Saturday, March 13, 2010

Fifth Response to Talknic

I wrote this down weeks ago, but never posted it. I spent 15 minutes reading it over and finishing up at the end, but to be honest I have lost my train of thought and do not know if it is complete. If you feel I did not answer ALL the questions point them out.

When two or more states are involved, it is not a Civil War, even though a Civil War might also be in progress...

So it can't be a civil war even when a civil war is in progress? Check... Are you related to Baghdad Bob by any chance? This sort of comedy just can't be made up.

As I explained, it was to show WHY the UNSC was involved. It’s irrelevant which period, because UNSC involvement was and still is governed by the UN Charter ALL THE TIME, regardless of what conflict.

After you claimed that the UN Security Council does not get involved in civil wars, I pointed to Security Council resolutions and the Congo crisis of the early 60s as an example to refute your statement, you have been in denial ever since. Obviously you misunderstood that MUNOC was the current UN intervention and knew nothing about ONUC or the history of the first intervention. You cut and pasted a link to the current mission statement of MUNOC, which has absolutely nothing to do with why the UN was there 40 years prior. A careless mistake, which my guess is because of relying on Wikipedia for your information (the same link to MUNOC is the only external link on the subject there...coincidentally). If you thought you had some supporting evidence to refute that the UN was involved in a civil war in the Congo conflict I was referring to, as you are (now) claiming, then why didn't you just use one of the many UN resolutions of the relevant time period? Obviously it is denial, and your antics to avoid admitting you were wrong have taken on comical proportions, Bob.

As to your new (pointless) claim that the UN has been governed by the charter all along, this reinforces the fact that you are being dishonest. Instead of using the MUNOC mission statement you could have used the very Charter to rely upon, which predated the MUNOC mission by some six decades or so, to use as a rebuttal source for your counter claim that the UN does not get involved in civil wars, (foolish as that claim would have been). I have never disputed what the UN says, any fool can view UN documents. What I have disputed is your interpretation of what the Charter says and whether the UN has followed the rules you think the Charter lays out. It has not. Israel for example, is the only nation that is unequal to all others in violation of the purposes and principles, as codified in Chapter 1, Article 2 (1) of the Charter, a situation the UN has deemed acceptable for 60 years without convening one of its many infamous one sided special sessions on Israel. But that aside, I want to be clear about what you are saying (this time), even though there are many relevant Security Council resolutions concerning the ACTUAL CRISIS in 1961 that I was referring to, and gave quotes from relevant Security Council resolutions from, you chose a mission statement that explains what the UN is doing in the Congo....four decades prove that there was no civil war in the Congo in 1961, right?

On top of being humorous, your denial undergoes a transformation every time you post. It has gone from claiming that the Security Council does not get involved in civil wars to linking to an irrelevant mission statement you found on Wikipedia saying that the current conflict involves 5 regional states and so therefore according to you is not a civil war! then, apparently without having read the resolutions I quoted from, you tried to claim that the resolutions authorizing the use of force were mere "STATEMENTS" that "neither recommend or offer any active involvement by the UNSC" After I pointed out that they both authorize the use of force, you must have read them closer, because then your claim changed to really bizarre denial... "I did not say there was no civil war" Huh? You were just so sure it was a "stoush" between five regional states that you put an exclamation point behind the declaration that it was not a civil war! that the UN was in Congo to end. Then with a straight face, just a few days later on the 9th you suddenly claim that I did not say there was no civil war. I am running around the pitch trying to score a goal, but you keep moving the goal posts around. This is too funny to be made up, hence the apt picture in my mind's eye of Baghdad Bob using the Talknic alias and the classic, incessant denial you share with him. Of course, now that you have been exposed, you are trying to say that you only linked to MUNOC because you were simply giving the ACTUAL information from MONUC as to when and why the UNSC did become actively involved. But wait, Bob... Exactly what relevance is an event that takes place 40 years in the future? When trying to determine specifically how, why, and when Britain became involved in WWI, would you prattle on about how, why, or when Britain became involved with WWII just because some of the state actors are the same? Fascinating really, Bob. I love history, but I just prefer it to be relevant to the time in history under discussion. Would you be angry if I just refer to you as Talknic Bob from now on? I can't shake the image now that you have proven to have such a comedic persona.

Civil Wars are the business and only the business of the State in which the civil war is taking place. Civil wars are wars contained within the jurisdiction of a state, no matter which Government is in power at the time.

The point you seem to be trying to make is that the UN does not get involved in civil war. Some people do not believe shit stinks until they have their noses rubbed in it, and you seem to be one, Bob. Considering potential refugees, arms smuggling, violations of treaties and human rights (genocide for example), instability, and other factors I do not feel like listing, you are wrong about civil wars being the sole business of the state in which the civil war is taking place in. Below I will quote the UN, the ICJ, and the ICRC to show that those organizations clearly feel that non-international conflict can be a threat to international peace exactly as I have maintained all along. According to the sources I have detailed below, civil wars are not necessarily "the business and only the business" of the state they are fought in as Talknic Bob asserts.

