You should meditate that : US vetos at the UN Security Council

Sorry to quote such a long text, but I think it deserves it.
Read carefully each line.
Then close your eyes, and meditate.
Is it possible that this is the policy of "the Champion of all liberties in the World" ?
My answer is : "sadly, YES"
Yours ???

Source

List of UN Security Council resolutions vetoed by the USA, 1972 - 2002
(Russia has used their veto TWICE)
1972 Condemns Israel for killing hundreds of people in Syria and Lebanon in air raids.
• 1973 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians and calls on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
• 1976 Condemns Israel for attacking Lebanese civilians.
• 1976 Condemns Israel for building settlements in the occupied territories. • 1976 Calls for self determination for the Palestinians.
• 1976 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians.
• 1978 Urges the permanent members (USA, USSR, UK, France, China) to insure United Nations decisions on the maintenance of international peace and security. • 1978 Criticises the living conditions of the Palestinians.
• 1978 Condemns the Israeli human rights record in occupied territories.
• 1978 Calls for developed countries to increase the quantity and quality of development assistance to underdeveloped countries.
• 1979 Calls for an end to all military and nuclear collaboration with the apartheid South Africa.
• 1979 Strengthens the arms embargo against South Africa. • 1979 Offers assistance to all the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation movement.
• 1979 Concerns negotiations on disarmament and cessation of the nuclear arms race.
• 1979 Calls for the return of all inhabitants expelled by Israel. • 1979 Demands that Israel desist from human rights violations.
• 1979 Requests a report on the living conditions of Palestinians in occupied Arab countries.
• 1979 Offers assistance to the Palestinian people.
• 1979 Discusses sovereignty over national resources in occupied Arab territories. • 1979 Calls for protection of developing counties' exports. • 1979 Calls for alternative approaches within the United Nations system for improving the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
• 1979 Opposes support for intervention in the internal or external affairs ofstates. • 1979 For a United Nations Conference on Women.
• 1979 To include Palestinian women in the United Nations Conference on Women. • 1979 Safeguards rights of developing countries in multinational trade negotiations.
• 1980 Requests Israel to return displaced persons.
• 1980 Condemns Israeli policy regarding the living conditions of the Palestinian people.
• 1980 Condemns Israeli human rights practices in occupied territories. 3 resolutions.
• 1980 Afirms the right of self determination for the Palestinians. • 1980 Offers assistance to the oppressed people of South Africa and their national liberation movement.
• 1980 Attempts to establish a New International Economic Order to promote the growth of underdeveloped countries and international economic co-operation.
• 1980 Endorses the Program of Action for Second Half of United Nations Decade for Women.
• 1980 Declaration of non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. • 1980 Emphasises that the development of nations and individuals is a human right. • 1980 Calls for the cessation of all nuclear test explosions.
• 1980 Calls for the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
• 1981 Promotes co-operative movements in developing countries.
• 1981 Affirms the right of every state to choose its economic and social system in accord with the will of its people, without outside interference in whatever form it takes.
• 1981 Condemns activities of foreign economic interests in colonial territories. • 1981 Calls for the cessation of all test explosions of nuclear weapons.
• 1981 Calls for action in support of measures to prevent nuclear war, curb the arms race and promote disarmament.
• 1981 Urges negotiations on prohibition of chemical and biological weapons. • 1981 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development, etc are human rights.
• 1981 Condemns South Africa for attacks on neighbouring states, condemns apartheid and attempts to strengthen sanctions. 7 resolutions.
• 1981 Condemns an attempted coup by South Africa on the Seychelles.
• 1981 Condemns Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, human rights policies, and the bombing of Iraq.18 resolutions.
• 1982 Condemns the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.6 resolutions (1982 to 1983).
• 1982 Condemns the shooting of 11 Muslims at a shrine in Jerusalem by an Israeli soldier.
• 1982 Calls on Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights occupied in 1967.
• 1982 Condemns apartheid and calls for the cessation of economic aid to South Africa. 4 resolutions.
• 1982 Calls for the setting up of a World Charter for the protection of the ecology. • 1982 Sets up a United Nations conference on succession of states in respect to state property, archives and debts.
• 1982 Nuclear test bans and negotiations and nuclear free outer space. 3 resolutions.
• 1982 Supports a new world information and communications order.
• 1982 Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons.
• 1982 Development of international law.
• 1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment .
• 1982 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development are human rights.
• 1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment.
• 1982 Development of the energy resources of developing countries.
• 1983 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 15 resolutions.
• 1984 Condemns support of South Africa in its Namibian and other policies.
• 1984 International action to eliminate apartheid.
• 1984 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
• 1984 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 18 resolutions.
• 1985 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
• 1985 Condemns Israel for using excessive force in the occupied territories.
• 1985 Resolutions about cooperation, human rights, trade and development. 3 resolutions.
• 1985 Measures to be taken against Nazi, Fascist and neo-Fascist activities .

