It’s that time of the year again in New York City when the streets are clogged, not by regular traffic but by the arrival of world leaders for the United Nations General Assembly. Some African dictators are holed up in their luxury suites, while Arab leaders indulge in their five-star hotel minibars. All the while, the global stage is set for diplomatic speeches that achieve little more than headline fodder.

 

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan took the podium recently and made a dramatic comparison, likening Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Adolf Hitler. "Just as Hitler was stopped by the alliance of humanity 70 years ago, Netanyahu and his murder network must also be stopped by the alliance of humanity," Erdogan proclaimed. This dramatic and inflammatory rhetoric highlights a common theme at the United Nations—leaders with questionable records on human rights using the stage to point fingers and level accusations at democratic nations. 

 

Erdogan went on to criticize the United Nations as a "dysfunctional structure," a sentiment shared by many. Yet, the irony of his words is lost on him, as he embodies much of what makes the U.N. ineffective. Erdogan’s government has been known for its authoritarian practices, including the jailing of journalists and political opponents. After the supposed coup attempt in 2016, he jailed approximately 50,000 people, continuing a campaign of repression, especially against the Kurdish population.

 

The U.N., originally founded to foster peace and cooperation, now provides a platform for leaders like Erdogan, Vladimir Putin, and the rulers of Iran and Qatar—figures who flout human rights and democratic principles. It’s a stage where the world’s democracies should shine, but instead, even Western leaders fall into the same traps of self-indulgence and ineffectiveness.

 

British Foreign Secretary David Lammy recently delivered a speech that had the potential to focus on Russia’s aggression in Ukraine. Instead, Lammy diverted attention to himself, emphasizing his identity as a Black man whose ancestors were enslaved. While his personal history is undoubtedly significant, it offered little relevance to addressing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Lammy’s focus on his own background mirrored a broader trend in the West, where politicians seem to believe their personal stories provide them with unique insights into global affairs. However, speeches like his do little to confront the real issues at hand—Russia’s imperialism and aggression.

 

Meanwhile, President Joe Biden used his time on the podium to call for a ceasefire in the Middle East, as if Hamas and Hezbollah were eagerly awaiting diplomatic advice. “Now is the time for the parties to finalize its terms, bring the hostages home,” Biden said, as if this simple directive would suddenly lead to a resolution. On the escalating war between Israel and Hezbollah, Biden stated, “Full-scale war is not in anyone’s interest,” despite the fact that such a conflict could arguably be in the interest of the minorities in Lebanon or Israelis living under constant rocket fire. His call for diplomacy seemed especially hollow given the U.N.’s failure to enforce Resolution 1701, which was supposed to limit Hezbollah’s arms buildup but has been ignored for nearly two decades.

 

The U.N. today, filled with global bad actors, is toothless in the face of real challenges. While leaders from democratic nations should be using this platform to address genuine threats and present clear actions, they often fall short, offering little more than hollow rhetoric. The world needs more than speeches—it needs action.

 

Based on a report from: NYP 2024-10-01

 

 

 

The UN can be saved even now, but only by removing the veto from the security council permanent members.

 

Otherwise it can join the League of Nations in the garbage bin of history.

23 minutes ago, Social Media said:

Meanwhile, President Joe Biden used his time on the podium to call for a ceasefire in the Middle East,

IMO speaking with forked tongue, given he allows the endless supply of weapons to israel to prosecute a one sided assault on an almost defenseless people.

Very biased committee.

56 Muslim members and one Jewish one.

I wonder why the votes are always anti Israel?

5 hours ago, Social Media said:

President Joe Biden used his time on the podium to call for a ceasefire in the Middle East,

And to Big Joe and all others calling for a cease fire - you are talking to Hamas and Hezbollah. They are both murdering, cowardly terrorists who, in spite of previous ceasefires, still sent rockets into Israel to kill innocent civilians.

To the terrorists, a cease fire means that the others stop fighting, whilst they carry on building tunnels and re-arming.

Terrorists never stop killing.

5 hours ago, Social Media said:

British Foreign Secretary David Lammy recently delivered a speech that had the potential to focus on Russia’s aggression in Ukraine. Instead, Lammy diverted attention to himself, emphasizing his identity as a Black man whose ancestors were enslaved. While his personal history is undoubtedly significant, it offered little relevance to addressing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Lammy’s focus on his own background mirrored a broader trend in the West, where politicians seem to believe their personal stories provide them with unique insights into global affairs. However, speeches like his do little to confront the real issues at hand—Russia’s imperialism and aggression.