//UN Charter Chapter I : PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES Article: 2 Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.//

Thanks for highlighting the irrelevant portion of Article 2. The irony of that is that you vigorously demand that others read the fine print, yet seem unable to do so yourself since you cut and pasted the very caveat that disproves your ignorant assertion that the Security Council does not get involved in civil war. Maybe you just missed the caveat, Bob...this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll. Which means, for those of us who read the fine print, the UN (under Chapter VII) can, has, and likely will in the future become involved in CIVIL WARS, exactly as I have stated and exactly what you have tried to deny since pursuing this tangential denial (which highlights your general lack of accuracy on the entirety of your web site). As I have promised, below I will present some supporting evidence from the ICRC, the ICJ, the UN, and a few respected scholars that you can deny, Bob. I can always use a good laugh and I am sure anyone bothering to read along, not lost by your convoluted denial and illogic, can too.

Strange, authorization was to use FORCE against FOREIGN forces and military personnel and in protecting itself, (UN forces and personnel) against mercenaries. It was authorized to give ASSISTANCE in PREVENTING civil war. ASSISTANCE is in one section. FORCE in another. Read the resolutions CARE FULLY!

Why don't we read carefully as you demand, Talknic Bob. We have concluded you do not read the fine print.

The Security Council,

Having considered the situation in the Congo,

Having learnt with deep regret of the announcement of the killing of the Congolese leaders, Mr. Patrice Lumumba, Mr. Maurice Mpolo and Mr. Joseph Okito,

Deeply concerned at the grave repercussions of these crimes and the danger of widespread civil war and bloodshed in the Congo and the threat to international peace and security,

Noting the report of the Secretary-General's Special Representative, dated 12 February 1961,[1] bringing to light the development of a serious civil war situation and preparations therefor,

1. Urges that the United Nations take immediately all appropriate measures to prevent the occurrence of civil war in the Congo, including arrangements for cease-fires, the halting of all military operations, the prevention of clashes, and the use of force, if necessary, in the last resort;

2. Urges that measures be taken for the immediate withdrawal and evacuation from the Congo of all Belgian and other foreign military and paramilitary personnel and political advisers not under the United Nations Command, and mercenaries;

3. Calls upon all States to take immediate and energetic measures to prevent the departure of such personnel for the Congo from their territories, and for the denial of transit and other facilities to them;

4. Decides that an immediate and impartial investigation be held in order to ascertain the circumstances of the death of Mr. Lumumba and his colleagues and that the perpetrators of these crimes be punished;

5. Reaffirms Security Council resolutions 143 (1960) of 14 July 1960, 145 (1960) of 22 July 1960 and 146 (1960) of 9 August 1960 and General Assembly resolution 1474 (ES-IV) of 20 September 1960 and reminds all States of their obligations under these resolutions.

The Security Council,

Gravely concerned at the continuing deterioration of the situation in the Congo and at the prevalence of conditions which seriously imperil peace and order and the unity and territorial integrity of the Congo, and threaten international peace and security,

Noting with deep regret and concern the systematic violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms and the general absence of the rule of law in the Congo,

Recognizing the imperative necessity for the restoration of parliamentary institutions in the Congo in accordance with the fundamental law of the country, so that the will of the people should be reflected through the freely elected Parliament,

Convinced that the solution of the problem of the Congo lies in the hands of the Congolese people themselves without any interference from outside, and that there can be no solution without conciliation,

Convinced further that the imposition of any solution, including the formation of any government not based on genuine conciliation, would, far from settling any issues, greatly enhance the dangers of conflict within the Congo and the threat to international peace and security,

1. Urges the convening of the Parliament and the taking of necessary protective measures in that connexion;

2. Urges that Congolese armed units and personnel should be reorganized and brought under discipline and control, and arrangements made on impartial and equitable bases to that end and with a view to the elimination of any possibility of interference by such units and personnel in the political life of the Congo;

3. Calls upon all States to extend their full co-operation and assistance, and to take such measures as may be necessary on their part, for the implementation of the present resolution.

Adopted at the 942nd meeting
by 9 votes to none, with 2
abstentions (France, Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics).

[1] Official Records of the Security Council, Sixteenth Year, Supplement for January, February and March 1961, document S/4691.

After a careful reading, (which Talknic Bob demands others do, without bothering to do him/herself), the first thing I noticed from the resolution, (taken in context), is the preamble. Civil war is mentioned twice, foreigners are not mentioned at all, the threat to international peace and security is given lip service, but see below before you jump to a conclusion that civil war can not be considered as the source of this threat to international peace. It is, and the mercenaries involved were fighting for one side wishing to be free from the government that the UN chose to empower over another (taking sides in a civil war). The language later authorizing the use of force against mercenaries and foreign troops was put in place to authorize UNF to take offensive action against one side wishing to be free of the other in a civil war (the UN became a belligerent). UN involvement in the Congo (in 1961) you once told me to do, nail this (1961) to your head) was to maintain an unnatural, post colonialist boundary, by force, against peoples that did not desire that boundary or to be governed by the people the UN chose to side with.

