Slashdot

And our complete apathy towards the largest international diplomatic body are helping... how?

I mean, at least for citizens of the United States to complain about the UN is almost hilarious. Our previous ambassador wanted nothing more than to tear the whole thing down. Half the nation thinks diplomacy is for little girls and real men point missiles at each other until a vein pops or someone blinks.

If we want to improve it, we need to contribute to the process. If we refuse to contribute, and then someone in the UN does something stupid, or goes against US foreign policy, we have no room to complain.

Your discourse helps no one and all it does is promote a helpless fatalism in international politics.

P.S.: Get over yourself and your conspiracy theories. "Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity" should be "never attribute to a massive conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by one middle-manager overreacting." I'm guessing one middle-management-esque official in the UN saw the poster, took unnecessary authority of the situation and demanded that it be taken down. When he didn't get his way he called guards whose job is to listen to higher ups, who did as their job asks without questioning their "boss". And the result was a petty diplomatic incident wherein someone overreached and may even get punished for acting hastily and calling yet more attention to Chinese censorship.

From the UN Charter (the treaty that established it in the 1940s) as a successor to the League of Nations:

This is from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]

Chapter 1, Article 1 of the UN Charter states

The Purposes of the United Nations are[1]

      1. To maintain international peace and security, to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
      2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
      3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
      4. To be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Chapter 1, Article 2 of the UN Charter states

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles:[1]

      1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
      2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
      3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
      4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
      5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
      6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
      7. 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.

Two phrases: 1- "Peace and Security" and 2- "the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members." define and determine why it is so slow to act and is usually ineffective when it comes to "sovereignty" issues. It's technical arms (which usually don't threaten any sovereignty) tend to be quite good.

A few years ago, as a student, I got to go visit the UN's Geneva campus, sponsored by one of the various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that has a presence at the UN. While I was there, I got to go sit in on one of the meetings regarding the formation of the Human Rights Commission. (Committee? Council? I can't remember.) During the meeting, representatives from one of the other NGOs in attendance started to hand out flyers encouraging action in Darfur.

The representative from Sudan was not pleased with this, to say the least, and demanded they cease distributing the flyers. The NGO in question was informed that they were not to do that, and that they'd be removed if they continued to do so.

The UN is a farce when it comes to doing anything useful about human rights.

It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic, the way certain Slashdotters seem to think, if "think" is indeed the right term.

First UN: they don't exist to promote democracy, freedom or any other such ideologically charged ideals - UN is there to promote communication between governments, primarily; everything else secondary to that. When things like emergency aid occur, they are happy consequences of the cooperation that springs from the effort to communicate in an orderly manner. It is also a voluntary organisation - nations choose to participate, they are not forced to do so, and UN doesn't make laws or enforce anything, which is one of the reasons, I suspect, why we so often see that countries make promises and later ignore them.

It is of course nonsense to say that UN "exists to exert power"; that is just one of those sweeping statements that show that you don't know and don't want to know what you are talking about - you just want to spit your gall out on anything or anybody who isn't there to defend themselves. If you want to do something constructive, go and find out where that comes from instead of inventing scapegoats.

The US government prints pieces of paper which Americans send to China. The Chinese make actual useful stuff and send it to America in return. Americans end up with a pile of useful stuff, Chinese end up with a pile of pieces of paper.

Who's getting the worst of the deal here?

I think it's unlikely the US would do nothing - but in any case, China would have a very hard time taking back Taiwan by force, unless they decided to repeatedly throw nukes at them until all the Taiwanese were dead. The only way China has to reach them is by ship, and Taiwan does have a significant military that possesses pretty much the same weaponry the US military has.

"Why didn't the folks promoting the book just stand it up again, I wonder?"

Because they didn't want to be beaten and 'indefinitely detained' for 'interfering in the lawful duties of the authorities'.

limited to no freedom of speech:

My impression is that the Chinese can pretty well say what they want, as long as it does not threaten the one-party rule.

As far as child labor is concerned, I was not so sure, so I googled a bit. It appears that the national government is down on child labor (under 16), but local governments often turn a blind eye.

Here is my reference:

http://www.china-labour.org.hk/en/node/15889 [china-labour.org.hk]

As various sources within the Chinese media have pointed out, documenting occupational health and safety problems among child labourers is inherently difficult because Chinese labour law bans child labour. One newly passed regulation makes the hiring of a minor punishable by a fine of 5000 Yuan per worker (cumulative per month of employ) and suspension of the employer's operating license. Other laws criminalize the placing of underage workers in potentially hazardous situations and forced bonding of a child for the purpose of labour (3). The problem lies not so much with regulation but lack of enforcement. Indeed, despite stiffer penalties, the problem of child labour has only become more serious in recent years. A growing economy coupled with a growing economic disparity provides a fertile ground for exploitation of societies most vulnerable members. Local governments, in a headlong rush to woo manufacturers into their districts are often reticent to enforce regulations against child labour, which might act as an impediment to local economic growth.

The problem of juvenile labour in China is far too multifaceted to be summarized in black and white terms. To address these complexities, we suggest that further and deeper studies into the root causes of the problem be carried out. We see these root causes as being a growing economic disparity in China, a rapidly changing social structure, and a failure of the Chinese educational system to provide adequate and affordable education to all children. Until these issues are addressed, it is our belief that the problem of child labour in China will continue to grow, and as it does incidents involving the injury and death of juvenile workers will continue. (4)

freedom of religion: I googled that. Here is an interesting article: http://www.religiousfreedom.com/wrpt/Chinarpt.htm [religiousfreedom.com]

Not a good situation, but I think the statement no freedom of worship goes too far. But the Chinese government has rules, and we do too (for instance, tax exempt status requirements), The difference is that the IRS does not kill you. Perhaps from the wikipedia article, I note that the official complaint about the Roman Catholic church is not different than one that was popular in the US. Then, again, you may be too young to remember the JFK election campaign. Still, it would seem that the real issue is the role of the Roman Catholic church in the events leading up to the fall of the Soviet Union.

middle class: I guess the Chinese now have more millionaires than the US. I suspect the middle class is developing nicely too.

I am not sure how to classify the Chinese economy, but I suspect a lot of the problems come from the process of accumulation. Communist, socialist, or capitialist accumulation has not been pretty. It does not have to be that way, IMO, but the emperically the historical record is pretty clear.