Timeline for answer to Why did Russia and China veto the recent UN resolution for a ceasefire? by Therac
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 26, 2024 at 4:17 | history | edited | Therac | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 396 characters in body
|
| Mar 26, 2024 at 1:29 | comment | added | Italian Philosopher | Well, now we can are argue about the new one's text. Though apparently it has been posted on wikipedia. | |
| Mar 25, 2024 at 21:26 | comment | added | what number you wanted | @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica: overtaken by events, LOL bbc.com/news/live/… | |
| Mar 25, 2024 at 12:50 | comment | added | QuestionablePresence | @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica but the lack of an enforcement mechanism could also easily be used as an argument to the US to include this stronger language. | |
| Mar 25, 2024 at 2:30 | comment | added | Hanshan | @NoDataDumpNoContribution In their speeches explaining the vote, several countries mentioned their support and expectations for the next resolution. see: english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/… | |
| Mar 25, 2024 at 1:18 | comment | added | Italian Philosopher | @thegodsfromengineering Yes, I've asked resolution "full text of resolution" questions here before and also found it strange then that they are so slow posting them. How are nations' electorates supposed to know if their countries are acting in good faith @ UN if the news reports are based on official feedback but the text is not there? Yet, they had the time to put up 2 pages discussing the resolution that they are too incompetent (it's just a damn CMS, folks) to post right away. Sorry, not generally a UN-hater but this does not do much good for transparency. | |
| Mar 23, 2024 at 19:59 | comment | added | what number you wanted | @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica: it will be linked here research.un.org/en/docs/sc/quick/meetings/2024 (as S/2024/239). For now it gives and ODS error, which means the doc is not yet up. I'm not sure why they need so long to up it. Stuff from last week on Afghanistan is up though. And even stuff from Monday on Haiti. Weekend I guess. 22 was a Friday. | |
| Mar 23, 2024 at 19:46 | comment | added | Therac | @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica It appears there's a delay in publishing these documents, ranging from a week to a couple weeks. | |
| Mar 23, 2024 at 19:46 | history | edited | Therac | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1109 characters in body
|
| Mar 23, 2024 at 17:27 | comment | added | Italian Philosopher | The UN's site is extremely frustrating. For all the money they probably spend on the website, and all the verbiage they expend talking about said resolution and again, where is the &^#S@! full text? I can just imagine the vast teams of bureaucrat-programmers in charge of this. | |
| Mar 23, 2024 at 12:51 | comment | added | Hanshan | By the way, the U.S. resolution designated Hamas as a terrorist organization, which is unacceptable to many countries. | |
| Mar 23, 2024 at 4:49 | history | edited | Therac | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 784 characters in body
|
| Mar 22, 2024 at 23:25 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | "Apparently, Russia and China want an unequivocal resolution" Have they said that somewhere? It might be true, but saying it directly is stronger than only hinting towards it. | |
| Mar 22, 2024 at 22:38 | comment | added | what number you wanted | Meh, a more charitable reading is that it proposed a ceasefire only after the hostages were released, i.e. that it was a conditional call for ceasefire. Anyway Russia and China said the wording was at the very least confusing. | |
| Mar 22, 2024 at 20:21 | comment | added | Therac | @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica That's true. But this lack of enforcement is also why the UN can and often does use the strongest language possible, like calling for immediate permanent peace, knowing it gets toned down a lot in the implementation. | |
| Mar 22, 2024 at 19:21 | comment | added | Italian Philosopher | Good answer, but keep in mind that there is limited if any direct enforcement mechanism on resolutions - absent armed coercion - so the exact legalese meaning may be less factually relevant than would be the case on a traditional contract. To a large extent this might have been "good enough" - and I suspect Russia and China are less concerned with Palestinian welfare than grandstanding at US expense. | |
| Mar 22, 2024 at 18:08 | vote | accept | An_Elephant | ||
| Mar 22, 2024 at 17:56 | history | answered | Therac | CC BY-SA 4.0 |