Many of our forum members have championed the UN for past actions. Since this is a rather current topic, I was wondering exactly what the UN has been doing to help calm the situation in Libya.

I have been unable to find any concrete action taking place except a few comments calling Gadhafi a bad boy and asking for him to refrain from killing his people.

I even went so far as to see if the Human Rights Commission had decided to take any action since Libya is a long standing member of that institution. This is what I found:

_______________________________________________________

No Threat Seen to Libya’s Seat on Top U.N. Human Rights Body

Thursday, February 24, 2011

By Patrick Goodenough

In part the article says...

"Although it will be the first time in the HRC’s five-year history that a special session focuses on a sitting member, signs quickly emerged that it would fall short of the expectations of advocacy groups concerned about the killings.

A European Union-proposed draft resolution for Friday’s session “strongly condemns” human rights violations committed in Libya, rather than condemning Gaddafi or the regime for committing them.

It also does not call on the U.N. General Assembly to expel Libya from the HRC."

Complete article here: http://www.cnsnews.com/public/news/article/no-threat-seen-libya-s-seat-top-un-human

________________________________________________________

If this group gets really inventive, maybe they can find a way to blame Israel and the US for the problems in Libya.

Hasn't Libya's ambassador to the UN just defected?

The sole purpose of the UN and it's delegates for years has been to pay huge rents to New York landlords anyway.

Maybe they'll be sending in observers to document the massacre as in the case of Dutch troops at Srebrnricza and Canadians in Rwanda.

Hasn't Libya's ambassador to the UN just defected?

The sole purpose of the UN and it's delegates for years has been to pay huge rents to New York landlords anyway.

That is the act of one person and he is Libyan. My question was what has the UN done.

I presume the rent statement pertains to the rental of housing for the various delegates. Right?

Hasn't Libya's ambassador to the UN just defected?

The sole purpose of the UN and it's delegates for years has been to pay huge rents to New York landlords anyway.

That is the act of one person and he is Libyan. My question was what has the UN done.

I presume the rent statement pertains to the rental of housing for the various delegates. Right?

What has the UN been doing? Condemning Israel for settlements of course.

Two actually, his deputy went earlier in the week.

I assume UN delegates and their multitudinous staff pay rent like everybody else, or have it paid for them by the UN in the case of the poorer countries. Office space is certainly rented in adjoining buildings, albeit at a claimed below market value.

What exactly do you want the UN to do in Libya? Support Gadhafi? Or support the insurrectionists who may be more anti-US?

Two actually, his deputy went earlier in the week.

I assume UN delegates and their multitudinous staff pay rent like everybody else, or have it paid for them by the UN in the case of the poorer countries. Office space is certainly rented in adjoining buildings, albeit at a claimed below market value.

What exactly do you want the UN to do in Libya? Support Gadhafi? Or support the insurrectionists who may be more anti-US?

I have said endless times the UN is a useless organization. I would like for them to prove me wrong and actually accomplish something for a change. I don't really care what they do, but doing nothing in this case seems counter productive.

I posed the question hoping somebody could inform me of any action the UN has taken.

It appears nobody can do that. Therefore my opinion of the UN remains unchanged at this point.

Hasn't Libya's ambassador to the UN just defected?

The sole purpose of the UN and it's delegates for years has been to pay huge rents to New York landlords anyway.

That is the act of one person and he is Libyan. My question was what has the UN done.

I presume the rent statement pertains to the rental of housing for the various delegates. Right?

What has the UN been doing? Condemning Israel for settlements of course.

And well they should, but that's a whole 'nother thread.

And well they should

After all, it would be dishonest to take all those bribes and then not vote the way that they have been told to by the oil states.

I have said endless times the UN is a useless organization. I would like for them to prove me wrong and actually accomplish something for a change. I don't really care what they do, but doing nothing in this case seems counter productive.

I posed the question hoping somebody could inform me of any action the UN has taken.

It appears nobody can do that. Therefore my opinion of the UN remains unchanged at this point.

I spent a number of years working for a branch of the UN. I had then and still have, great reservations about the organization, however, it's the only international body in existence that has the ability to do much. Right now, there isn't much that can be done. The UN is pretty good about hanging in there and wearing everyone down.

Military involvement at this time would be a huge mistake, not that the UN has a military.

I have said endless times the UN is a useless organization. I would like for them to prove me wrong and actually accomplish something for a change. I don't really care what they do, but doing nothing in this case seems counter productive.

I posed the question hoping somebody could inform me of any action the UN has taken.

It appears nobody can do that. Therefore my opinion of the UN remains unchanged at this point.

I spent a number of years working for a branch of the UN. I had then and still have, great reservations about the organization, however, it's the only international body in existence that has the ability to do much. Right now, there isn't much that can be done. The UN is pretty good about hanging in there and wearing everyone down.

