Canada Boycotts North Korean-led UN Disarmament council

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**metallifan**

http://news.sympatico.cbc.ca/world/canada_boycotts_un_body_over_north_korea/5f7586ca

Canada boycotts UN body over North Korea

11/07/2011 6:57:11 PM

CBC News
Canada is boycotting a UN body dedicated to disarmament to protest against North Korea being named its chair, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird announced Monday.

The Conference on Disarmament, where UN members negotiate disarmament and other arms control agreements, is heavily focused on the prevention of a nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament.

"North Korea is simply not a credible chair at this United Nations body. The regime is a major proliferator of nuclear weapons and its non-compliance with its disarmament obligations goes against the fundamental principle of this committee," Baird said during a call with media to make the announcement.

"North Korea's chairmanship undermines the integrity of both the disarmament framework and of the United Nations, and Canada simply will not support that."

North Korea assumed the presidency June 28th and holds it until August 19th. Canada will boycott the committee's activities until then, Baird said.

He acknowledged it is only a short period of time that Canada is refusing to participate at the Geneva-based body, but said it's important that Canada take a strong stand because it is "absurd" that North Korea is leading the group.

"It puts one of the world's worst offenders in the chair. It hurts the crediblity of the United Nations and it's a blow to any meaningful effort at disarmament," said Baird. "I think there's a lot of symbolism here but I think it is important that Canada put forward its voice strongly on this issue."

Countries rotate presidency of the conference, and when North Korea was named chair last month, Baird issued a statement saying he was disappointed and he warned that Canada would review its participation in the committee.

He said on Monday that Canada would seek to reform the way chairs are selected for the conference so that countries such as North Korea and Iran would not have opportunities to chair it in the future.

North Korea has defied multiple UN resolutions on arms control and continued its nuclear weapons program. In 2009, it conducted a nuclear test and in 2010 an international investigation determined that North Korea sunk a South Korean naval ship with a torpedo. The events prompted Canada to further limit trade, investment and other relations with North Korea.

North Korea assumed presidency of the UN body at a meeting on June 28, and the new president of the group, So Se Pyong, told members that he was committed to its work. He said he would work closely with members to strengthen the Conference's ability to deliver results.

Canada's representative at the committee, Marius Grinius, was already ending his time there before Monday's decision was announced. In his farewell remarks at the June 28th meeting, he indicated that Canada is skeptical about the effectiveness of the disarmament body.

According to a summary of the meeting on the UN's website, Grinius spoke about how the committee is on "life support" because it's not the only arena for the negotiation of multilateral disarmament agreements, and that it hadn't been working on new agreements for some time. It has achieved glories in the past, he said, but it's not clear that it will overcome what he described as paralysis at the committee.

Baird said Monday that the group has done good work in the past and been successful in negotiating major treaties but recently it has struggled to reach consensus among its members.

The government's decision to boycott it while North Korea is presiding over it is an effort to reform it so that it is more effective, the foreign affairs minister said. "What I know won't be good for this conference is if countries like Canada just simply remain quiet and go along to get along," said Baird.

Soon after Baird made the announcement, the Liberals issued a statement saying the Conservative government is missing an opportunity to exercise influence over the conference's talks.

"Though it is deplorable that North Korea currently holds the rotating presidency, this should not hinder Canada's ability to have a positive influence on these negotiations. By withdrawing from the conference, Canada is abdicating its responsibility to act and to be heard on important issues such as nuclear non-proliferation, and is giving more radical countries like North Korea and Iran an even greater influence on the outcome of the negotiations," the statement said.

Am I the only one asking just how and why the FETH North Korea was chosen to preside over something related to -disarmament-? Quite frankly I'm amazed that they were even considered 'eligible' for the seat.

I mean, kudos to them if they actually use it for good, honest intent. But really, it's North Korea. We all know this entire council is going to go even further down the can very quickly.

**Stormrider**

Same reason Suadi Arabia is on the Human Rights Council. It's the UN, good on Canada for having principles.

**LordofHats**

And people wonder why the UN is the butt end of a good number of jokes about organizational stupidity.

**Monster Rain**

I don't say this often enough, but:

Good on you, Canada.

**dogma**

LordofHats wrote:And people wonder why the UN is the butt end of a good number of jokes about organizational stupidity.

Because lots of people confuse the compelling interests of the UN with the compelling interests of the nation they happen to be a resident of?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

metallifan wrote:
Am I the only one asking just how and why the FETH North Korea was chosen to preside over something related to -disarmament-? Quite frankly I'm amazed that they were even considered 'eligible' for the seat.

I mean, kudos to them if they actually use it for good, honest intent. But really, it's North Korea. We all know this entire council is going to go even further down the can very quickly.

