When the UN dismembers a Country

[KimberlyD]

Actually, Yes they can.

A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

And they have expelled countries before. China was one of them after World War II, I believe. I am not sure if Germany walked or was expelled but there was a short period of time when they were not part of the UN because of Hitler. There have been threats towards countries of expulsion towards countries as a means of keeping them in line.

Expulsion from the UN means no aid and cease in trade which can seriously damage many nations. For instance... the larger part of China's income comes from their trade with America. Hence the reason we have so many Chinese products. If China is expelled from the UN, then the US would have to with drawl their trade with China in which will cripple their economy and in turn cause an economical disaster for them. This keeps most countries from going to war with one another or violating the UN's principles.

You are right though, the UN was ORIGINALLY created as a peace keeping organization... however, over time they have gain more and more power over nations. Some say that in time the UN may take over as a centralized global government that will create a world wide governmental system similar to the system in the US. Only time will tell if this will happen and if it will be a good or bad thing. Personally, I would actually love to see the world unified under one government and one set of laws. It would eliminate a lot of wars that way, but only if that government is just and true.

 

[KimberlyD]

Some guys do not understand the role of the UN, I guess. The UN was created to prevent wars. It's mainly for peace-keeping. So any issue that falls under peace-keeping is the UN's turf. The UN does not in any way dismember countries. If so, what's the role of the International Court of Justice anyway? The UN can only reprimand - not oust a country from membership.

Actually, yes they can.

A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

And it there have been a few countries that have been expelled which is damaging.

The UN is primarily controlled by the Axis countries (UK, US, USSR). These countries pretty much make the rules and any country that does not follow these rules risk expulsion from the UN which can be economical devastating to them. An example would be if China were to expelled from the UN the Axis countries would with draw all their trade agreements with them sending China into a fast economic downward spiral because the Axis countries provide a large chunk (I believe it is 99%) of their trade which feeds into their economy. Take that away and they are screwed. It is the UN's way of "keeping the peace". Some believe that the UN is slowly become a centralized global government. Would not be entirely a bad thing to be a unified world... but anyway, I just thought I would pass along the passage from the UN's Charter to quell this debate on whether they can expel someone from their seat.

 

[xTinx]

Actually, yes they can.



And it there have been a few countries that have been expelled which is damaging.

The UN is primarily controlled by the Axis countries (UK, US, USSR). These countries pretty much make the rules and any country that does not follow these rules risk expulsion from the UN which can be economical devastating to them. An example would be if China were to expelled from the UN the Axis countries would with draw all their trade agreements with them sending China into a fast economic downward spiral because the Axis countries provide a large chunk (I believe it is 99%) of their trade which feeds into their economy. Take that away and they are screwed. It is the UN's way of "keeping the peace". Some believe that the UN is slowly become a centralized global government. Would not be entirely a bad thing to be a unified world... but anyway, I just thought I would pass along the passage from the UN's Charter to quell this debate on whether they can expel someone from their seat.

Just to clarify: dismember is not the same as expulsion. Grammar alone would tell you that. Even if you'll be expelled from the UN, that's of no consequence as I've already mentioned because the UN is NOT an international government. Besides, it hasn't done much aside from peacekeeping. Even China does not bow down to the UNCLOS. Expulsion on the grounds of corruption, however, does not make a lick of sense. The UN is not slowly becoming a centralized government, by the way. You need to learn International Relations and Politics to very well understand that. That there is an international government is just a MYTH. I have enough copies of the UN charter to tell you it's never functioned as a government. In fact, if it has, terrorists would have long ceased to exist. We would have one form of government and so on and so forth. Obviously, states are able to maintain their sovereignty. So your claim is pretty much baseless.

 

[kittyworker]

And they have expelled countries before. China was one of them after World War II, I believe. I am not sure if Germany walked or was expelled but there was a short period of time when they were not part of the UN because of Hitler.

The UN was not formed until October of 1945, after World War 2. The government entity that is known as China today was not a member of the UN until 1971, prior to that Taiwan was a member. The UN does not see this as an expulsion, just a change in representation as Taiwan no longer represented the majority of China. There have been several countries that have been withdrawn, East and West Germanys merged to become just germany, Czechoslovakia split to become Czech Republic and Slovakia...

There has not been any nation that has been expelled from the UN. There have been a few countries who have had their Memberships suspended, most notably South Africa but at this point there are no nations suspended.

 

[Bread]

If this news was real, I'm starting wonder where my brain is wandering about all the time. I haven't heard of this and I don't think that the UN have any power to dismember a country, but they can do sanction them or maybe they are able to dismember them if things really go bad? I agree though, why the Philippines? The only thing the vending machines in the government are doing is taking money from their own people, not really something that threatens the peace of the entire world.

