Slashdot Mirror
UN Wants To Regulate Internet
LegendOfLink writes "News.com has good interview with the UN's ITU Director, Houlin Zhao, and his desire to regulate the internet. He says
"One of the most important changes was the early stages, when the Internet started, when ICANN started in 1998. The purpose was to exclude governments (but that didn't work). People realize today that the governments worldwide have to play a role.
People say the Internet flourished because of the absence of government control. I do not agree with this view. I argue that in any country, if the government opposed Internet service, how do you get Internet service? If there are any Internet governance structure changes in the future, I think government rules will be more important and more respected." "
"Is it just me or does this guy not make sense?"
No just you. I think it has little to do with his English-speaking skills however.
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
1. I don't ****ing care if you think the UN is run by imcompetent fools! How about, in the future, you americans get the first 10 posts to complain about the UN, moderate them up, and the rest of can actually try writing something in the thread without being bogged millions of you sprouting bollocks?
2. References to Darfur, Rwanda and other places I have neither heard of nor can spell are not welcome at all. We all know there are problems in the world the UN are unable to solve. BIG ****ING SURPRISE!
3. References to Oil for Food are not welcome at all either. Guess who imposed the ridicules sanctions in the first place?
4. References to Chinese being bogey-men are moderatly unwelcome too. We've heard it before, and unless you can actually dig up some references to the specific guy, you're just sprouting prejudiced grap! We aren't close-minded racists are we? right?
5. References to them being corrupt bastards are moderatly unwelcome too. Watched any big newstories about money missing from Iraq lately? Followed up on the reports on what really happended in the latest UN scandals? No?
Seriously, you guys..
GET THE **** OF MY INTERNET!
"" How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the stupidity-problem solve itself? """
You might want to take a look at UN Security Council Resolution 1441 (2002), unanimously adopted by UNSEC in November 2002 - including France - just three months before US/UK-led action.
It reiterates that Iraq was in MATERIAL BREACH of previous, binding Chapter VII Security Council resolutions that had already authorized the use of force. So to use your example, "France, et al" had been "letting Iraq off the hook" for the better part of 12 years. The only person "lying" here is you to yourself.
There were, previous to March 2003, HUNDREDS OF TONS of WMD unaccounted for, that remain unaccounted for to this day. These were weapons Iraq was already previously known to be in possession of. Further, before 1998 and after 2002, UN inspectors were NEVER - repeat, NEVER - given full and unfettered access to any and all sites and facilities. That alone subverts the very concept of inspections. Not to mention that NO inspectors were in Iraq at all for almost five years.
Of course, to focus in on WMD is really ridiculous, since there are numerous reasons we initiated action in the mideast that are a hell of a lot more important and far-reaching than whether or not Saddam still had WMD.
You should probably read all of 1441, but I'll include the important part here for you:
[Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002]
The Security Council,
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,
Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,
Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,
Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,
Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,
Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the