Next post to follow

This follows the preceeding list :

. 1986 Calls on all governments (including the USA) to observe international law
. 1986 Imposes economic and military sanctions against South Africa. 1986 Condemns Israel for its actions against Lebanese civilians
. 1986 Calls on Israel to respect Muslim holy places. 1986 Condemns Israel for sky-jacking a Libyan airliner
. 1986 Resolutions about cooperation, security, human rights, trade, media bias, the environment and development. 8 resolutions
. 1987 Calls on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of the Palestinians
. 1987 Calls on Israel to stop deporting Palestinians
. 1987 Condemns Israel for its actions in Lebanon. 2 resolutions
. 1987 Calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon. 1987 Cooperation between the United Nations and the League of Arab States
. 1987 Calls for compliance in the International Court of Justice concerning military and paramilitary activities against Nicaragua and a call to end the trade embargo against Nicaragua. 2 resolutions
. 1987 Measures to prevent international terrorism, study the underlying political and economic causes of terrorism, convene a conference to define terrorism and to differentiate it from the struggle of people from national liberation
. 1987 Resolutions concerning journalism, international debt and trade. 3 resolutions
. 1987 Opposition to the build up of weapons in space
. 1987 Opposition to the development of new weapons of mass destruction
. 1987 Opposition to nuclear testing. 2 resolutions
. 1987 Proposal to set up South Atlantic "Zone of Peace"
. 1988 Condemns Israeli practices against Palestinians in the occupied territories. 5 resolutions (1988 and 1989)
. 1989 Condemns USA invasion of Panama
. 1989 Condemns USA troops for ransacking the residence of the Nicaraguan ambassador in Panama
. 1989 Condemns USA support for the Contra army in Nicaragua
. 1989 Condemns illegal USA embargo of Nicaragua
. 1989 Opposing the acquisition of territory by force
. 1989 Calling for a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict based on earlier UN resoltions
. 1990 To send three UN Security Council observers to the occupied territories
. 1995 Afirms that land in East Jerusalem annexed by Israel is occupied territory
. 1997 Calls on Israel to cease building settlements in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories. 2 resolutions
. 1999 Calls on the USA to end its trade embargo on Cuba. 8 resolutions (1992 to 1999)
. 2001 To send unarmed monitors to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip
. 2001 To set up the International Criminal Court
. 2002 To renew the peace keeping mission in Bosnia.

This list continues after 2002 ...


[edit on 25/7/2009 by orkson]

Incredible - if only this could go on the MSM - what defense can they offer?

There is no defense for this kind of garbage.

These are classics;

. 1986 Calls on all governments (including the USA) to observe international law

• 1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment .

• 1982 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development are human rights.

• 1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment.


Sorry - VETO - that means no to all the above.

America - wonderful leadership ..

Number of resolutions vetoed by each of the five permanent members of the Security Council between 1946 and 2007.