 

[KimberlyD]

Just to clarify: dismember is not the same as expulsion. Grammar alone would tell you that. Even if you'll be expelled from the UN, that's of no consequence as I've already mentioned because the UN is NOT an international government. Besides, it hasn't done much aside from peacekeeping. Even China does not bow down to the UNCLOS. Expulsion on the grounds of corruption, however, does not make a lick of sense.

• dis·mem·ber verb \(ˌ)dis-ˈmem-bər\ : to cut or tear (a body) into pieces : to separate (something) into smaller parts
• expulsion (ex·pel) verb \ik-ˈspel\ : to officially force (someone) to leave a place or organization : to push or force (something) out

Although these two words are different in their meaning, their base meaning is the same... to remove. So let us use the correct word for this sentence and replace dismember (which means to remove a limb from a physical body) with expel (which means to remove a person, place, or organization). Now let us look at the UN charter

Article II Chapter 6
A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

Yes they have every right to remove, dismember, or expel (which ever term you wish to use) a country from the UN and there are major consequences of this.

A country that is expelled from the UN no longer has support nor backing from the UN. Therefore, if another country attempts to invade or pick a fight with that country... they are on their own, unless another country gets involved. The likely hood of that happening is not very good in most cases. Also expulsion from the UN means losing trade agreements, which in turn can cause an economic down fall in the expelled country especially if its primary income comes from exports to other countries, i.e. China. China's main income comes from exports to other countries (unless you purposely buy from a certain country, 90% of what you own is most likely from China, Taiwan, or South Korea). Therefore, a loss of export would be economically devastating to them.

There has not been any nation that has been expelled from the UN.

Yes and no.

Resolution 2758 (XXVI)

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,

Recalling the principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

Considering the restoration of the lawful rights of the People's Republic of China is essential both for the protection of the Charter of the United Nations and for the cause that the United Nations must serve under the Charter.

Recognizing that the representatives of the Government of the People's Republic of China are the only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations and that the People's Republic of China is one of the five permanent members of the Security Council,

Decides to restore all its rights to the People's Republic of China and to recognize the representatives of its Government as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations, and to expel forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from the place which they unlawfully occupy at the United Nations and in all the organizations related to it.

1967th plenary meeting
25 October 1971

Key phrase in this document "expel forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek". So yes they did expel a country in essence. They expelled Taiwan by not recognizing their representatives and instead adopting the People's Republic of China as the right seat.

Sorry, I remembered the China part but not the Taiwan. I had to look up the information and realized it was Taiwan that was expelled not China. China replaced Twain's seat.

The UN was not formed until October of 1945, after World War 2

It was actually created in 1920 by Woodrow Wilson (then President of the United States) but it was under the name the League of Nations. In 1946, they became the United Nations.

UN is NOT an international government. Besides, it hasn't done much aside from peacekeeping.

gov·ern·ment noun, often attributive \ˈgə-vər(n)-mənt, -və-mənt; ˈgə-bəm-ənt, -vəm-\ : the group of people who control and make decisions for a country, state, etc. a particular system used for controlling a country, state, etc. : the process or manner of controlling a country, state, etc.

A representative from each state (country) comes together into a counsel chamber to govern over international laws. So yeah, they are a centralized international government. The link I included was to the UN website's international laws page. The basic structure of a government is:

• A President (Leader, Chair... etc.)
  
• A Assembly (Congress, Board, Parliment... etc)
• A Court (Justice System, Legal System... etc)
• A Military unit

The UN has a President... well actually they have three I believe. One for the General Assembly, One for the Security Council, and one for the Economic and Social Council... I think there is a fourth which is for the Trusteeship Council, but I am not positive on this.

The UN and its "organs" are comprised of an assembly of representatives from every nation that is a member. These members make up a "congress" which determines international laws and justice.

The UN has an Internal Court system which governs over international laws and crimes. They even have a law enforcement unit to maintain the laws governed by the UN.

The UN has their own Army which, yes they have been sent for peacekeeping purposes, but they have also been sent to fight in war. All armies around the world are "claimed" to be for peacekeeping as well as defense. The UN's military is no different.

From all of that, they look like an centralized international government to me.

You need to learn International Relations and Politics to very well understand that.

Does a Bachelors majoring in World History and minoring in Political Science count? I haven't decided if I want to pursue a Masters or not as of yet, but I had intended originally to gain a Masters in Political Science. My goal was to teach World History in High school until I get my Masters in Political Science and then to teach Political Science in a College. Since my "problems" have been effecting my abilities.... I'm not sure I want to pursue those goals anymore, but I still maintain a strong interest in international Politics and I have been keeping a close eye on the United Nations for the past 30 years. I almost joined their military (I was 10 when I became interested in them) but then lost interest when I started to realize that I was NOT physically built for the military. LOL

 

[RingoBerry]

Some guys do not understand the role of the UN, I guess. The UN was created to prevent wars. It's mainly for peace-keeping. So any issue that falls under peace-keeping is the UN's turf. The UN does not in any way dismember countries. If so, what's the role of the International Court of Justice anyway? The UN can only reprimand - not oust a country from membership.