 

Classic Lammy. "As a black man..." like somehow that gives him a unique insight into the Russia/Ukraine conflict. What a clown. I guess he just can't help himself. If you're about to talk complete rubbish precede it with "As a black man" in order to gain credibility and avoid the inevitable criticism of the inane drivel that follows. 

 

As for the UN, a complete joke. A talking shop. A waste of money. Jobs for the boys. A toothless tiger. A barking dog that refuses to bite. Providing a platform for imbeciles like Lammy to embarrass themselves in front of dictators flown in on private jets for a jolly.

 

Disband it. 

Curtail UN staff's diplomatic immunity, especially in things like their double and triple parking. Haul off and confiscate their vehicles permanently for safety violations. 

16 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Classic Lammy. "As a black man..." like somehow that gives him a unique insight into the Russia/Ukraine conflict. What a clown. I guess he just can't help himself. If you're about to talk complete rubbish precede it with "As a black man" in order to gain credibility and avoid the inevitable criticism of the inane drivel that follows. 

 

As for the UN, a complete joke. A talking shop. A waste of money. Jobs for the boys. A toothless tiger. A barking dog that refuses to bite. Providing a platform for imbeciles like Lammy to embarrass themselves in front of dictators flown in on private jets for a jolly.

 

Disband it. 

The relatively few (almost exclusively Western democracies) countries which fund it need to turn off the money taps. 

 

It will fall into complete obscurity within the year, cease to exist within three.

 

Mind you, the same could be said about that buffoon Lammy!

16 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

Mind you, the same could be said about that buffoon Lammy!

 

He's probably better suited to appearing at the UN than on Mastermind.

 

Q. Who succeeded Henry VIII?

Lammy ; Henry VII 😆

 

Q ; Name a blue cheese

Lammy ; Red Leicester 😂

 

The only surprise was that he didn't precede every answer with, "As a black man, I believe you will find the answer is..." 

 

Clown. 

7 hours ago, Social Media said:

The U.N. today, filled with global bad actors, is toothless in the face of real challenges. While leaders from democratic nations should be using this platform to address genuine threats and present clear actions, they often fall short, offering little more than hollow rhetoric. The world needs more than speeches—it needs action.

 

The above issue can only be addressed by reforming the rules for Security Council members. However, at the moment there does not appear to be a mechanism to do so. Nor does there seem to be an alternative to the UN, which, except for security council does do some outstanding work. Currently world politics is somewhat equivalent to the extreme partisan politics of the US - Never the twain shall meet.

Any organization that lets Iran chair a council on human rights needs to be eliminated. Waste of valuable real estate. And money.  

I have spoken to Baldrick, and we have a cunning plan.

Rebuild Gaza and relocate the UN there.  That way they may ensure that their champagne and caviar budgets are not diverted to build tunnels and buy missiles.  There were quite a few Hamas terrorists on the salary list with the UN so this might prevent their starting up a sideline of murder, torture and rape of innocent men, women and children.  They could lose their jobs for that!

It might be a tough gig at first for the diplomats but I'm sure they can adapt to tents and generators.  What better incentive to get things sorted as quickly as possible?

The UN! Absolutely useless, should be renamed "Th Luncheon Club"

Toothless...  Yes too many countries with a veto  incuding Russia and too many countries not paying their share. 

Don't worry it's on Trump's agenda

The UN is a place for corrupt useless politicians. That place should be cleaned up or just closed down. There is NOTHING 

Erdogan is an uneducated, crude Muslim. His comment is as low as you can go.  The UN is blatantly antisemitic. 

Nice yet very conservative hair do. Previous pal jumped from the window. What's this chap up to?

14 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

it can join the League of Nations in the garbage bin of history.

Exactly where it belongs.

18 hours ago, Tropicalevo said:

And to Big Joe and all others calling for a cease fire - you are talking to Hamas and Hezbollah. They are both murdering, cowardly terrorists who, in spite of previous ceasefires, still sent rockets into Israel to kill innocent civilians.

To the terrorists, a cease fire means that the others stop fighting, whilst they carry on building tunnels and re-arming.

Terrorists never stop killing.

What do you call people that have blown up thousands of women and children as they sleep in their beds?

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

What do you call people that have blown up thousands of women and children as they sleep in their beds?

hamas human shields?

16 hours ago, simple1 said:

Nor does there seem to be an alternative to the UN, which, except for security council does do some outstanding work.

The UN was supposed to stop conflicts happening, not paper over the cracks after  it happens.

 

I wonder if the UN members had known what the consequences of the vote in 1947 re israel would be, if they would have voted yes.