China (ROC/PRC): 6
France: 18
UK: 32
US: 82
Soviet Union/Russia: 123

reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II


When you look at your source, its clear that the Soviet Union used to be the biggest veto user; but the US is now by a long shot.

reply to post by wayno


OK. So you're manipulating the numbers to fit an agenda. Got it!

reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II


Go back to your source. Since 1966, (that is a long time, no?) the US has been the biggest user of the veto. I am manipulating nothing.

Obviously you are the one with the agenda. Sad how some people just can't bear with the facts -- the US has in fact used its veto power to prevent a spotlight being shone on injustices by both itself and Israel.

Blatant and irrefutable. I know, you are proud of this.

reply to post by wayno


So, why only go back to 1966? The UN was founded in 1945. Doesn't state any date range in the title of this thread, does it?

reply to post by orkson


From 2002, the list continues :

Source

All these resolutions have been vetoed by the US :

. 2002 Condemns the killing of UK worker for the United Nations by Israeli forces. Condemns the destruction of the World Food Programme warehouse
. 2003 Condemns a decision by the Israeli parliament to "remove" the elected Palestinian president, Yasser Arafat. Condemns the building of a wall by Israel on Palestinian land
. 2003 To end the USA's 40 year embargo of Cuba
. 2004 Condemns the assassination of Hamas leader, Sheik Ahmad Yassin
. 2004 Condemns the Israeli incursion and killings in Gaza
. 2004 Production and processing of weapon-usable material should be under international control
. 2006 Calls for an end to Israeli military incursions and attacks on Gaza
. 2006 Calls for an end to the financial embargo against Cuba
. 2007 Calls for peaceful uses for outer space. Calls for a convention against female descrimination.
Concerning the rights of children.
Concerning the right to food.
On the applicability of the Geneva Convention to the protection of civilians in time of war.
Calls for the protection of the global climate.
Calls for Indian Ocean to be declared a zone of peace.
Calls for a nuclear weapon free South East Asia
. 2007 Calls for the right of self determination for the Palestinian people. Other resolutions regarding the Palestinians and their rights
. 2008 Calls for progress towards an arms trade treaty.
Banning the development of new weapons of mass destruction.
Assuring non-nuclear states they will not be attacked or threatened with nuclear weapons.
Prevention of the development of an arms race in outer space and transparency in outer space activities.
Calls to decrease the operational readiness of nuclear weapons systems and to ban nuclear weapons.
Calls to end the use of depleted Uranium in weapons. Concerning the trade in illicit small arms.
Calls for a nuclear free Central Asia and a nuclear free Southern Hemisphere. P
revention of proliferation in the Middle East.
Calls for a comprehensive (nuclear) test ban treaty.
Calls for a nuclear weapon free world
. 2008 Calls for a treaty on children's rights.
Condemns Racial Descrimination.
Affirms the soverignty of Palestinians over the occupied territories and their resources.
Affirms the right of the Palestinians to self determination.
Calls on Israel to pay the cost of cleaning up an oil slick off the coast of Lebanon caused by its bombing.
Calls for a new economic order.
Calls for a right of development for nations.
Calls for a right to food.
Respect for the right to universal freedom of travel and the vital importance of family reunification.
Concerning developments in IT for international security
. 2008 Resolutions concerning Palestine, its people, their property and Israeli practices in Palestine, including settlements
. 2009 Calls for an end to the 22 day long Israeli attack on Gaza.

Since 1966, US is from far, the most user of the VETO procedure, mostly in favor of ISRAEL,

Originally posted by orkson
Since 1966, US is from far, the most user of the VETO procedure, mostly in favor of ISRAEL,

OK. The agenda is revealed. Another anti-Israel thread. Thought it'd be, but couldn't be sure until the shoe dropped.

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
OK. The agenda is revealed. Another anti-Israel thread. Thought it'd be, but couldn't be sure until the shoe dropped.

Anti Israel and Anti US. What else are you going to find on ATS? According to many posters here, the US and Israel are the root of all evil and are to blame for anything bad that happens.