Second thing I noticed is that the very first item dealt with in the operative portion of the resolution is, oh what?...civil war, something Talknic Bob claimed the UN does not get involved with...and oh look, what is authorized to prevent civil war? Force. Imagine that...the ever elusive fine print. Force and civil war are found in the same section proving once again Talknic Bob is great for comedic relief and little else.

Third thing I noticed is that article 2 calls on the withdrawal of Belgian and other foreign military and paramilitary personnel. What is not authorized is the use of force to make them withdraw. In the section dealing with foreigners, no force is mentioned in the operative portion of the resolution. Do you even know why Belgian forces were there? No. Never mind, do not answer, you do not know your history and would have to look it up (most likely on Wikipedia) to answer me. Don't even pretend. Belgian forces were there to protect Belgian citizens from an anti European blood bath. Belgian forces were there also at the request of the government in Katanga province, (the one the UN sided against) that did not want to be forced at the end of a UN bayonet to be a part of the old colonialist construct forced. Meddling leftist elitists always know better than dumb dark skinned peoples, huh, Bob? The same day that the government the UN chose to support asked for UN help, the government in Katanga asked for help from Belgium to stop the murdering, raping, and carnage that broke out with Belgian departure. When Belgian troops returned and took up defensive positions the areas of Congo outside of Belgian control were chaos until UN forces arrived.

The fourth thing I noticed is that in section B the first article deals with the "deterioration" of the Congo and conditions that "imperil" the "territorial integrity" of the Congo. The resolution is denying the people of Congo the right to decide their own territorial boundaries, which certainly means they were involved in matters that were "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of the state of Congo. Session is inherently an internal conflict that does not necessarily effect the international borders, nor was the province of Katanga in conflict with any sovereign state outside of the artificial colonial boundaries of Congo. What right did the UN have to impose its will on the people of Katanga? Obviously the double standard is something I am interested in as it pertains to Israel and your many spurious charges.

The fifth thing I noticed was that the UN called on the people of the Congo to handle the situation "without any interference from outside", which oddly enough is exactly what the UN was doing, and is exactly what the UN was later criticized for doing. Taking sides in a civil war. Read the article below. I am not the only one asserting that the UN took sides in a civil war.

Those nations that had supported the United Nations were also critical of some parts of what the United Nations did. The role of Dag Hammerskjöld was criticised as it was felt that he had over-reached his authority regarding what the United Nations could do and what it could not. Supporters were also wary of the fact that the United Nations had taken sides in an effort to bring peace to the Congo.

Lastly I noticed that the measures to be taken (ie assistance) seems to be a general call on all states to implement the resolution. No specific force was authorized at this time against foreigners, the force was authorized to prevent civil war and to intervene in a civil war to prevent the people of Katanga province from determining their own fate. In your desperation to avoid admitting you are wrong (DENIAL), you are making comments and observations about a subject which you obviously know NOTHING about. Mercenaries referred to in the later resolution 169 were hired to help keep order in Katanga province. No matter how you stack it, the demand for them to leave is evidence of the UN taking sides in a civil war. The bloody result of UNF taking sides was that hundreds of Congolese civilians wanting independence died at the hands of UN soldiers in bloody aggressive campaigns like operation Morthor. Regardless of what the Charter says, (which the UN has no problems violating in the case of Israel anyhow) the Security Council can and will get involved in civil wars, even outside of Chapter VII, which is the fine print right under your nose that you failed to understand. On this the historical record is clear as the below excerpt points out...

However, although the Peacekeeping Force remained true to its mandate,
by September 1961, it had ceased to function as a true peacekeeping force.
The U.N. had broken a cardinal rule of peacekeeping - it had not remained neutral in the conflict. When the United Nations planned and then executed "Rumpunch", it established the UNF as an instrument of the Central Government. Although U.N. officials rightfully claimed after each round of fighting that the UNF was only exercising its mandate, the fact remains that the mandate had expanded to permit the Peacekeeping Force to intervene on behalf of the Congolese Central Government. U.N. officials had made it clear that they opposed Tshombe's actions and that they wished to see Katanga reintegrated with the remainder of the Congo. It was no wonder that the Katangans opposed the Peacekeeping Force and that they viewed the UNF as an opposing army of occupation. The result of this view was that the Force could not accomplish its mission peacefully and it was forced to become a belligerent in the conflict.

The mission statement of ONUC that I linked to also said essentially the same thing. The mission expanded to involvement in a civil war.

The UN/UNSC can render military ASSISTANCE to a Government, so that the GOVERNMENT can control it’s civil factions in a Civil War. There is a difference between ASSISTANCE and FORCE. The two are dealt with SPECIFICALLY in different parts of the resolutions.

