This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/blind-spots-un-syria
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Blind spots about the UN and Syria | Blind spots about the UN and Syria |
| (8 days later) | |
| One would not guess from Ian Birrell's piece (UN paralysis must end, 9 September) that for almost 30 years (since 1984) the leading wielder of the veto in the UN security council has been the United States (43 times, mostly explained by the Middle East), with the UK second (10 times) and Russia third (four times). It is true that if one includes the early years of the cold war (pre-1965) the overall Russian score of vetoes to date is much larger (123). But, there again, over the same period the US, the UK and France between them exceeded the Russian total, with 139 vetoes. Chinese use of the veto is minimal. | One would not guess from Ian Birrell's piece (UN paralysis must end, 9 September) that for almost 30 years (since 1984) the leading wielder of the veto in the UN security council has been the United States (43 times, mostly explained by the Middle East), with the UK second (10 times) and Russia third (four times). It is true that if one includes the early years of the cold war (pre-1965) the overall Russian score of vetoes to date is much larger (123). But, there again, over the same period the US, the UK and France between them exceeded the Russian total, with 139 vetoes. Chinese use of the veto is minimal. |
| During the mid-1990s there were serious informal discussions in New York, based on a good proposal by the Malaysian president of the UN general assembly, about reforming and enlarging the makeup of the security council and about the future status of the veto. These foundered in the end, to my recollection, because the US permanent representative was told by Washington they should not be pursued. | During the mid-1990s there were serious informal discussions in New York, based on a good proposal by the Malaysian president of the UN general assembly, about reforming and enlarging the makeup of the security council and about the future status of the veto. These foundered in the end, to my recollection, because the US permanent representative was told by Washington they should not be pursued. |
| Meanwhile we are stuck with our obligations under the UN charter, which we largely drafted. Birrell's call to "strengthen UN authority through reform of the security council" will not be achieved by ignoring these in the present crisis. John Weston UK permanent representative to the UN, 1995-98 | Meanwhile we are stuck with our obligations under the UN charter, which we largely drafted. Birrell's call to "strengthen UN authority through reform of the security council" will not be achieved by ignoring these in the present crisis. John Weston UK permanent representative to the UN, 1995-98 |
| • Niall Ferguson (The left's blind spot, 7 September) decries the left's reluctance to acknowledge that US military power can be a force for good, and warns that "inaction is a policy that also has consequences measurable in terms of human life". Ferguson should acknowledge that many of the west's and local populations' problems in the Middle East and further east are due to the financial and military support given to Islamic fundamentalists in Pakistan and Afghanistan by US and UK conservative governments in the 1980s. Maybe that human life consequence is the right's blind spot? Professor Mark Blagrove Swansea | • Niall Ferguson (The left's blind spot, 7 September) decries the left's reluctance to acknowledge that US military power can be a force for good, and warns that "inaction is a policy that also has consequences measurable in terms of human life". Ferguson should acknowledge that many of the west's and local populations' problems in the Middle East and further east are due to the financial and military support given to Islamic fundamentalists in Pakistan and Afghanistan by US and UK conservative governments in the 1980s. Maybe that human life consequence is the right's blind spot? Professor Mark Blagrove Swansea |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. | Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |
Previous version
1
Next version