The chair rotates alphabetically, North Korea was next in line, that's why they're the incoming chair. If they weren't given equal consideration, then any discussion taking place in the Conference would be pointless. How do you enforce a non-binding resolution on a nation which was given no say in whether or not it passed?

**sebster**

I think some people assume the UN should function as a place where the countries they like reign over the rest like Gods. I'm very glad those people never entered international diplomacy.

That said, while it is right for the chair to rotate to North Korea, it is also right for Canada to boycott the committee until then. It's a good symbolic move to inform North Korea exactly how little weight they wield, because of their terrible actions.

**Frazzled**

metallifan wrote:http://news.sympatico.cbc.ca/world/canada_boycotts_un_body_over_north_korea/5f7586ca

Canada boycotts UN body over North Korea

11/07/2011 6:57:11 PM

CBC News
Canada is boycotting a UN body dedicated to disarmament to protest against North Korea being named its chair, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird announced Monday.

The Conference on Disarmament, where UN members negotiate disarmament and other arms control agreements, is heavily focused on the prevention of a nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament.

"North Korea is simply not a credible chair at this United Nations body. The regime is a major proliferator of nuclear weapons and its non-compliance with its disarmament obligations goes against the fundamental principle of this committee," Baird said during a call with media to make the announcement.

"North Korea's chairmanship undermines the integrity of both the disarmament framework and of the United Nations, and Canada simply will not support that."

North Korea assumed the presidency June 28th and holds it until August 19th. Canada will boycott the committee's activities until then, Baird said.

He acknowledged it is only a short period of time that Canada is refusing to participate at the Geneva-based body, but said it's important that Canada take a strong stand because it is "absurd" that North Korea is leading the group.

"It puts one of the world's worst offenders in the chair. It hurts the crediblity of the United Nations and it's a blow to any meaningful effort at disarmament," said Baird. "I think there's a lot of symbolism here but I think it is important that Canada put forward its voice strongly on this issue."

Countries rotate presidency of the conference, and when North Korea was named chair last month, Baird issued a statement saying he was disappointed and he warned that Canada would review its participation in the committee.

He said on Monday that Canada would seek to reform the way chairs are selected for the conference so that countries such as North Korea and Iran would not have opportunities to chair it in the future.

North Korea has defied multiple UN resolutions on arms control and continued its nuclear weapons program. In 2009, it conducted a nuclear test and in 2010 an international investigation determined that North Korea sunk a South Korean naval ship with a torpedo. The events prompted Canada to further limit trade, investment and other relations with North Korea.

North Korea assumed presidency of the UN body at a meeting on June 28, and the new president of the group, So Se Pyong, told members that he was committed to its work. He said he would work closely with members to strengthen the Conference's ability to deliver results.

Canada's representative at the committee, Marius Grinius, was already ending his time there before Monday's decision was announced. In his farewell remarks at the June 28th meeting, he indicated that Canada is skeptical about the effectiveness of the disarmament body.

According to a summary of the meeting on the UN's website, Grinius spoke about how the committee is on "life support" because it's not the only arena for the negotiation of multilateral disarmament agreements, and that it hadn't been working on new agreements for some time. It has achieved glories in the past, he said, but it's not clear that it will overcome what he described as paralysis at the committee.

Baird said Monday that the group has done good work in the past and been successful in negotiating major treaties but recently it has struggled to reach consensus among its members.

The government's decision to boycott it while North Korea is presiding over it is an effort to reform it so that it is more effective, the foreign affairs minister said. "What I know won't be good for this conference is if countries like Canada just simply remain quiet and go along to get along," said Baird.

Soon after Baird made the announcement, the Liberals issued a statement saying the Conservative government is missing an opportunity to exercise influence over the conference's talks.

"Though it is deplorable that North Korea currently holds the rotating presidency, this should not hinder Canada's ability to have a positive influence on these negotiations. By withdrawing from the conference, Canada is abdicating its responsibility to act and to be heard on important issues such as nuclear non-proliferation, and is giving more radical countries like North Korea and Iran an even greater influence on the outcome of the negotiations," the statement said.

Am I the only one asking just how and why the FETH North Korea was chosen to preside over something related to -disarmament-? Quite frankly I'm amazed that they were even considered 'eligible' for the seat.

I mean, kudos to them if they actually use it for good, honest intent. But really, it's North Korea. We all know this entire council is going to go even further down the can very quickly.

Its like, this thread already occurred...

But yea, at least Canada has a little pride.

**LordofHats**

I'm well aware of the purpose of UN councils (we've been over this before). But I think you can hardly penalize anyone for hearing the words "North Korea new chair of UN disarmament council" and responding in laughs and giggles thinking lolwut?

There's a legitimacy problem here that I don't think the UN can solve that hurts their image in the public eye.