Now that we have seen the full resolution in the body of my post you can point to the portions you think are relevant to force and assistance and how they are dealt with SPECIFICALLY, as you are ranting? After that you can explain why you linked to the Second Congo war and claimed the UN was not there because of a civil war. You claimed it was an international conflict, and were so certain the UN was not there because of civil war you punctuated your statement with an exclamation point, not a civil war!...I didn’t deny there was a civil war...I am just denying it was a civil war...I deny that I am in denial too...I'm Talknic Bob...the UN only makes statements...yeah, yeah...just statements...I speak authoritatively...well...because I have this blog see...and Zios paint stuff on my walls see...and, and the time period doesn't matter because it was not a civil war!...that's all I have to say...come back when you stop denying that I am right...or I'll delete you...

Strange, I didn’t deny there was a civil war. I gave the reasons WHY the UNSC was involved, which are contained in the UNSC Resolutions and governed by the UN Charter. Read them CAREFULLY!

Before you understood that the UN had been in the Congo more than once, you did say that it was a "stoush" between five "regional states" and that it was not a civil war! Those are your exact words and I quoted you VERBATIM, as you demand, after reading them CAREFULLY! You were so giddy with excitement that your MUNOC link said that it was a war between five regional states that you cut and pasted without understanding the words trapped under your copy function. You were so certain that your Wikipedia research was correct that you put an exclamation point behind what you parroted to reinforce it. Try again, Talknic Bob. Resolution 161 authorizes force against a side in a civil matter. Resolution 169 authorizes force against foreigners who were there maintaining order at the request of the government of one of the sides in a civil matter. Ironic, foreigners were telling locals they could not have foreigners assisting them against other locals.

Nail this to your head. ASSISTANCE and FORCE are in different sections. FORCE was authorized against FOREIGN parties and to protect UN personnel and forces. (the UN forces being there, as authorized, against FOREIGN parties, to protect UN personnel and of course themselves if they were to be attacked)

Yeah, I got it. ASSISTANCE and FORCE are in different sections. But doesn't the fact that FORCE is authorized in the section dealing with CIVIL WAR against the local peoples wishing to secede from Congo in resolution 161 mean that you are a gibbering, slobbering, teeth gnashing, douche bag, Talknic Bob? What little sense you may have had before you became a poisonous piece of shit has leaked out and all that remains in the yawning gulf between your ears is a helium filled rubber glove with a smiley face painted on it kind of wafting around within the empty confines, (I know the glove is there...I checked). And doesn't the fact that the link I gave you to ONUC, which is contained on the very same website that the irrelevant link you gave to MONUC is, stating clearly that the role of the UN changed from peace keeping to preventing civil war tell you that you were also informed with logic, credible links, and irrefutable evidence that the Security Council DOES in fact get involved in civil wars...let alone the obvious caveat (in the fine print of what you quoted from more than once) that Chapter VII resolutions ignore the restriction on involvement in intrastate conflict? Obviously you crave a certain degree of humiliation, but I am embarrassed for you as an opponent. Don't you think the broken shards of your credibility has suffered enough, or must I smash you into smaller and smaller bits?

No my friend, THIS is what you challenged.//…why the UNSC was in in the Congo (a stoush between the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and five regional States), not a civil war!// I did not say there was no civil war.

First, I could never befriend someone that supports genocide with his or her efforts like you do. Second do not attribute words or thoughts to what I write unless they are there. Quote me VERBATIM as you demand others do. The original assertion I made was that the UN does get involved with civil war, it says nothing of the "why" of UN involvement in any particular intervention, nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't matter if the UN was sent in for one purpose and the mission changes, that would qualify as involvement. It also doesn't matter if the Security Council involvement is military or not, I made no differentiation, (bear in mind what started this tangent was that you point to a lack of UN condemnation of the Arab states' illegal aggression outside of their sovereign borders killing Jews after the British left in disgrace, leaving the Jewish community exposed and vulnerable to genocide...and my request that you produce a resolution authorizing the use of force). My original challenge had no qualifiers, no shifting meanings, no philosophical discussion of the word "why", nor was any other rubbish added with my simple statement that the UN does get involved with civil wars and your hysterical denial of the same. I do not know what else I can do to prove that the UN does get involved in civil wars, the Charter article you quoted has a caveat that allows the UN to get involved in civil wars under Chapter VII, I linked to UN resolutions authorizing force that you dismissed as mere statements, and I have suggested you read what other scholars have said on the subject, which you pretend to have read, but can't quote a single line from when challenged. Now that I have the ball and am ready to score you are running around the pitch (again) with the goal posts, adding qualifiers and extra baggage to my simple statement that aren't there. Is accepting that you are wrong with grace, so difficult? How much evidence is enough to convince you when you are?

See below for more details on the Security Council and civil war, but further, what you are quoting is also taken out of context. A lie by omission. You linked to MONUC when you made that statement. With the link it changes the meaning of what you said, without the link or a valid explanation of why you chose to reinforce some pointless assertion with an irrelevant link is classic evasion. Stop your foolish denial, Bob. You did your research on Wikipedia and got burned with the only external link they provided. You were so happy that the MUNOC link said it was a war with five regional states you wet yourself with excitement. You are sloppy and shit as a researcher. You linked to the Second Congo war, which has nothing to do with the Congo crisis of 1961 and reinforced the cut and paste with an exclamation point. Smug behavior shattered by reality is funny to me. It is clear to see what you meant. Had you wished to show "why" the UN was in the Congo you could have easily quoted relevant UN documents concerning Congo from the relevant time frame under discussion of 1961. You didn't though, until AFTER I showed you to be a buffoon. You are a LIAR and now there is no graceful way out of it for you. You have made too much effort now trying to deny that the UN gets involved with civil war when the historical record is unassailable and perfectly clear that it does. The reason I press forward now is that it highlights and strikes at the very heart of your ignorance and your lack of comprehension, not only on this trifling matter but on everything posted on your idiotic web pages.