Had they voted no, we would have been saved from a lot of death, destruction and loss of treasure ever since.

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The UN was supposed to stop conflicts happening, not paper over the cracks after  it happens.

 

I wonder if the UN members had known what the consequences of the vote in 1947 re israel would be, if they would have voted yes.

Had they voted no, we would have been saved from a lot of death, destruction and loss of treasure ever since.

 

Personally I find it weird Israel was created in the middle of an area known to be hostile to the Jewish faith for centuries and where the jews were a very small minority, again for centuries. I cannot see how military hostilities will cease in the foreseeable future. US managed to bribe a few countries, Abraham Accords, though I doubt it can be replicated unless there is regime change in Iran which one assumes would be a very bloody affair.

5 hours ago, simple1 said:

 

Personally I find it weird Israel was created in the middle of an area known to be hostile to the Jewish faith for centuries and where the jews were a very small minority, again for centuries. I cannot see how military hostilities will cease in the foreseeable future. US managed to bribe a few countries, Abraham Accords, though I doubt it can be replicated unless there is regime change in Iran which one assumes would be a very bloody affair.

Not weird in the context of the time. Arabs were not considered as important, so it was OK to take their land and give it to other people.

Let's remember that the country most supportive of the new state exists only because they took other people's land by conquest.

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Not weird in the context of the time. Arabs were not considered as important, so it was OK to take their land and give it to other people.

Let's remember that the country most supportive of the new state exists only because they took other people's land by conquest.

 

As you know the Ottoman Empire, where the province of Palestine was located, was defeated by Britain during WW1. No surprise Ottoman conquered territory was divided up between the British and the French..

1 minute ago, simple1 said:

 

As you know the Ottoman Empire, where the province of Palestine was located, was defeated by Britain during WW1. No surprise Ottoman conquered territory was divided up between the British and the French..

I'm well aware the the British lied when they told the Arabs supporting them that they would have independence post war, given they had already agreed with France to divide the area.

 

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/betrayal-of-arabs-after-first-world-war-set-stage-for-turbulent-century-1.1840067

Betrayal of Arabs after first World War set stage for turbulent century

 

However, that has nothing to do with giving Palestinian land to Jews as a homeland 29 years later, and Britain had abdicated to the UN to decide it's fate, after being defeated by Jewish terrorists, the Stern gang.

 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Stern-Gang

Extremely anti-British, the group repeatedly attacked British personnel in Palestine and even invited aid from the Axis powers.

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm well aware the the British lied when they told the Arabs supporting them that they would have independence post war, given they had already agreed with France to divide the area.

 

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/betrayal-of-arabs-after-first-world-war-set-stage-for-turbulent-century-1.1840067

Betrayal of Arabs after first World War set stage for turbulent century

 

However, that has nothing to do with giving Palestinian land to Jews as a homeland 29 years later, and Britain had abdicated to the UN to decide it's fate, after being defeated by Jewish terrorists, the Stern gang.

 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Stern-Gang

Extremely anti-British, the group repeatedly attacked British personnel in Palestine and even invited aid from the Axis powers.

 

I disagree, the British, Churchill had promised a homeland for the Jews in 1917. were instrumental in lining up Palestine for the Jews.

9 hours ago, simple1 said:

 

I disagree, the British, Churchill had promised a homeland for the Jews in 1917. were instrumental in lining up Palestine for the Jews.

You are presumably talking about the Balfour declaration which split the ME between France and Britain, even before the war had ended.

 

That has nothing to do with the British lying to the Arabs about independence post war.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMahon–Hussein_correspondence

The McMahon–Hussein correspondence^[a] is a series of letters that were exchanged during World War I in which the Government of the United Kingdom agreed to recognize Arab independence in a large region after the war in exchange for the Sharif of Mecca launching the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire.

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You are presumably talking about the Balfour declaration which split the ME between France and Britain, even before the war had ended.

 

That has nothing to do with the British lying to the Arabs about independence post war.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMahon–Hussein_correspondence

The McMahon–Hussein correspondence^[a] is a series of letters that were exchanged during World War I in which the Government of the United Kingdom agreed to recognize Arab independence in a large region after the war in exchange for the Sharif of Mecca launching the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire.

 

Agree. Even the Balfour Declaration failed, just look at what is happening today in the region. Giving territorial rights to a then small minority was practically guaranteeing conflict which as you know basically commenced immediately and ongoing today. OK by Mod for one last post? Some have said the Balfour Declaration was “one of the greatest mistakes in our imperial history".

 

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/martinkramer/files/forgotten_truth_balfour_declaration.pdf