Elephant-Donkey

DEADPRESIDENTS won the Face Off.

DEADPRESIDENTS vs Mark

Face Offs: 9
Wins: 9
Losses: 0
Ties: 0
Washington DC,
All Face Offs

Votes

Face Offs: 33
Wins: 24
Losses: 8
Ties: 1
New Bedford, MA
All Face Offs

Votes

Is there a reason the UN has not taken a tougher stance on Zimbabwe?

DEADPRESIDENTS said 04/27, 08:23 AM
This issue is going to be one of the most important for the next President's foreign policy. Robert Mugabe has been a dictator for the past 28 years. People have been dying in the hands of the police in that country, inflation is sky rocketing, there is massive food and fuel shortage. But our world body seems to be mild in its approach. Gordon Brown seems to be the only bothered leader about that country. I think we (the world) are neglecting that country and the atrocities that they face as a result of that known dictator.

Mark said 04/27, 10:39 AM
you seem surprised that we don't deal with dictators except those who directly affect us. i personally think that we should deal with all dictators and all the things that they do to their people and if possible replace them with democracies, however, lets look at all the dictators and kings we are allied with.

1. Saudi Arabia
2. Yemen
3. Oman
4. Jordan
5. Egypt(very unconstitutional democracy)

and the list goes on. So you shouldn't be surprised that we wouldn't respond to this dictator if we already ignore all the things that these other dictators are doing to their own people. You also don't see us fighting or dealing with China very harshly instead we just build economic ties with each other. The fact is we don't bother with dictators and kings who don't respect human rights and massacre their people unless it affects us in some way like our economy, our interests...etc. this has to be greatly changed.

DEADPRESIDENTS said 04/27, 12:41 PM
Thanks Mark for accepting the challenge. I hope you understood my focus as suggested in the title of this debate. I am referring to the UN and not the US. I am against the idea of the US going around imposing itself as the custodian of democracy, removing and installing leaders as we wish. I do think that the UN has a bigger responsibility and a mandate to do the monitoring and implementation of Peach, stability and democracy.

I raise this issue because, I think they have been quiet on the issue of possibly rigged elections in that country. Please get me correctly, I am not suggesting war or invasion, I am simply saying, they need to act (perhaps diplomatically)

There were observer missions in Zimbabwe on behalf of the UN and the African Union (AU), what have they said, where is their report. I think that someone is just not doing their job, and that is the UN.

Mark said 04/27, 02:57 PM
The U.N. is no different. They don't act out against dictators along with all the other countries that have done horrible things to their people. The U.N. couldn't do anything in Rwanda, Zambia, South Africa, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Iran, Tunisia, Liberia...etc. It is so much harder for the U.N. to act simply because it is an international neutral force. The U.N. can invade, and sanctions won't stop what is going on there. That is ur reason. Also you have to consider, the U.N. is lead by the P5: China, US, England, France, Russia. The events in Zimbabwe don't really affect those countries in any direct way at all whether it's economics, or diplomatic. So they simply won't pay attention to it and ignore it. (which i strongly object to) Of course Zimbabwe isn't alone. In the Democratic Republic Of Congo there is mass murder and massacres of the people their because of their tribal relations. Do you see the world acting to all events happening their? so to conclude, the reason y the U.N. does not take a tougher stance on Zimbabwe is because it doesn't affect the P5 nations at all so they let it be. There is your reason since the title of this debate asks for one.

DEADPRESIDENTS said 04/27, 03:55 PM
I think there is something totally unfounded about your last two sentences. You suggest that the UN will not act if one of the P5 countries. I know that the UN would focus largely on peace keeping. But the UN also has a responsibility of facilitating diplomatic efforts in countries where there are conflicts.

Conflicts and disputes around elections are some of the key deliverables of the United Nations. In Zimbabwe there is a serious crisis that can develop into something uncontrollable.

There is economic meltdown in that country with the government driving the programme to remove white farm owners from their farms and dish them to war veterans.

I'm not going to entertain your DRC claim as I think is not based on any fact. A lot of progress has taken place in DRC in terms of reconstruction of the country. A lot of facilitation by South Africa has yielded some positive results. Kabila was elected democratically the country is attracting more investments from China, South Africa and India.
Think clearly about the latest developments there. That's not the focus of this debate anyway. The UN is failing the world, It's involvement in Zimbabwe is an example of that failure

Mark said 04/27, 04:07 PM
Exactly! again the conflict in Zimbabwe is in no way affects the P5 countries or the countries in the Security council so they don't bother to deal with it whether it is their duty or not. I'm sorry to say but this is a world full of ignorance. Then you state the "key deliverables" of the U.N. when talking about elections and choas. Lets consider what would happen. A U.N. force goes to the country and sets up base there. the fact is it can't do anything! just like in Rwanda! the PEACEKEEPING FORCES couldnt and weren't allowed to intervene with the ethnic fighting in the country! but that's not what we're debating about. still the reason the U.N. hasn't taken a tougher stance when it comes to Zimbabwe is simply because it doesn't affect the 5 nations that make the resolutions or decide to send peacekeeping forces across the globe. It's a horrible reason on the U.N. 's part but it's the real reason none the less

Comments

Add Your Comment

In no way am i saying this reason is justified. just answer the titled question

Mark | 04/27/08

Report Offensive Comment

the UN has never been able to do anything, except once when it declared war against N Korea, while the Soviet Union abstained in protest and China's seat was given to Taiwan

MorgMcA | 04/27/08

Report Offensive Comment

You suggest that the UN will not act if none of the P5 countries is affected.

DEADPRESIDENTS | 04/27/08

Report Offensive Comment

The sentence is part of the 3rd statement in my last argument.

DEADPRESIDENTS | 04/27/08

Report Offensive Comment

Since the P5 are unaffected, they won't act. It's a horrible reality. also read what MorgMca has said above. the whole debate was for a reason as to why the UN doesn't act and i gave you it. Therefore finishing my role in this debate. as to whether the UN is effective or not it irrelevant to this debate or wether it is the duty of the UN. Theywon't act until it affects them or their people demand that they act.

Mark | 04/28/08

Report Offensive Comment