ramped up in a similar manner. I recall the last occasion we had a place on this council and there was no apparent beneficial spin-off. Perhaps if our Foreign Affairs Boffins could arrange a voice over for J.K. on the Simpsons it would be cheaper and more beneficial to the Nation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Viking2 (11,138 comments) says:

    For a broke country these pricks just love to spend. Pity they didn’t learn to earn cause money can get most things done and we ain’t got none.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Tassman (238 comments) says:

    The UN uses the likes of Sue Bradford to front their arbitrary laws. But someone else in here is using NZ to promote another country’s interests! Could there be a traitor in the highest national office?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,797 comments) says:

    tvb, another of the useless drones who promote international diplomacy through the lenses of Hollywood. Thank God you weren’t around in 1939.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. big bruv (13,311 comments) says:

    When it comes to the UN I could not care less.

    Can anybody here (pinko’s aside) please tell me why we (NZ) would want to have anything to do with this corrupt organisation?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    I once read an article about our last time on the council in 93-94, as well as when we chaired it for a while. The gist was that we did spearheaded some really great security related uh stuff, but I can’t really remember…Anyone? Might have to wait for Pablo at Kiwipolitico though methinks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    I tend to agree with Gadaffi that the Security Council has a lot to answer for. The “Terror Council” moniker is perhaps a little harsh, but I doubt Palestinians would disagree with it.

    Just addressing a couple of comments earlier today:

    The Taliban is not a terrorist organisation. It is composed of Afghans. You know, those who live there. In contrast to the real terrorists, the US and European forces, and, of course, our own assassins, the SAS. While we, and I would suggest, most Afghans, don’t like what the Taleban stands for, it’s just none of our business. The only ones who can sort out their country is, of course, Afghans themselves.

    Unless we, the West, are willing to commit overwhelming resources, like 300,000 troops, at least, and a trillion or two of US bucks for 50 or so years. Or the US just makes Afghanistan the 51st state and flood the place with social security benefits and McDonalds, and I would bet the Taleban fighters would quickly become loyal US citizens.

    And the only long term solution to the Israel/Palestine issue IS the one state scenario. Except I would not agree with Gaddafi that it be called Isratine – I quite like Palestine.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    The Taliban is not a terrorist organisation.

    Derp derp.

    And the only long term solution to the Israel/Palestine issue IS the one state scenario. Except I would not agree with Gaddafi that it be called Isratine – I quite like Palestine.

    Yes, let’s destroy the Middle East’s only stable democracy for a few million barely-competent starving animals so a guilt-ridden idiotic anti-Western Marxist can make himself feel good – and that’s not even getting into the point that “Palestinians” don’t even exist. Let’s not forget what happened when Israel gave them Gaza to look after.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    The Taliban is not a terrorist organisation.

    I am glad you agree. The Taleban is a resistance force.

    But Hurf (why don’t your use your real name? Are you embarrassed by what you post here?) your last paragraph is not only inaccurate but overtly racist.

    And Israel never gave Gaza back. It remains occupied to this day. The withdrawal of troops did not signify the end of the occupation.

    Anyway, what happened in the gospel according to you was that Hamas was elected as the government of the occupied Palestinian territories, democracy in action, and, by the way, with a minority of the vote count. Then Israel, offended by the defeat of its quisling Fatah, imposed a collective punishment on Gaza, a clear war crime.

    And if Palestinians don’t exist, according to you, just where have those 5 odd million currently in Paletsine ’48 come from?

    Mars?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Galeandra (30 comments) says:

    Yes, let’s destroy the Middle East’s only stable democracy for a few million barely-competent starving animals ….

    With this level of unintellince, any further discussion on this thread is pointless. I presume the ‘animals’ referred to are Palestinians?
    Barely competent at?

    Even on the slack-jawed NZ media, the news from the region over the last decade does little to show any virtue in the ‘stable democracy’ which has engaged in partitioning and occupying Palestinian lands. The work of some NZ surgical staff has occasionally been covered on the Tv, highlighting the attacks on civilian targets and also the rationing of essentials such as water, electricity and medical supplies. The ongoing uprisings are hardly unexpected.
    Hurf Durf no doubt has a better solution than negotiating a fair and just peace?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    The Taleban is a resistance force.

    Yeah, the Taliban was doing such a great job resisting women’s right and civilisation from 1996 to 2001. Go resistance! Hasta la victoria siempre!

    And Israel never gave Gaza back. It remains occupied to this day.

    Yes, they did. They left in 2005 and gave them the ability to exercise a free and democratic vote in 2006. Obviously someone in Kadima was having a toke when they had that idea considering all they did afterwards was bitch, moan and lob missiles into Southern Israel.

    The withdrawal of troops did not signify the end of the occupation.

    Ah, here we go. The old “Palestine is not free until Israel has been incinerated” canard. I’ve heard it all before, and I’m not impressed.

    just where have those 5 odd million currently in Paletsine ‘48 come from?

    They’re Egyptians and Jordanians. And I’m intrigued that you call Fatah “quisling”, the ones who have been purged from Gaza by violent Hamas thugs whose charter explicitely calls for Israel’s termination. “Quisling.” I know exactly your mindset now.

    just peace?

    lol “just” peace. I hear that phrase can bandied about so much and yet it is so arse-clenchingly meaningless. There is no such thing as “Palestinian” land. They had the right to any land taken away from them in 1948. All those stocked supermarket shelves and BILLIONS in Western aid and they’re still in the stone age, ranting on about THA JOOOOOOOOOOOOZ. Have you seen the shit they show to their children on TV? Men in rabbit suits ranting about “Zionists”? It’s pathetic. And yet they have Ultimate Moral Authority from every handwringer in the West. It’s pathetic. You’re pathetic, sucking Ken Roach’s cock as though it pissed gold.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. reddeath26 (97 comments) says:

    @Hurf Durf-
    Kind of convenient how you leave the whole, Israel maintained control over all of the Gazan boarders. They are still an occupying force if they are doing this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    Maybe they don’t want arms being smuggled into Gaza with all the ease of a bag of chips.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Robert Black (423 comments) says:

    Hey Mr Tal-e-ban, where the fuck my mini-van!?

    Never trust a Tal-e-ban with your mini-van, I tell ya.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. menace (407 comments) says:

    Israel, i was there back in 05 when they “handed Gaza back”.
    Fun country to be in, Huge undertone of immorality is felt when you are there though i have to say.

    And what the fook is the west fooking round witht he Islamic world for any way. Cant they do what ever they want with there own oil? There wouldn’t be terrorism if we had just let them be. Demographics suggest that Muslims will be greater that 50 percent of the population of nearly all western nations easily with in 100 hundred years. What happens when they start voting on leaders that will intergrate religion in our governments.

    We should be making friends with them, not killing there chirldren.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    “We should start appeasing their barbarity, not trying to reform their stupidity”

    Yeah, that makes sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.