The ignorance is yours. I base my assertions and opinions on what is contained, word for word, in the UN Charter and, word for word, in the UNSC resolutions.

When an ignorant person charges someone with ignorance it is a gaff, a funny, a comical situation, but with you it is a pattern, hence you are forever etched in my mind as a Baghdad Bob clone. To someone normal it would be insulting to say that you actually believe what you write. If you had read the resolution word for word you would have understood force was used to prevent a segment of Congo civil society from gaining independence from a people they neither trusted nor respected. If you had read the charter you would have understood the caveat of Chapter VII that allows the UN to intervene in civil affairs. If you had read a history of the conflict you would have understood the word for word resolutions in context. Below I am going to present some examples of how the UN gets involved with civil conflict from credible sources, if you disagree with them you can present other source material to support your side of the argument that I am wrong. First, I want to back track to one particularly ignorant statement, from among a multitude of ignorant ones you have made, though.

Civil Wars are the business and only the business of the State in which the civil war is taking place.

Argue that one with the ICRC emphasis is mine in the quotation below...

...Individuals accused of violating humanitarian law may also be tried by an international criminal court. The United Nations Security Council has established two such courts: the Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda. On 17 July 1998, a Diplomatic Conference convened by the United Nations in Rome adopted the Statute of the International Criminal Court. For the first time in history a permanent international court has jurisdiction over crimes committed not only in the course of international armed conflicts but also during non-international armed conflicts...

So the Security Council established a court to try crimes committed during non-international armed civil wars. Go ahead and argue that non-international conflict does not mean civil war, or that a court that supersedes sovereignty is not Security Council involvement in matters which are "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state". My original assertion is supported. The UN Security Council does get involved in civil matters. Without adding qualifiers to my original statement you have been proven to be wrong at every turn.

Let's take a look at one of these trials, the case of Dusko Tadic. The defense argued on grounds of "lack of jurisdiction" and that the Security Council's Tribunal had no authority to intervene in a civil matter that should have been tried in a Yugoslav national court. The defense also argued that the establishment of the International Tribunal did not promote international peace because the situation was a civil war. However, the prosecutor did not agree...which supports my original assertion once again...take note that the ICJ points to the very same conflict (Congo) that I did and states clearly that "...the Security Council is rich with cases of civil war or internal strife which it classified as a "threat to the peace"...". Will you agree that a "threat to the peace" is the business of the Security Council? if not, you can argue it with an ICJ prosecutor then...

30. It is not necessary for the purposes of the present decision to examine any further the question of the limits of the discretion of the Security Council in determining the existence of a "threat to the peace", for two reasons.

The first is that an armed conflict (or a series of armed conflicts) has been taking place in the territory of the former Yugoslavia since long before the decision of the Security Council to establish this International Tribunal. If it is considered an international armed conflict, there is no doubt that it falls within the literal sense of the words "breach of the peace" (between the parties or, at the very least, would be a as a "threat to the peace" of others).

But even if it were considered merely as an "internal armed conflict", it would still constitute a "threat to the peace" according to the settled practice of the Security Council and the common understanding of the United Nations membership in general. Indeed, the practice of the Security Council is rich with cases of civil war or internal strife which it classified as a "threat to the peace" and dealt with under Chapter VII, with the encouragement or even at the behest of the General Assembly, such as the Congo crisis at the beginning of the 1960s and, more recently, Liberia and Somalia. It can thus be said that there is a common understanding, manifested by the "subsequent practice" of the membership of the United Nations at large, that the "threat to the peace" of Article 39 may include, as one of its species, internal armed conflicts.

and here...

58. The public revulsion against similar offences in the 1990s brought about a reaction on the part of the community of nations: hence, among other remedies, the establishment of an international judicial body by an organ of an organization representing the community of nations: the Security Council. This organ is empowered and mandated, by definition, to deal with trans-boundary matters or matters which, though domestic in nature, may affect "international peace and security" (United Nations Charter, art 2. (1), 2.(7), 24, & 37). It would be a travesty of law and a betrayal of the universal need for justice, should the concept of State sovereignty be allowed to be raised successfully against human rights.

and here...

59. The principle of primacy of this International Tribunal over national courts must be affirmed; the more so since it is confined within the strict limits of Articles 9 and 10 of the Statute and Rules 9 and 10 of the Rules of Procedure of the International Tribunal.