That and honestly. Come on. Why should North Korea, a country with a bunch of UN sanctions sacked against it for its nuclear weapons program and oppressive dictatorship, be anywhere near such a position. It doesn't matter what your mission statement is. Most people won't take you seriously when you put NK in charge of a council that deals with disarmament in any capacity. I make no comment on the purpose of UN councils. Just that I find their regular appointment of certain countries rather silly.

**biccat**

LordofHats wrote:I'm well aware of the purpose of UN councils (we've been over this before).

To serve as an international sounding board for petty tyrants and dictators to rage against the west for imagined grievances?

LordofHats wrote:That and honestly. Come on. Why should North Korea, a country with a bunch of UN sanctions sacked against it for its nuclear weapons program and oppressive dictatorship, be anywhere near such a position. It doesn't matter what your mission statement is. Most people won't take you seriously when you put NK in charge of a council that deals with disarmament in any capacity. I make no comment on the purpose of UN councils. Just that I find their regular appointment of certain countries rather silly.

I would imagine that North Korea is very much in favor of nuclear disarmament. Well, for other countries.

**Emperors Faithful**

biccat wrote:
LordofHats wrote:That and honestly. Come on. Why should North Korea, a country with a bunch of UN sanctions sacked against it for its nuclear weapons program and oppressive dictatorship, be anywhere near such a position. It doesn't matter what your mission statement is. Most people won't take you seriously when you put NK in charge of a council that deals with disarmament in any capacity. I make no comment on the purpose of UN councils. Just that I find their regular appointment of certain countries rather silly.

I would imagine that North Korea is very much in favor of nuclear disarmament. Well, for other countries.

I guess that would depend. Does South Korea have nukes?

**dogma**

LordofHats wrote:I'm well aware of the purpose of UN councils (we've been over this before). But I think you can hardly penalize anyone for hearing the words "North Korea new chair of UN disarmament council" and responding in laughs and giggles thinking lolwut?

See, you say you understand the purpose of these Conferences, and then you say something like this...

LordofHats wrote:
There's a legitimacy problem here that I don't think the UN can solve that hurts their image in the public eye.

Which tells me that you're not concerned with the legitimacy of the UN anywhere other than where you presently live. Its like me considering the US Congress to be illegitimate because it doesn't serve the interests of Illinois, and only the state of Illinois. Granted, lots of people look at Congress that way, but that doesn't make it rational, acceptable, or even useful considering the articulated purpose of the United States Congress.

LordofHats wrote:
That and honestly. Come on. Why should North Korea, a country with a bunch of UN sanctions sacked against it for its nuclear weapons program and oppressive dictatorship, be anywhere near such a position. It doesn't matter what your mission statement is. Most people won't take you seriously when you put NK in charge of a council that deals with disarmament in any capacity. I make no comment on the purpose of UN councils. Just that I find their regular appointment of certain countries rather silly.

Actually, a lot of people refuse to take the UN seriously for exactly the opposite reason; ie. it tends to give only token appreciation to the notion that other states might see things in a way which isn't reflected by US interests. Remember, binding UN sanctions are basically the purview of three countries: Britain, France, and the US. The organization is loaded by Western interests from the top down, which is why the various nonbinding Conferences tend to have fairly egalitarian memberships.

After all, its a diplomatic forum, not a world government.

biccat wrote:
To serve as an international sounding board for petty tyrants and dictators to rage against the west for imagined grievances?

That might be funny if the grievances were always imagined, and the people raising them were always tyrants and dictators.

**Monster Rain**

dogma wrote:See, you say you understand the purpose of these Conferences, and then you say something like this...

LordofHats wrote:
There's a legitimacy problem here that I don't think the UN can solve that hurts their image in the public eye.

Which tells me that you're not concerned with the legitimacy of the UN anywhere other than where you presently live. Its like me considering the US Congress to be illegitimate because it doesn't serve the interests of Illinois, and only the state of Illinois. Granted, lots of people look at Congress that way, but that doesn't make it rational, acceptable, or even useful considering the articulated purpose of the United States Congress.

That would be true if North Korea's unsuitability for the position in question was up for debate. To any reasonable objective observer it would be obvious.

Until some countries get their act together I'm afraid they don't deserve an international organization serving their interests, outside of basic humanitarian needs of course.

**biccat**

Monster Rain wrote:outside of basic humanitarian needs of course.

Why?

**Monster Rain**

Because I feel bad for the people being oppressed by those dildos.

**iproxtaco**

Monster Rain wrote:
dogma wrote:See, you say you understand the purpose of these Conferences, and then you say something like this...

LordofHats wrote:
There's a legitimacy problem here that I don't think the UN can solve that hurts their image in the public eye.