I'm glad that they use the veto as much as they do. Nearly every UN resolution calls for the US to spend more and more time and money doing things that are not in the best interests of the US and her allies.

I see no reason that the US should gladly and willingly bow to everything the UN wants. I think the UN is over funded by the US and one of the biggest threats to the American citizens rights and freedoms. Most members of the UN are engaged in an active policy of antagonism towards the US.

As far as the majority of the veto votes, they are Israeli/Palestenian issues. The US votes in favor of Israel, like nobody saw that coming. Big shocker huh?

Originally posted by orkson
Source

Sorry, Gus. I don't think your wonderful source is the most non-biased out there. Just another "I hate the US" website.

Notice that it doesn't say who else vetoed those resolutions, just the US.

Originally posted by orkson
Since 1966, US is from far, the most user of the VETO procedure, mostly in favor of ISRAEL,

And again, why since 1966, if the UN was founded in 1945? Easier to skew the data, huh?

reply to post by badgerprints


I'll be as precise and clear as I can :

It is forbidden to be merciful to them. You must send missiles to them and annihilate them. They are evil and damnable

The Lord shall return their deeds on their own heads, waste their seed and exterminate them, devastate them and vanish them from this world

Wow ! Another anti-Jew rant ?

No. One of your dear allies.
Not the least of them : it's one of the 11% of the elected members of the Knesset, the Jewish Parliament.

He's clearly telling what he'd like to do to the Arabs, the former owners of the land of Israel.

Here's the link : Ovadia Josef

Please, don't tell me that THIS is a biased source ...

You should proove some righteousness in your ethical values : don't you think that beeing publically an ally of such racist extremists is a cost to USA ?
How long will you be in ANY case a supporter of those jerks ?
How long ?

Remember, it was just before the Irak invasion by the USA …

America's fury over a potential French veto

Calmly and confidently, France has been making its case for reason and restraint on the Iraq crisis, taking into consideration all the consequences of a war and explaining them. Many may appreciate his eloquence and dashing looks, but it was Dominique de Villepin’s logic that provoked unprecedented and spontaneous applause in the Security Council on Feb. 14, star treatment that an American secretary of state could never hope for in the present state of affairs.

Powell would probably not want to remind a forgetful world that only two months before, in December 2002, a lone veto was cast to block a Security Council resolution that would have simply condemned (let alone attacked) a country for allowing the killing of unarmed civilians. In that particular case the killer was an Israeli soldier; the victim, armed with a cell phone, was Iain Hook, a British UN employee who bled to death in Jenin as Israeli soldiers refused passage to the ambulance. The vetoer was the United States.

America has repeatedly vetoed resolutions reminding Israel to comply with previous resolutions, or to take responsibility for recurring acts of terrorism. In April 1982, the US vetoed a resolution condemning an Israeli soldier’s shooting of 11 Muslim worshipers near Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. In February 1986, when terrorism had apparently not yet been defined by the superpower, the US vetoed a resolution condemning Israel’s hijacking of a Libyan airplane. And, 10 years later, in April 1996, America shamelessly vetoed a resolution condemning Israel for the horrific bombing of a UN camp in Qana, Lebanon, killing over 100 helpless refugees. While Palestinian civilians should by now be accustomed to this support for Israel come what may, bearing alone the brutality of Israeli occupation, even they must have been stunned by the US veto of a resolution in March 2001 backing the deployment of a meager UN observer force

Perhaps America believes the veto should be its sole prerogative. But should a resolution allowing an attack on Iraq be presented, and should France oppose it, never would a veto have been cast in the Security Council with more support from the world population. And should America decide to ignore the UN’s opposition to war, then future editorials around the world will surely be titled: “We are all French.”

I had never been as proud to be French than on that day.

Seems a lot of people on here simply have no conscience.

They will simply support their government to the end, no matter that the actions of their government break every moral, legal or ethical rule there is.

It is impossible to reason with such persons as reason has no value to them - only blind obedience.

