Yeah. Nobody is going to do anything about it. The world fundamentally doesn't care about the genocide in Xinjiang. And the United Nations is an organization so useless, everyone would be better off without it.
This is evidence of how badly internal US culture war politics have damaged the public’s understanding of institutions and the way the world works.
Which United Nations is useless? The World Health Organisation? The World Food Programme? The UN Security Council? It’s a big organisation with both technical agencies (like the WFP) and forums for countries to coordinate like the General Assembly and Security Council.
The UN is not and never was a world police with the power to stop injustice or war. There are no UN troops or police. The UNSC has no power of it’s own, it’s just a coordination point where the world’s major powers can decide whether or not to take action on any given event. They can choose to fund and approve international interventions, but all that does is give them a budget and legal authority. After that countries still need to voluntarily send troops and equipment for any mission.
The problems with ‘the UN’ are really the problems of our global system and the outsized power that some countries have by virtue of their economic and military strength and geographic control. The only thing that would change if the UN disappeared is that those global powers would have even fewer checks on their behaviour and ability to interfere in less powerful countries.
That pretty much was the original design of the UN, a league of democracies.
I encourage you to dig into history a bit, and find the name of the country which almost forcefully dragged USSR into the UN project, among protest of entire Western Bloc.
It was a very conscious sabotage.
Stalin balked at the last moment, and was convinced by FDR to join because it was believed that if the USSR wasn't part of the UN it was doomed to fail just as the League of Nations had before it. It was better to have the world's major powers be committed into and part of it, rather than outside, even if that meant having less freedom of action to pursue interventions as the UN.
It was a conscious decision to make the world more stable.
While FDR himself was a big proponent of US joining the League of Nations, he himself was fully conscious that him inviting Stalin into the UN would make it pointless, and useless. His fear was exactly that UN will not be toothless, and US position as the biggest post-war power will be hampered by an international body, or it being dragged into conflicts by Europeans, so Stalin was his way to put a deadweight on UN's neck from the beginning.
UN was an organisation which even originally rejected many quite decent democratic nations for minor flaws, and principally, opposition from major powers. Heck, even Germany was only allowed to join in seventies. So, no illusions about that.
Maybe, his another concern was that he would've never be allowed to join the UN by the congress, unless he were to provide the republicans with assurance that the body is useless. That's my own theory I developed when reading on FDR in high school.
That’s quite US-centric.
Completely fucked up their response to covid, mostly of of a fear of Xis ego.
>The World Food Programme?
The world has fought famine by economic growth, not charity
>The UN Security Council?
Can't stop a genocide in Rowanda, Bosnia, let alone in China.
No global agency can work if countries don't cooperate or report false information. We don't have a world government.
> The world has fought famine by economic growth, not charity
False, millions are supported by WFP feeding programmes. This isn't even difficult to look up.
>The UN Security Council?
Again, the UNSC is just a venue where the world's most powerful countries can cooperate. It's not an independent agency with its own army. See point 1, of 'we don't have a world government', above.
All these things you're blaming 'the UN' for should actually be directed at the world's major powers, because they're the ones making all the key decisions. Not UN bureaucrats.
be aware that United Nations has no $$. can I say the main reason for this is the USA not paying its quote?
I just googled and got this https://www.devex.com/news/with-the-us-still-owing-nearly-2b... but try it out yourself
for various reason the Usa is not paying, but UN has to beg for money every time there is a peace keeping operation.
You know how they say: if you own money to a bank, YOU have a problem, but if you own A LOT of money to a bank, the BANK has the problem... so I would say that it is pretty clear that Usa is using this debt to influence (even more) U.N. policy
Nineties - mid-naughties was a short window of opportunity for when it wasn't the case, and the only window when the UN reform was possible.
Bush completely wasted it, and Obama kind of didn't want it, if not being hostile in the background of overall anti-US wave.
This article is about Ethiopia, not China. The issue on the ground there is complex and includes decades of war, and behind the scenes pressuring of a lot of countries. Including the US. And China which stepped into the power vacuum left by former colonial powers and the US withdrawing from the continent in recent decades. Like it or not, the Chinese are running the show across much of Africa now. They have controlling financial interests across the region.
Part of that has been supporting the current Ethiopian government (i.e. the very people accused in the article of preparing for genocide) as part of a negotiated end to previous wars in the area. That regime has been responding to an uprising fueled in large part by their policies to marginalize and oppress the people of Tigray.
That uprising has been unexpectedly swift and violent. Part of the reason that the Ethiopian government is mobilizing and arming citizens is that they are losing ground rapidly and starting to panic. Addis Ababa is a big city and it getting sucked into the conflict is now a possibility. That would not be a good thing; no matter who you support. The people of Tigray just want their independence and freedom from oppression, and now indeed genocide. Hard not to sympathize with that. The way out here is diplomacy; find a solution. That probably means replacing the current regime in Ethiopia. The alternative is another prolonged conflict.
With conflicts like this, following the money is a useful exercise. Both sides must have some financial support. Follow the money and you might end up with a short list of usual suspects. Proxy wars have replaced conventional wars. If genocide happens is it's because of conflicting interests between those.
You don't need to follow the money, it's been very obvious for last decade already.
The old East Bloc was very keen on working with both old Marxist government of Ethiopia, as well as with people who toppled it, just for as long as they strayed away from the West.
Since Abiy was aiming to engage with the West, they put sticks in his wheels, and apparently very successfully so.