The Trial Chamber was fully justified in writing:

"Before leaving this question relating to the violation of the sovereignty of States, it should be noted that the crimes which the International Tribunal has been called upon to try are not crimes of a purely domestic nature. They are really crimes which are universal in nature, well recognised in international law as serious breaches of international humanitarian law, and transcending the interest of any one State. The Trial Chamber agrees that in such circumstances, the sovereign rights of States cannot and should not take precedence over the right of the international community to act appropriately as they affect the whole of mankind and shock the conscience of all nations of the world. There can therefore be no objection to an international tribunal properly constituted trying these crimes on behalf of the international community."(Decision at Trial, at para. 42.)

and here...

97. Since the 1930s, however, the aforementioned distinction has gradually become more and more blurred, and international legal rules have increasingly emerged or have been agreed upon to regulate internal armed conflict. There exist various reasons for this development. First, civil wars have become more frequent, not only because technological progress has made it easier for groups of individuals to have access to weaponry but also on account of increasing tension, whether ideological, inter-ethnic or economic; as a consequence the international community can no longer turn a blind eye to the legal regime of such wars. Secondly, internal armed conflicts have become more and more cruel and protracted, involving the whole population of the State where they occur: the all-out resort to armed violence has taken on such a magnitude that the difference with international wars has increasingly dwindled (suffice to think of the Spanish civil war, in 1936-39, of the civil war in the Congo, in 1960-1968, the Biafran conflict in Nigeria, 1967-70, the civil strife in Nicaragua, in 1981-1990 or El Salvador, 1980-1993). Thirdly, the large-scale nature of civil strife, coupled with the increasing interdependence of States in the world community, has made it more and more difficult for third States to remain aloof: the economic, political and ideological interests of third States have brought about direct or indirect involvement of third States in this category of conflict, thereby requiring that international law take greater account of their legal regime in order to prevent, as much as possible, adverse spill-over effects. Fourthly, the impetuous development and propagation in the international community of human rights doctrines, particularly after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, has brought about significant changes in international law, notably in the approach to problems besetting the world community. A State-sovereignty-oriented approach has been gradually supplanted by a human-being-oriented approach. Gradually the maxim of Roman law hominum causa omne jus constitutum est (all law is created for the benefit of human beings) has gained a firm foothold in the international community as well. It follows that in the area of armed conflict the distinction between interstate wars and civil wars is losing its value as far as human beings are concerned. Why protect civilians from belligerent violence, or ban rape, torture or the wanton destruction of hospitals, churches, museums or private property, as well as proscribe weapons causing unnecessary suffering when two sovereign States are engaged in war, and yet refrain from enacting the same bans or providing the same protection when armed violence has erupted "only" within the territory of a sovereign State? If international law, while of course duly safeguarding the legitimate interests of States, must gradually turn to the protection of human beings, it is only natural that the aforementioned dichotomy should gradually lose its weight.

As to Lise Howard's book about UN involvement in civil wars. You claimed her book supports your position that the UN does not get involved in civil wars. I asked for a relevant quote from her work to support your empty assertion and you responded with the lie that It’s the whole work that supports your position. Obviously you have not read the book or probably anything she has written. You are a liar, Bob. Too bad for you though. Had you read it, instead of giving us your finest impression of a stool filled colostomy bag, you may have avoided destroying your own credibility through denial. Since nothing I tell you about her work will convince you that what she has to say supports what I am telling you, here is a brief peer review.

and some book reviews by other scholars...

"This is a terrific book: ambitious, important, theoretically sophisticated, meticulously researched and beautifully written. Examining ten cases of UN peacekeeping in civil wars, Howard identifies both the necessary and the sufficient conditions for success in these efforts. This book will have a long shelf-life."
George W. Breslauer, University of California at Berkeley


"Because civil war persists in today’s troubled world, Lise Howard’s dissection of why and how UN peacekeeping missions have succeeded or failed in strengthening local and world peace is essential reading for practitioners and scholars. Her insights should inform the mandates given to future peacekeeping missions, and their composition."
Robert Rotberg, Harvard University

And since you challenged me to quote from her work to support my position, sans the extra baggage you added (you moving the goal posts)... You’re asking me to quote Howard’s paper to show an article exists in the UN Charter?...(tsk, tsk, yourself, Talknic) putting words in my mouth and not quoting me VERBATIM as you DEMAND others do? Why the deception? I asked you to quote from her book anything that supported your original position that "the UN does not get involved in civil wars", that is what I asked, nothing more, no qualifiers of military or non-military involvement, no qualifiers of why UNF are sent, no obfuscation, no dodging, just involvement. But since I would never ask you to do anything that I am not prepared to do myself I will quote the page and paragraph that supports what I have been saying all along in a nut shell...

In the post-Cold War history of UN peacekeeping, there have been thirty-five UN sponsored peacekeeping operations in civil wars. While each operation has unique traits, those that are the most multidimensional should be considered as a group because they all enjoy an underlying base of Security Council support in having the UN, as opposed to regional organizations, or single states, intervene to try to end the civil crisis.

page 4 of, UN peacekeeping in civil wars, by Lise Howard

Go ahead and pretend that you have read the book now and that the UN does not get involved in civil wars...don't forget the fine print in 2 (7) though, you linked to it, you quoted it, you tried to cherry pick it, and you were wrong...