Military involvement at this time would be a huge mistake, not that the UN has a military.

Isn't NATO an international body?

Edit it to add this link:

Analysts: More Libyan bloodshed could prompt U.S., NATO intervention

By Michael Martinez, CNN

February 25, 2011 11:31 a.m. EST

(CNN) -- If the U.S. military were to intervene in an increasingly chaotic Libya, it would most likely be part of a NATO action in which Libyan bloodshed has reached a humanitarian crisis, analysts said Thursday.

More here: http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/02/24/libya.military.intervention/index.html

And well they should

After all, it would be dishonest to take all those bribes and then not vote the way that they have been told to by the oil states.

Now you may think I'm anti Israel because I am against the expansion of Israeli settlements in disputed territories, but I'm not. I fully support Israels right to statehood but I do not feel that right carries with it the right to continue to construct illegal settlements. I very much wish they would stop as it makes it harder to defend their otherwise justified goals in the region.

I'll confess that as a child in the '50s we were taught that the UN was a truly marvellous organisation.

Maybe our teachers, mostly being WW2 vets taught from hope, rather than reason.

One of the UN's many problems is that they take people from tiny countries and give them access to power and money they would never have any chance of attaining otherwise. They eventually become corrupt and you end up with a joke of an organisation like we have today.

One of the UN's many problems is that they take people from tiny countries and give them access to power and money they would never have any chance of attaining otherwise. They eventually become corrupt and you end up with a joke of an organisation like we have today.

True and then there are the "block" votes. I haven't followed this stuff in many years but the "Muslim block" used to be 70-80 nations as I recall.

One of the UN's many problems is that they take people from tiny countries and give them access to power and money they would never have any chance of attaining otherwise. They eventually become corrupt and you end up with a joke of an organisation like we have today.

True and then there are the "block" votes. I haven't followed this stuff in many years but the "Muslim block" used to be 70-80 nations as I recall.

I recall somewhere on the internet the count may be somewhat higher now, with most of them being on the UN Human Rights Commission.

NATO is an international organization, but it's membership is restricted and it's primarily military.

I think it is in the best interest of everyone involved for the US to keep as much distance from the Libyan situation as is possible. At least as far as any type of active military involvement. Europe is most affected by this and needs to take the lead.

The UN will be needed if this turns into a humanitarian crisis and it likely will.

NATO is an international organization, but it's membership is restricted and it's primarily military.

I think it is in the best interest of everyone involved for the US to keep as much distance from the Libyan situation as is possible. At least as far as any type of active military involvement. Europe is most affected by this and needs to take the lead.

The UN will be needed if this turns into a humanitarian crisis and it likely will.

Agreed, about the European lead and any US military involvement.

However, if the UN runs a relief effort like they did the Oil for Food Program, it will be another losing situation for the UN and the Libyan people.

Humanitarian relief is a big problem, especially in countries with a history of corruption. The UN has little choice but to play into the less-than-legal system in place. In countries with active fighting, it's not uncommon for a certain % of the food to go to the combatants. Every effort is made to keep it quiet, but they either get their cut, or the aid doesn't get through.

The big trick is to not allow the corruption to become fixed and a long term part of the problem. In Iraq, there were a lot of people benefiting and this doesn't bode well for stabilizing the situation in the country.

Humanitarian relief is a big problem, especially in countries with a history of corruption. The UN has little choice but to play into the less-than-legal system in place. In countries with active fighting, it's not uncommon for a certain % of the food to go to the combatants. Every effort is made to keep it quiet, but they either get their cut, or the aid doesn't get through.

The big trick is to not allow the corruption to become fixed and a long term part of the problem. In Iraq, there were a lot of people benefiting and this doesn't bode well for stabilizing the situation in the country.

Is the UN back in Iraq? I know they bailed on the country after their HQ was bombed back in 2003-04.

http://www.uniraq.org/

http://www.wfp.org/content/withdrawal-humanitarian-aid-iraq

My sources tell me that the US has frozen 30 billion of Qaddafi's assets and the UK has frozen 1 billion. My Danish source tells me something is rotten because the majority of Mr. G's assets are in the UK. He also said the Italy has not frozen anything yet.

On the military front the UK, US and France are getting ready to act but China and Russia are holding back because they may be planning on bombing their own populations and don't want to get involved in a two front campaign about the same thing but on different sides of the issue.

For some unknown reason Germany is sitting this one out and does not have a military response ready to jump into the breach. Also no comments from the Ukraine so far.

My sources tell me that the US has frozen 30 billion of Qaddafi's assets and the UK has frozen 1 billion. My Danish source tells me something is rotten because the majority of Mr. G's assets are in the UK. He also said the Italy has not frozen anything yet.

On the military front the UK, US and France are getting ready to act but China and Russia are holding back because they may be planning on bombing their own populations and don't want to get involved in a two front campaign about the same thing but on different sides of the issue.