Which tells me that you're not concerned with the legitimacy of the UN anywhere other than where you presently live. Its like me considering the US Congress to be illegitimate because it doesn't serve the interests of Illinois, and only the state of Illinois. Granted, lots of people look at Congress that way, but that doesn't make it rational, acceptable, or even useful considering the articulated purpose of the United States Congress.

That would be true if North Korea's unsuitability for the position in question was up for debate. To any reasonable objective observer it would be obvious.

Until some countries get their act together I'm afraid they don't deserve an international organization serving their interests, outside of basic humanitarian needs of course.

Quoted for Damn Truth.

**biccat**

Monster Rain wrote:Because I feel bad for the people being oppressed by those dildos.

Sending them food and humanitarian resources only props up the dildos in question.

If we weren't sending food to North Korea, do you think that Kim Jong Il would last long in power? My guess is no.

**Monster Rain**

Meh, it's hard to say. I understand your position, I really do, but I still just can't say no to sending food to people who need it.

I think if we stopped wasting so much money in other areas, as sebster pointed out, we could send more Humanitarian Aid and not be hurt by it.

**iproxtaco**

He'd remain in power. Any sort of self sufficient service would go to feeding him and those in power, not the people.

**metallifan**

iproxtaco wrote:He'd remain in power. Any sort of self sufficient service would go to feeding him and those in power, not the people.

It doesn't help that NK Officials tell their people that the current humanitarian provisions that they're recieving are sent by the West out of fear of "the might of the DPRK", and that the population actually believes it.

**SilverMK2**

Now we actually can blame Canada when things go horribly wrong

**AlmightyWalrus**

metallifan wrote:
iproxtaco wrote:He'd remain in power. Any sort of self sufficient service would go to feeding him and those in power, not the people.

It doesn't help that NK Officials tell their people that the current humanitarian provisions that they're recieving are sent by the West out of fear of "the might of the DPRK", and that the population actually believes it.

TBH it's true.

We send them stuff because they might go apedroppings crazy and do bad stuff to South Korea otherwise.

**Pyriel-**

Am I the only one asking just how and why the FETH North Korea was chosen to preside over something related to -disarmament-? Quite frankly I'm amazed that they were even considered 'eligible' for the seat.

It´s the Useless Nations, are you surprised?
Syria just got into the human rights council, it´s ok, they just gunned down 2000 protesters.

What´s next, saudi arabia leading the world on religious freedom?
I wont be the slightest surprised if that happens...well it+s rather a question of when that happens, not if.

**SilverMK2**

You can't have one rule for some, and another for the rest. Kind of invalidates the entire point of the United Nations if you alienate and exclude some nations.

**metallifan**

SilverMK2 wrote:You can't have one rule for some, and another for the rest. Kind of invalidates the entire point of the United Nations if you alienate and exclude some nations.

If those few nations are going to abuse their positions and do more harm then good, then we have to agree to disagree on that.

If North Korea could be counted on to use this as an opportunity to better improve their international relations, then I have no issue. But we all know that won't be the case. It's just going to crumble into "K, you guize all gives us all ur nukes and we won't trollolololol South Korea for a few months. KimJongCoolface.jpg"

**Frazzled**

SilverMK2 wrote:You can't have one rule for some, and another for the rest. Kind of invalidates the entire point of the United Nations if you alienate and exclude some nations.

1. When were they united again?
2. If everyone is the same and all just fine, doesn't it invalidate the point of most of these rights councils? Its illogical on its face, especially when most of these positions are elected.

**iproxtaco**

They should have a rule for some and another for the rest. It's fething North Korea, it's a slightly different situation where things aren't as simple as that. It's a dictatorship, with an extremely poor human rights record, why should it be given the same rights in the international organization, when they're actively developing Nuclear Weapons for who knows what purpose?

**Asherian Command**

I can't believe i am saying this........ but.... GO CANADA! Canada pride for the win.

**SilverMK2**

I'm not saying that some countries are not somewhat... unsuited to certain positions, however, "unsuitable" is just a point of view. Certain folks used to be "unsuitable" to sit at the front of the bus... doesn't mean that it is "right" (another subjective point of view, but hey

).

The hope would be that being in a position to oversee or advise/discuss/etc on such comities, members are exposed to views that are not their own and are moved towards a more... moderate? position. Or you could keep some nations at the back of the bus where they never learn anything other than the people at the front are gits, and that everyone at the back thinks the same, so why don't we just ignore them and do our own thing?

**4M2A**

The UN isn't just about making the rest of the world follow our standards. It's about the view of many countires not just a western view.

**Frazzled**

4M2A wrote:The UN isn't just about making the rest of the world follow our standards. It's about the view of many countires not just a western view.

Yes but most places suck.