Jump to content

Ukraine 11: Russian lies, guns, and money


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

Because the resolution was proposed as a general assembly resolution rather than a security council resolution.  The ROC (and the US) could have vetoed the latter, but not the former.  From the wiki:

Quote

Algeria's representative in the debates submitted that to recognize that the government of the People's Republic of China was lawfully entitled to represent China did not imply the eviction of a member but the eviction of the representatives of a dissident minority regime. The U.S., in its submission, took the opposite view; arguing that adoption of the resolution expelling the representatives sent from Taipei would imply the termination of the membership of a longstanding member. The spokesman of the Republic of China submitted that his country had earned its place in the United Nations by virtue of its contribution to peace and freedom during the Second World War. He said the Chinese communist regime, which had never had the moral consent of the Chinese people, could in no way be regarded as the representative of the great Chinese nation. Various members including two permanent members of the security council, the United Kingdom and the USSR, argued that requiring the matter to be subject to a supermajority vote was not appropriate because the adoption of the Albanian proposed resolution did not involve the admission or expulsion of a member. Rather it concerned only credentials and Taiwan had never been a member. They argued there was only one Chinese state that was a member. Any other Chinese state would have to apply for membership in accordance with the Charter.

On 25 October 1971, the voting took place. In the first vote held, the Assembly rejected the U.S. backed proposal that the matter would require a supermajority vote — the 'important question motion'. The Assembly then voted on a separate U.S. proposal that the words "and to expel forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from the place which they unlawfully occupied at the United Nations and in all the organizations related to it" be removed from the draft resolution. This motion would have allowed the PRC to join the UN as "China's representative",while allowing the ROC to remain a regular UN member (if there had been enough votes for it). The motion was rejected by a vote of 61 to 51, with 16 abstentions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

And I would argue Russia's existence on the security council undermines its fundamental role and importance. 

Right. Because you don't have a clear understanding of what that role actually is.

It's not just Russia. You kick any country out of the UN and it's not the UN any more. The fundamental characteristic of the UN is that everyone's in it. The fundamental characteristic of the Security Council is that it consists of the countries that could wipe out humanity. That's why they get a veto! And that's why India and Pakistan think they should be on it. It's a mutual non-annihilation pact.

The UN can condemn members' behaviour but if you kick out a country as a consequence for that, how do you then talk to them? What's the venue, if it's not the UN?

You get to be in the UN just by existing, being recognised as a country. There are no other qualifications you have to meet, or that you can be kicked out for lacking. There never have been, and it would serve no purpose to start trying to introduce them now.

ETA - the point is moot, anyway. Russia being kicked out of the UN/UNSC is about as likely to happen as God striking Putin down with lightning, so it's not something we need to discuss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Quite the contrary. You were absolutely right to voice your unease and objection(s) here and now, and I find it reassuring and heartwarming that you did.

 I think there can be interesting and necessary discussions on what an oppressed group could morally be allowed to do to fight off their oppressor.

Even in regards to Ukraine, where there are some instances where I do think Ukrainians behaved wrongly or at least behaved in a way that deserves discussion.

like for example how they made side shows of Russian pows by having them rant to the public on how awful Russia is. 

in this instance to where it’s civilian’s poisoning the soldiers of fascist state subjugating and slaughtering them there doesn’t appear to be any good reason to object to the applause people are giving to the civilians.

I’ll be honest, I believe the civilians did not only a moral thing but acted heroically.

They risked capture and possibly execution should they have been caught just inconvenience the enemy

I’ve seen no actual reason for why they shouldn’t be applauded other than some vague gesticulations of this understanding that killings generally being  bad.

There’s a danger in framing things as more morally grey than they are are or at least all positions with regards to a conflict as having some validity. It allows them to be apathetic to any power grabs from any actual deplorable elements of society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does he really say war?

On the issue of civilians taking part in the fight, that's a tricky one. You expect an occupying force to refrain from shooting random civilians. That doesn't work when the civilians shoot at the occupiers. There are also rules for when civilians are legally combatants and when they are not. Unfortunately, it doesn't look as if anybody follows or even knows the Hague and Geneva conventions these days.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

A State News organization in Russia publising an Op-ed that is expressly endorsing the mechanisms of genocide:

 

Wow. Something tells me it won't be that easy and we'll be forced to leave our zone of comfort at some point. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Loge said:

Does he really say war?

On the issue of civilians taking part in the fight, that's a tricky one. You expect an occupying force to refrain from shooting random civilians. That doesn't work when the civilians shoot at the occupiers. There are also rules for when civilians are legally combatants and when they are not. Unfortunately, it doesn't look as if anybody follows or even knows the Hague and Geneva conventions these days.  

Are you asking whether the civilian population opposing an armed invasion makes the civilian population legitimate targets for the invading army?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DMC said:

Because the resolution was proposed as a general assembly resolution rather than a security council resolution.  The ROC (and the US) could have vetoed the latter, but not the former.  From the wiki:

 

So theoretically couldn't Russia be kicked out the same way?

I'm not saying that'd be a good thing, I agree with the argument that the UN needs to have everyone in it. But it sounds like there's absolutely a mechanism for it to occur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Fez said:

So theoretically couldn't Russia be kicked out the same way?

I'm not saying that'd be a good thing, I agree with the argument that the UN needs to have everyone in it. But it sounds like there's absolutely a mechanism for it to occur.

Not “Kicked out” but their seat on the Security Council could be shifted to another nation.  However, it’s a virtual guarantee the Chinese would object… vociferously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Not “Kicked out” but their seat on the Security Council could be shifted to another nation.  However, it’s a virtual guarantee the Chinese would object… vociferously.

Taiwan was kicked out.

Again, legally speaking, what's the difference here? 

I understand that the real difference is that Russia has nuclear weapons and Taiwan didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Taiwan-China situation was kind of unique and a huge grey area.

With Russia there is a legal argument that Russia just inherited the USSR's seat automatically when it should not have done so. Ukraine has already made that argument, but it's hard to see it gaining traction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Are you asking whether the civilian population opposing an armed invasion makes the civilian population legitimate targets for the invading army?

If that opposition is armed, then it does. Again, there are rules. Civilians taking part in the fight are supposed to be marked and carry their weapons openly. They're then basically under the same rules as the armed forces. More covert operations can be regarded as terrorism and the gloves come off. IIRC, up to ten civilians killed for each member of the occupation force killed in that kind of operation is considered legitimate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Loge said:

If that opposition is armed, then it does. Again, there are rules. Civilians taking part in the fight are supposed to be marked and carry their weapons openly. They're then basically under the same rules as the armed forces. More covert operations can be regarded as terrorism and the gloves come off. IIRC, up to ten civilians killed for each member of the occupation force killed in that kind of operation is considered legitimate. 

No, it isn't. Collective punishment is illegal and a war crime under the Geneva Convention.

If someone attacks you and is trying to kill you, you are entitled to defend yourself with lethal force. You're not entitled to go down the street and kill the next ten people you meet as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...