For some unknown reason Germany is sitting this one out and does not have a military response ready to jump into the breach. Also no comments from the Ukraine so far.

Ukraine is busy gearing up for the Eurovision finals.

For some unknown reason Germany is sitting this one out and does not have a military response ready to jump into the breach.

the german constitution (fabricated post WWII in Washington and London) forbids explicitly that german armed forces get involved in warlike actions beyond Germany's borders.

that german soldiers are in Afghanistan is unconstitutional. the constitution was bypassed by labelling the actions as "peacekeeping and providing humanitarian aid". of course german Tornado jet fighters which patrolled the Kunduz area provided nothing but humanitarian aid with rocket propelled bombs and 30mm board cannons. humanitarian aid was also provided when german colonel Georg Klein initiated a NATO airstrike which killed >100 civilians in september 2009.

My sources tell me that the US has frozen 30 billion of Qaddafi's assets and the UK has frozen 1 billion. My Danish source tells me something is rotten because the majority of Mr. G's assets are in the UK. He also said the Italy has not frozen anything yet.

On the military front the UK, US and France are getting ready to act but China and Russia are holding back because they may be planning on bombing their own populations and don't want to get involved in a two front campaign about the same thing but on different sides of the issue.

For some unknown reason Germany is sitting this one out and does not have a military response ready to jump into the breach. Also no comments from the Ukraine so far.

There may be a difference in US/UK interpretation of assets.

Maybe in UK the assets of the Libyan Government are not frozen, in US maybe everything is frozen., I don't know. But in Malta, for instance, the biggest hotel is owned and managed by the Libyan overseas investment bureau. Is this Gaddaffi, or Libyan government? Who knows.

Italy will have serious problems with all this. Much of it's oil and gas industry is owned by Libyan investors. Are these Gaddaffi pawns or opposition people? Also Italy depends on the supplies from Libyan sources for over one third of it's energy raw materials. And ordinary Libyan businesses invest in Italy in preference to other countries. So Italy is very much concerned about the financial aspect. Then again, refugees from both sides of the problem are most likely to go to Italy, rather than despised Egypt. There is no love lost between the two countries, despite Gaddaffi's mentor Gamal Nasser.

Germany too depends on Libyan crude - Wintershall used to be a big customer. When I worked for Bilfinger they were paid in oil, not cash, through sales to Wintershall. Don't know if this is still so.

(Lots of 'Don't knows' aren't ther)

The freezing of assets does not mean that business has to stop. It means that the assets cannot be moved without permission of the Court (or stipulations put forth by the UN). So the oil business can continue and salaries can be paid. Ambassadors and Embassies can continue to live and work in property, but it can't be sold. I would assume that investments held by the gov't would continue, but the profits will be frozen.

Conditions will vary from country to country and the UN may specify what are legitimate claims to the money.

For some unknown reason Germany is sitting this one out and does not have a military response ready to jump into the breach.

the german constitution (fabricated post WWII in Washington and London) forbids explicitly that german armed forces get involved in warlike actions beyond Germany's borders.

that german soldiers are in Afghanistan is unconstitutional. the constitution was bypassed by labelling the actions as "peacekeeping and providing humanitarian aid". of course german Tornado jet fighters which patrolled the Kunduz area provided nothing but humanitarian aid with rocket propelled bombs and 30mm board cannons. humanitarian aid was also provided when german colonel Georg Klein initiated a NATO airstrike which killed >100 civilians in september 2009.

Can the German Constitution (fabricated post WWII in Washington and London) NOT be amended?

This would seem to be a case of letting other nations do the heavy lifting.

I see the UN finally got around to taking this small, long overdue step.

UN suspends Libya from Human Rights Council

2011-03-02 04:31:03 GMT+7 (ICT)

UNITED NATIONS (BNO NEWS) -- The United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday adopted a resolution to suspend Libya's membership of the UN Human Rights Council because of Muammar al-Gaddafi's violence against demonstrators who demand his ouster.

UN considering no fly zone?

My source tells me that the UK sold Libya a half of a billion dollars in arms during 2009. Germany sold Libya the cell phone blocking software that they will probably turn on soon. Italy he is still researching.

My source also said not to forget that a no fly zone means blowing up Libya's military installations. He said he doubted that the Libyans would not fly just because some people asked them not to fly. So the air defense network needs to be blown up.

There are a number of ways to blow it up but all of those means are accompanied by big booms and death and destruction of anyone in the vicinity of the military installations. So a no fly zone as innocent as it sounds means foreign powers attacking Libya with a large military force.

In a late breaking development and confirming my suspicions that Cameron reads Thai Visa. He has backed off of his request for a no fly zone realizing after reading the above comments, that enforcing a no fly zone would mean Brit pilots at the very least being put in a combat situation in Libya.