I have to agree with this post. UN is centralized in peace-keeping. A country's problem with corruption is the least of their problem compared to the everlasting conflicts happening between nations. And if it does have a say on such matters then why did they direct such an absurd ultimatum to Philippines when there are bigger corruptions happening else where?

 

[KimberlyD]

The UN was created as a means of preventing war... so was the US Federal Government, the purpose of a united government is to keep the peace between states (nations if you prefer to use that term).

Here is an example.... (I'm for the US so I tend to use the US in my examples, but the UK falls under this as well.)

The US is comprised of 50 states (nations) and one district. These 50 states are unified under a federal government stationed in the one district. Each state however has its own government, laws, and constitution. They are merely unified as a single nation under a federal government which is comprised of individuals from every state.... WOW sounds like the UN doesn't it. This federal governments purpose is to set up laws that help maintain peace between the states and keep them unified. The same purpose of the UN. They create laws to help maintain peace on a global scale. However, their "influence" has grown quite a bit since its inception. I am not to sure on this, I need to research this a little further, but I think this has something to do with their ties with NATO.

Look, don't get me wrong. I have no issues with the UN. I am for a united world (ha ha, an unintentional plug for my business). If the UN can achieve a method of governance that unifies the nations of the world as a single planet rather then a planet of divided nations.... I'm all for it. Just as long as it is not corrupt and it is fair.

 

[kittyworker]

The UN is like the party that everyone is invited to so no one is left out. I would say that a country would have to really isolate itself to be removed from the UN. I don't think any country is that stupid at this stage, although I'm holding my breath at North Korea.

 

[tournique]

Incredible that Philippines got corruption out of control. Economic sanctions could hurt the country really, really bad.

 

[KimberlyD]

The UN is like the party that everyone is invited to so no one is left out. I would say that a country would have to really isolate itself to be removed from the UN. I don't think any country is that stupid at this stage, although I'm holding my breath at North Korea.

Love that. Good analogy. I am on board with you on North Korea, the people would suffer more then they are now... but it may push for a better governmental system and reunification of Korea under a parliamentary government rather then a tyrannical one.

 

[kittyworker]

I did a little more digging into this. The UN has NEVER dismembered a country. There are a number of countries that have ceased to exist and thus were no longer members, examples of this are East Germany and West Germany ceased to exist when they reformed Germany. Czechoslovakia ceased to exist when the nation split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

Even during the Korean War when the United Nations was fighting against North Korea, supporters of North Korea and North Korea itself remained part of the UN.

There have been a couple instances were membership was suspended (South Africa being one example of suspension) or one group replaced another group (PRC replacing ROC as representatives of China) but never has a country been fully dismembered. I never expect to see it happen and I don't think the Philippines do either.

 

[orangesunset]

"grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess in jurisdiction."

That pretty much defines the Philippines, from its racist and sexist laws. For example in the event of an annulment (divorce) if the child is under the age of 7 the mother automatically gets custody. The father of said child is not guaranted visitation rights.

Case of OFWs. Filipinos can be "black listed" which means they will not be allowed to work outside the Philippines. Also it is illegal for a Filipino to work outside the Philippines without registering with the Filipino government. This violates human rights and is similar to what the Soviet Union was called on repeatedly.

Protecting terrorists, the person behind the Sabbah terrorist attack (invasion) is walking around freely in the Philippines. Repeatedly Malaysia asked the Philippines to hand the person over they refused. This was the justification used by USA to invade Panama in the 1980s and recently Afghanistan.

The massacure of civilians by government, again the Philippines does nothing.

If the Philippines was not a good US ally, it would have been thrown out of the UN ages ago.

 

[KimberlyD]

I did a little more digging into this. The UN has NEVER dismembered a country. There are a number of countries that have ceased to exist and thus were no longer members, examples of this are East Germany and West Germany ceased to exist when they reformed Germany. Czechoslovakia ceased to exist when the nation split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

Even during the Korean War when the United Nations was fighting against North Korea, supporters of North Korea and North Korea itself remained part of the UN.

There have been a couple instances were membership was suspended (South Africa being one example of suspension) or one group replaced another group (PRC replacing ROC as representatives of China) but never has a country been fully dismembered. I never expect to see it happen and I don't think the Philippines do either.

Explain Taiwan. Taiwan's own governmental documents even mention their expulsion from the UN.

 

[kittyworker]

Explain Taiwan. Taiwan's own governmental documents even mention their expulsion from the UN.

Taiwan was NEVER a member of the UN. The 'Republic of China' was the governing body of the whole of china when they were members as they represented the majority of the Nation of China. When the Republic of China lost control of Mainland China they no longer held power of the people they were supposed to be representing. The PRC being the new governing power of China was invited to the UN. Remember that the UN doesn't recognize Taiwan as being independent of China.