Until such time as states were declared in Palestine, fighting between the civil factions in Palestine, constituted a Civil War. Now. Refer to the UN Charter as to why the UNSC did not become involved. It applied to the situation in Palestine, pre-Israel, just as it did to the Congo and anywhere else.

After referring to the Charter as you demand I found a caveat that states under Chapter VII the Security Council can and has become involved in civil war. But that is not what I asked, and from your non-response you understood that I was referring to a period AFTER the state of Israel declared itself a sovereign on land that British legal experts called, res nullius. Now you can answer my original question which was where is the UN authorization for the Arab states to use force outside of their sovereign territory against innocent Jews? Where is the UN resolution supporting the illegal Arab invasion and murder of Jews beyond their own sovereign borders? You point to a lack of condemnation as acquiescence I point to a lack of support as opposition. The difference is I have already justified my position, with supporting evidence contained at the Foreign Relations of the United States repository, for example, fear of Soviet penetration in the region if force were to be authorized to expel the illegal aggression and attempted genocide of invading Arab armies, for example.


Afraid? No my little pet. I tired of the insane threats to my person, family, business and the ghastly graffiti on my walls from ugly bigots and criminals who support illegal acquisition, illegal annexation and illegal settlements. The information is more important than the identity of the person collecting it and my home & family’s well being takes precedence.

From a documented liar, I am laughing my ass off at this pathetic turnspeak. Are you sure you were not confusing the anti-Jewish graffiti you may have noticed appearing all over the world with something that happened to you? I live 10 minutes from the largest Arab Muslim community in America where tens of thousands of Arabs took to the streets to stand in solidarity with Hezbollah terrorists committing crimes against humanity. I have attended every local event I have time for and have challenged and ridiculed every speaker from Yossi Olmert to Afif Safia to Neve Gordon to Islamic sheiks and I am known and hated by the head of the Palestine Office and other groups that have made me the object of their rage locally. Just this past weekend I spent 7 hours at two mosques debating about Islam. The subject matter I brought up was slavery, honor killing, gender inequality, genocide, and the anti-Semitism in Islamic dogma. I have been cursed at, insulted, jostled, jeered at, and threatened by crowds very angry at what I have to say...yet somehow when the world is full of thousands of deadly terrorist attacks against non-Muslims, rioting over cartoons, death sentences over books, murdering film makers, bombings, torturing, kidnappings, spontaneous jihad, and more I find the courage to use my own name and the conviction to speak my mind at mosques and campuses alike. I do not allow ugly bigots and criminals that support crimes against humanity, terrorism, and genocide to deter me even though I have a young family at risk. You are a coward as well as a liar, Bob. Words matter and so does the identity of the speaker. Hiding behind an alias allows you to be reckless. It shows that propaganda is your goal and that you are ashamed to be known by your words. Perhaps you could at the minimum reveal your gender, age, and academic background? or would that give those out to get you too much of a clue of your real identity?


Speaking of UN 181, you refuse to accept that the document is irrelevant, though you leave far too many questions unanswered to be authoritative.

Now, again, why is such an important document not on the Israeli Government website? Unless of course, they don’t want it cited.

As I have answered, UN 181 has no value in determining the sovereign borders of Israel, it is meaningless. Why would an Israeli Ministry website have something meaningless on its site? They do not have Mein Kampf there either. Why is such an important book not on a Jewish website? Unless of course, they don't want it read.

A) You have yet to prove that a declaration of sovereignty is binding.

B) You have yet to prove that a unilateral declaration by a pre-state political organ is binding on a future state, ie the Declaration of Independence is not proof of Israel's sovereign borders.

C) You have yet to even prove (for argumentative purposes only) that the "intent' of the People's Council was to be bound to UN 181, ie referencing a UN suggestion does not bind a future state to the suggestion.

D) You have yet to prove how a single letter to a head of state written and received before sovereignty was established is a binding contract with the entire world, ie a contested border is not defined on a simple letter to a head of state, ie you have no proof that Israel's borders were defined.

E) If you disagree then point to a relevant body of international law that states clearly that declarations of sovereignty are binding as you claim, then point to a relevant body of international law that states clearly that a letter between heads of state is a binding contract when the borders are not defined in the letter (they are defined in a rejected document elsewhere and they are vague, at that).

F) If you still disagree after searching for proof that does not exist, then explain what all those talks about the "final status" negotiations are about.

AFTER Israeli Sovereignty was unilaterally declared, the Arab States attacked Jewish forces already outside of Israel’s newly declared Sovereignty at the time the Declaration was made.. The fact that Jewish Israeli forces were outside of Israel’s newly declared Sovereignty is why there is no UNSC resolution condemning the Arab States invasion of Palestine. (Israel was an Independent Sovereign State & no longer a part of Palestine on the 15th May 1948) All you’ll find are resolutions calling for both sides to stop fighting.

A) Can you link to any supporting evidence aside from your own moronic conclusions as to why there was no UNSC resolution condemning the illegal Arab states' invasion?