Is it so hard, when an American, to say : "Ok, I agree, my country has been wrong all along those years" ?
Or is it more convenient to think it, but not to tell it ?
Freedom of speech in the midst of a desert is useless.
ATS looks like a desert when there is so little reactions facing such overwhelming evidences ...
Where are my friends ?
Where are my foes ?
Ah ! It's Sunday ...
It's not time for awakening.
Let's # and pray.
Tomorrow, maybe, I'll do something.
Or the day after.
Or never.
Let's # and pray.

People who believe governments don't always act in the interest of their population should drop out their nationalism a bit sometimes. It's the US government that has received heavy criticism last decades not the American people.

This thread shows the inconsistencies and hyprocrisy of the US international policies. The US make use of their veto right all the time but some non-neutral american commentators went as far as to state that France was eroding the Security Council's legitimacy and credibility by using a veto only voicing concerns and backed by a large majority of the world.

badgerprints, you will find out outside the US, the common view is that the UN and the Security Council are american tools for supremacy and hegemony.

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
reply to post by wayno

 

So, why only go back to 1966? The UN was founded in 1945. Doesn't state any date range in the title of this thread, does it?

Because it is not a history of members vetoing but a comment on the US international policies in the last decades through the UN.

Anyway, it's a game of diplomacy. The UN must look like a free, moral and open organisation. That's how it's useful to the US. But for the UN to maintain credibility as a world organisation which is searching for global consensus and justice, the US can't block all discussions and debates because that is the exact reason of the existence of the UN, to provide a place for debating world affairs even amongst antagonists. The US can't block all discussions because then the players might refuse to play the game further and the US need an institution like the UN to exist.
Even with imperfect power relations inside the organisation, the member states sometimes succeed to inflect the US will. It's all about balance, the US soften on smaller issues from their perspective but important ones for other members and ask in return for help, tacit agreement or complacency on major issues. It's a game of diplomacy and to a point, the UN fulfill its role.
But some major topics are never vetoed because they never reach the Security Council's agenda. And we have no numbers.

The main word is legitimacy. The US ruling class wants its actions to be recognized as legit to gain the backing of domestic and world public opinions.

Bah! The UN is filled with useless ninnies! Believe me, I hardly agree with anything my country (The US) does with respect to Israel. However, I agree even less with the nimrod approach to gloabl affairs that the UN employs. Know what work best? Dismantle the damn thing and go back to country-to-country negotiation and foreign policy, as opposed to this one-size-fits-all BS that the UN is peddling. Freaking worthless agency, the UN!

reply to post by Manouche


Hi Manouche.

The US ruling class wants its actions to be recognized as legit to gain the backing of domestic and world public opinions

I don't understand what you mean.
Or, if I understand it, I don't agree with your point.

From my point of vue, US "ruling" class is just the elected executers of ruling interests which have nothing to do with "domestic and world public opinions".

When in the USA, in UK and in quite every western country, millions of citizens express in the streets their disagreement with the Irak war, the zionist lobby succeeds in launching a "preventive" war based on faked documents.

Maybe will he succeed also in launching a war against Iran.

Which is also against the "domestic and world pulic opinion".

What I mean, is that US citizens should realize that their government is fighting in their name for foreign interests which are in the short and the long term, against themselves. Against the interests of the USA and their allies.

These foreign interests lead the USA to absurd actions which contradict the founding values of the western democracies.

You can't tell that you are a supporter of Justice and Liberty, when your actions are a complete denial of Justice and Liberty.
At least, you may once or twice, but not systematically, like in the case of the support of the zionists.

You can't also pretend that you are a real democracy, when your plolicy is systematically defending the interests of a minority, against the rights of a majority.

You can't also pretend that you respect and enforce the international organisations and their demands, when you support a foreign country which doesn't respect them, to the point of bombing their offices, killing their delegates and forbid the routing of the help provided by them to their victims.




[edit on 2/8/2009 by orkson]