North Korea violates International Law - No One Cares

[BigRob]

On July 4th, 2009, North Korea fired 7 ballistic missiles in clear violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1874.

Here is my question.

Since such a big deal has been made about the need for the United States to follow and uphold international law, why does no one seem to care that North Korea is in clear violation of legally binding Security Council Resolutions? Further, why do even fewer people seem to be willing to take any steps to enforce or uphold international law in this regard?

 

[Pandora]

On July 4th, 2009, North Korea fired 7 ballistic missiles in clear violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1874.

Here is my question.

Since such a big deal has been made about the need for the United States to follow and uphold international law, why does no one seem to care that North Korea is in clear violation of legally binding Security Council Resolutions? Further, why do even fewer people seem to be willing to take any steps to enforce or uphold international law in this regard?

Lots of people care Rob, just no one who is currently in charge. The people wont rise up and MAKE them care either, until some city in the US gets bombed.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

On July 4th, 2009, North Korea fired 7 ballistic missiles in clear violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1874.

Here is my question.

Since such a big deal has been made about the need for the United States to follow and uphold international law, why does no one seem to care that North Korea is in clear violation of legally binding Security Council Resolutions? Further, why do even fewer people seem to be willing to take any steps to enforce or uphold international law in this regard?

So are you saying we should attack Korea...or Sanction the US? There is not much more we can do to Korea without just going to armed action. And I think most would like to not see that.

 

[Pandora]

What about forcing the UN to do what the UN is meant to do. Deal with stuff like this.

 

[BigRob]

So are you saying we should attack Korea...or Sanction the US? There is not much more we can do to Korea without just going to armed action. And I think most would like to not see that.

What I am saying is that many in the United States who argue that the United States must abide by International Law are the same who argue that violations by North Korea is not all that important. I want to know why.

Personally, I think what we should do is make statements and take preliminary steps toward pushing the Japanese to go nuclear. While we should stop short of actually allowing that to happen, we need to send a clear message to the Chinese that unless they reign in North Korea, the short term outcome will be a nuclear armed Japan.

 

[BigRob]

What about forcing the UN to do what the UN is meant to do. Deal with stuff like this.

If Security Council Resolutions (which are supposed to be legally binding) are all but worthless in reality, what point is there to the Security Council, or even the UN as a whole in terms of conflict resolution?

 

[Pandora]

If Security Council Resolutions (which are supposed to be legally binding) are all but worthless in reality, what point is there to the Security Council, or even the UN as a whole in terms of conflict resolution?

I agree it makes them worthless. The League of Nations was useless and disbanded to create the United Nations that now has become useless. It needs to be disbanded and start again. We should not be giving them a dime if they are not doing what they were meant to do and we should not be following their rules if we are the only ones out there following them.

I swear we have become a nation of suckers!~

 

[BigRob]

I agree it makes them worthless. The League of Nations was useless and disbanded to create the United Nations that now has become useless. It needs to be disbanded and start again. We should not be giving them a dime if they are not doing what they were meant to do and we should not be following their rules if we are the only ones out there following them.

I swear we have become a nation of suckers!~

Well, the UN is useful in other scenarios, but in conflict resolution and management it is showing that it is all but worthless in my view.

 

[Pandora]

Well, the UN is useful in other scenarios, but in conflict resolution and management it is showing that it is all but worthless in my view.

What area do you think they do well in?

 

[BigRob]

What area do you think they do well in?

I think they do an OK job in areas such as disease eradication and prevention.

 

[Pandora]

I think they do an OK job in areas such as disease eradication and prevention.

Perhaps, but I think another group could do it for less money with less BS involved, I personally want to see the UN disbanned and something new started. It should just be about this sort of stuff and make another group for disease eradication and prevention and also feeding the nations.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

What I am saying is that many in the United States who argue that the United States must abide by International Law are the same who argue that violations by North Korea is not all that important. I want to know why.

Personally, I think what we should do is make statements and take preliminary steps toward pushing the Japanese to go nuclear. While we should stop short of actually allowing that to happen, we need to send a clear message to the Chinese that unless they reign in North Korea, the short term outcome will be a nuclear armed Japan.

to me thats like saying we should push the boulder down the hill at them...but at the end stand in front and try to push it back up the hill.

 

[BigRob]

to me thats like saying we should push the boulder down the hill at them...but at the end stand in front and try to push it back up the hill.

Why? Any real changes in North Korea are blocked by China, and to date the only thing that has caused them to do anything is the prospect of Japan going nuclear.

Simply to make a joint statement with Japan in a veiled manner about "a right to nuclear energy" or something along those lines would send a clear message to China, stay in line with the NPT. You can tell Japan up front that we will not allow it, and I think they still go along with the idea because they hate the idea of a North Korea with a nuclear stockpile. Pushing China to act would fit in line with Japanese interests.

 

[GenSeneca]

I think they do an OK job in areas such as disease eradication and prevention.

If the only thing they do well is non-confrontational humanitarian work, they are useless as far as their chartered purpose for existence.

"We're not going to take this... Uh... sitting down... Uh... We're going straight to the U.N. and ...Uh... demanding they pass another... Uh... Non-Binding Resolution.... Uhhhh... denouncing the actions of... Uh... North Korea... [Pause for dramatic effect and applause] And Uh.... If that doesn't work... Uh.... We'll get tough and... Uh... Send in the Hypnotoad!" -- Obama's Teleprompter

 

[Popeye]

On July 4th, 2009, North Korea fired 7 ballistic missiles in clear violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1874.

Here is my question.

Since such a big deal has been made about the need for the United States to follow and uphold international law, why does no one seem to care that North Korea is in clear violation of legally binding Security Council Resolutions? Further, why do even fewer people seem to be willing to take any steps to enforce or uphold international law in this regard?

Why don't you and others like you take Israel's violation of UN Security Council Resolutions just as seriously? And since you don't, how can you be considered anything other than hypocritical?

The Security Council unanimously adopted UN Resolution 465 in March, 1980 that addressed Israel's illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan Heights. Among other provisions in it, it condemned Israel's policy of "setting parts of its population and new Immigrants in those territories (and said doing so constituted) a flagrant violation of the fourth Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East." It called on the government of Israel to "dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease....the establishment, construction and planning of (new) settlements in the Arab territories since 1967, including Jerusalem."

In the last 26 years, Israel has flagrantly violated this resolution and still continues to build new settlements illegally in the Palestinian Occupied Territories. The US supports and funds the Israeli government enabling it to do it, and the UN and world community have taken no action to bring Israel into compliance which it could do by imposing sanctions severe enough to force Israel to stop new settlement construction, dismantle the existing ones and make restitution to the Palestinians and Syrians for the harm caused them.

The Security Council also passed Resolution 476 in June, 1980. Like Resolution 465, it, too, reaffirms the necessity to end the Israeli occupation of Arab territories ongoing since the 1967 war. It went on to condemn Israel for its continued refusal to do it or to comply with the relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions demanding it does. It repeated provisions detailed in Resolution 465 and reaffirmed its determination in the event of Israeli non-compliance to examine practical ways to get it to do so. Israel never complied, and the UN never took action to see that it did. Also, by its reinvasion of Lebanon now and its unending occupation of the Shebaa Farms area it's held since 1967, Israel is also in violation of UN resolution 425 and nine additional ones demanding the withdrawal of its forces from South Lebanon. The net effect of UN action - many relevant and high-sounding words and speeches amounting to nothing, at least when it concerns Israel.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2867