B) The Jews made the declaration BEFORE the Mandate ended.

"It was agreed to declare independence at 4 pm on Friday, eight hours before the Mandate was officially to end, so as not to conflict with the Sabbath."

"At exactly four pm, Ben-Gurion stood up and struck the table with his gavel. The gathering rose and began singing Hatikvah. Ben-Gurion then proceeded: "I shall now read to you the Scroll of the Establishment of the State which has passed its first reading by the National Council.""

It had taken a 32-minute ceremony to restore independence to a people who had remained stateless for 2,000 years.

The Mandate was ending at midnight, this was 8 hours BEFORE the Mandate ended.

Later that night, the United States accorded the new state de facto recognition and as dawn approached, Ben-Gurion addressed the people of the United States in a direct radio broadcast. While he was speaking, Egyptian planes swooped down on Tel Aviv and began bombing the city. Ben-Gurion finished his broadcast and rushed to the Sde Dov Airfield which had been hit.

Was Tel Aviv outside of Israel's "newly declared sovereignty" (whatever that means) as used in your sentence. You must have meant Israel's newly declared borders, which did not exist. Israel was to be anywhere in historical Israel the Jews could maintain control of. Absolutely no restrictions were placed on where Jewish forces could be inside of what had once been mislabeled the Mandate for Palestine. Borders are not required for de facto sovereignty and none were established.


Talknic said...

//When two or more states are involved, it is not a Civil War, even though a Civil War might also be in progress...//

"So it can't be a civil war even when a civil war is in progress?"

If you say so....I didn't.

"After you claimed that the UN Security Council does not get involved in civil wars, I pointed to Security Council resolutions and the Congo crisis of the early 60s as an example to refute your statement,"

Strange that they actually CONFIRM and define, specifically, where the use of force is allowed. I have already gone over this in exacting detail.

" guess is because of relying on Wikipedia for your information .."

Poor guess, especially as you referenced the actual link I gave, which was NOT Wiki.

"..why didn't you just use one of the many UN resolutions of the relevant time period?"

Like the ones I provided and you've answered to, citing passages even. Two lies... Tch tch tch

"As to your new (pointless) claim that the UN has been governed by the charter all along, this reinforces the fact that you are being dishonest."

You've really lost it..

"What I have disputed is your interpretation of what the Charter says and whether the UN has followed the rules you think the Charter lays out. It has not."

Strange the main criticism of the UN is that it DID follow the rules, just as it did in Rwanda. One must first understand the specific limitations of the peace keeping mandate.

"Israel for example, is the only nation that is unequal to all others in violation of the purposes and principles, as codified in Chapter 1, Article 2 (1) of the Charter, a situation the UN has deemed acceptable for 60 years without convening one of its many infamous one sided special sessions on Israel."

Uh huh....where did the numerous UN/UNSC resolutions condemning Israel's illegal behaviour come from? The UN/UNSC perhaps?

" chose a mission statement that explains what the UN is doing in the Congo....four decades prove that there was no civil war in the Congo in 1961, right?"

Er, no, it was to show an explicit example of why the UN was there. But go ahead and repeat yourself ad nauseum. It's kind of like watching a smack freak rolling in the glorious paradise of their vomit before they're jacked up on narcan...(again....)

"It has gone from claiming that the Security Council does not get involved in civil wars to linking to an irrelevant mission statement you found on Wikipedia saying.."

That'd be the MUNOC link I gave. Three lies...

You're out ... Bye.

Michael LeFavour said...

I quoted you verbatim as you demanded. You said the Security Council was not involved in the Congo because of a civil war.

"Strange that they actually CONFIRM and define, specifically, where the use of force is allowed."

I posted the entire resolution in question and quoted verbatim the portions that confirm and define where force is authorized. Force was authorized to prevent civil war, a detail you refuse to accept, which highlights your general lack of comprehension.

The link you gave to MUNOC is the only "external" link on the Wiki article. I like to understand how people make their mistakes, so I dismantled your argument from your point of view and discovered that coincidence in the process. You did your research on site known to be full of errors.

"..why didn't you just use one of the many UN resolutions of the relevant time period?"

Like the ones I provided and you've answered to, citing passages even. Two lies... Tch tch tch

Excuse me? I provided the resolutions AFTER you linked to MUNOC.

"Strange the main criticism of the UN is that it DID follow the rules, just as it did in Rwanda. One must first understand the specific limitations of the peace keeping mandate."

I already detailed the case with references to the ICRC, the ICJ, and more. Yet you remain ignorant. The Security Council DOES get involved in civil wars, exactly as I have claimed. Much electronic ink has been wasted already trying to get you to admit that you are wrong on this irrefutable point.

Read Chapter 1, Article 2 (1) of the Charter. All member nations are supposed to be equals with the rest of the members. Except in the case of Israel, because Israel is not allowed to sit on the Security Council. All other sovereign members can, but not Israel. Point to the many frivolous resolutions against Israel and show which one is meant to rectify this gross inequality in violation of the Charter. Get back to me when you have it.