The All Things Political Topic

[uuuhhii]

didn't usa veto another ceasefire at un

fascist at new zealand are trying to break some old treaty

things can certainly get worse everywhere

[Malcador]

22 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

To be fair to Thomas-Greenfield if you're a UN ambassador for a permanent member you're pretty much always an automatic entry into the hypocrisy Olympics.

And she did make sure it was her deputy rather than her that voted when the US was the sole veto on the Israel/ Paelstine ceasefire resolutions...

Yep, I salute their ability to say these things with a straight face, but there's amusement to be had. Well maybe not the Israeli clown with the brick and the yellow Star of David, that was something else entirely.

[Zoraptor]

1 hour ago, uuuhhii said:

didn't usa veto another ceasefire at un

Historically the US has vetoed ceasefires using exactly the same 'logic' as Russia did with Sudan, ie it's an internal matter. It won't be the last time for either and usually resolves down to whether they think the side they're supporting is winning rather than humanitarian concerns vs respect for countries rights.

Most recently the US were sole veto- and sole 'no'- on Israel/ Palestine ceasefire resolutions at least twice. Unsurprisingly, that wasn't a sign of US isolation, but US strength and unflinching resolve. If you were US UN staff, at least. That also doesn't count the (multiple) times resolutions weren't even brought to the table because their veto was inevitable.

Quote

fascist at new zealand are trying to break some old treaty

David Seymour is definitely a populist, not a fascist, though he'd happily have fascists vote for him. His bill has literally no chance of passing, it's a way for him to drum up votes. Irony being* his party is our 'no waste, no red tape!' 'libertarian' one (hence his stated reasons for the Treaty Principles Bill of vote equality) and he's insisting on advancing a bill with zero prospects and which will cost the taxpayer a minimum of 4 million dollars.

*Well, the whole thing is an irony fest because both sides are riddled with first order hypocrites:

Watching the same people who laugh at the US obsession with their 240 year old founding document and think its inviolability is silly so much later obsessing about our 180 years old one and thinking it should be inviolable and relevant forever.

Cogovernance proponents insisting that that still has equal voting rights for everyone. Then being baffled when their explanations are clearly that votes wouldn't be equal, but it's a good thing they won't be, and that not convincing anyone votes will be equal but rather the opposite.

Pearl clutching about 'war dances' in parliament from people who got upset at complaints about the throat slitting (it's releasing the spirit!) gesture in the All Black's haka and think the English should, ahaha, Morris Dance back rather than get upset.

[Zoraptor]

2 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Most recently the US were sole veto- and sole 'no'- on Israel/ Palestine ceasefire resolutions at least twice.

At least three now, since there was another one today. Notable things about it include:

US deputy Ambassador Robert Wood voting, again, not Thomas-Greenfield. Clearly they know it's a dreadful look and don't want their main (wo)man associated with it.

14-1 vote, US sole vote against, and brought to the Council by no less than 10 of its members

AP article has slightly different tone from their one about Russia's veto. But I'll give them some credit for this quote even if it is after the usual mealy mouthed apologia:

Quote

The resolution that was put to a vote “demands an immediate, unconditional and permanent cease-fire to be respected by all parties, and further reiterates its demand for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages.”

Indeed, they managed to put the same quote in the article twice. Shame they didn't directly contrast it with Robert Wood's claims that the US had to veto because:

Quote

"We made clear throughout negotiations we could not support an unconditional cease-fire that failed to release the hostages"

which is an incredibly bare faced lie even for a politician, so much so even the French UN ambassador called him on it.

[BruceVC]

12 hours ago, Malcador said:

Yep, I salute their ability to say these things with a straight face, but there's amusement to be had. Well maybe not the Israeli clown with the brick and the yellow Star of David, that was something else entirely.

The point Im making is not about the reality of how permanent members veto UNSC  resolutions when its suits them or there allies, that happens in certain cases but the " outrage " about this is typically when the US uses its veto but here is another example of Russia doing it and yet we dont get the same attention from the same people who would complain when the US does it

But even thats not the main point Im making. The South African government has claimed that Sudan is the " forgotten war " and the world doesnt act to do anything about it

Yet the UNSC is the best way for the world to at least start to do something about it and Russia decides to veto this resolution because they involved

So in other words its not true that world doesnt care about Sudan but you wont achieve any meaningful global action if UNSC resolutions get vetoed 

And since its South Africa  that keeps raising Sudan on the global stage SA should summon the Russian ambassador and ask why they vetoed something that every other UNSC member agreed to

But there is no point as South Africa complaining about a lack of global response to the Sudan war when its Russia that vetoed the ceasefire. And Russia is  a  fellow BRICS member and we have good diplomatic ties with  Russia so its not like we cant take this up directly with them 

 

 

 

[Hurlshort]

Ok, so Matt Gaetz has already given up on his AG dreams, but didn't he already resign his spot in the House? What a circus.