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." "
All resolutions regarding Israel were UN General Assembly resolutions, which have no teeth whatsoever. They're symbolic. They're no more meaningful than a city council saying that today is Petting Zoo Day at the local zoo. No UN member nation nor the UN itself has any authority to do anything beyond the simple words of a General Assembly resolution.
UN Security Council resolutions are the only kind that carry an enforcement power behind them. Security Council resolutions, according to the UN charter, carry the weight of enforcement action, including sanctions, blockades, military force, and occupation.
Though, ironically, you made a point: UN Security Council resolutions are of late about as meaningful as the General Assembly resolutions on Israel.
I'm afraid it's the current USA administration that is making international law meaningless, not the UN.
I wonder how that follows when it was the UN itself that failed to get Iraq to comply to its own binding, in-force resolutions for 12 years, when its own Charter's declarations actually *compelled* the UN Security Council to act, when instead it stood idly by for over a decade, and sat completely impotent for the 5 years between 1998 and March 2003.
spam is nocensorship nor frea speach ...
a matter of frea speach
I'm surprised you consistently mispelled "free". It isn't a hard word to spell correctly.
First of all, pasting something completely relevant and cogent to this topic was perfectly appropriate. And I understand it perfectly, thank you. It's apparently you who doesn't.
And no, a 1990 resolution does not mean that for all time everyone who feels like it can invade Iraq, claiming Iraq is in breach of a relevant resolution, that's just ridiculous.
So now it fails to be a binding resolution after a period of time? The conditions and specifics of the resolution were still at issue just as much 12 years later: the situation had never been resolved.
You further ignore resolution 1441 (a href=http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm>html), which was adopted by the whole of the Security Council on 8 November 2002.
It says, in part,
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions [...]
Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions [...]
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, [...]
Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991) [...]
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 also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism [...]
Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
You should really read the whole thing. It's rather straightforward.
And again, you are totally ignoring the fact the actions were taken, remember, inspectors were on the ground, hadn't found any WMDs and reported that they were making progress.
This is rich. Progress? NEVER were the inspectors, before 1998, or after 2002, allowed the unfettered access to any and all facilities, sites, and records that were required by the resolutions.
NEVER.
The "hadn't found any WMDs" argument is tired and irrelevant, especially in light of the fact that inspectors never, once, had unrestricted access as required. Not finding WMD under ANY conditions other than specified and required by the resolutions is meaningless. To this day, there are HUNDREDS OF TONS of WMD known to have been in Iraq's possession that are unaccounted for. It was Iraq's responsibility to either account for them in terms of their location or documented destruction, or to minimally provide unrestricted access to inspectors.
Iraq did neither for over a decade.
I'm astounded by your refusal to admit these facts to yourself, whether or not you agreed with the US action or policy in this area.
Right on, brother.
The 'wisdom' of the UN was just sit idle and let Saddam keep manufacturing WMD's and endanger the peace and security of the United States.
These inneffectual, corrupt bastards would have just waited for Saddam's regime to crumble rather than take swift military action and a years-long occupation that would cause the death of tens of thousands of people.
Thank God we've got a government here that's actually got the balls to act when necessary, to kill some goddam terrorists. One that will stand up to these cowards and their pathetic goal of world peace through diplomacy, acting with force only when there's no other alternative.
Death and danger are my various breads and various butters.
All resolutions regarding Israel were UN General Assembly resolutions, which have no teeth whatsoever. They're symbolic.
UN Security Council resolutions are the only kind that carry an enforcement power behind them. Security Council resolutions, according to the UN charter, carry the weight of enforcement action, including sanctions, blockades, military force, and occupation.
And the reason why there has never been a UN Security Council Resolution against Israel is because the USA vetos any such proposal.
No sig for the moment.
Sarcasm aside, I suppose you forget about the 50,000 Iraqis per year - over 600,000 in all - who were estimated to have died by human rights groups such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International as a direct result of sanctions. Remember, the only alternative solution offered was the continuance of sanctions and "containment".
Only now has it come to light how unbelievably corrupt the UN management of Oil for Food was, not to mention the literally billions of dollars that French and German contractors netted for OFP contracts administration. A money spigot that turned off, by the way, when the US and UK initiated action in March of 2003.
Sometimes decisive action is more appropriate than years of corruption, which you refer to as "diplomacy". I also find it interesting that you consider waiting for 12 years apparently not long enough to constitute looking for other "alternatives".
I apologise (again), but I just felt the need to point that out.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz