Did the UN fail?

[Master Zen]

hmm... either he's writing a VERY long post, or he chickened out.... again.

[Chris 62]

AoA?

Got the wrong fella sonny.

Next,

Indochina 1947 FAILED
China 1948-50 FAILED
Korea 1950 FAILED
Hungary 1956 FAILED
Vietnam 1960 FAILED
Congo 1960 FAILED
Chezoslovakia 1968 FAILED
Cambodia 1975 FAILED
Afghanistan 1979 FAILED

That is the short list, I left out numerous small nations.

You want to play with the big boys, come up with an argument, not verbage kid.

[Master Zen]

Just one more counter before I head to bed...

Originally posted by Chris 62
AoA?

Got the wrong fella sonny.

I don't think so. At least I got the guts to tell people who I really am... or afraid your reptutation will precede you?

Before I start arguing each operation point by point I think you didn't really read (or understand) my very long post, I said the UN has failed during great power issues because in the end these countries have veto power and are able to trounce any effort the UN has to stop them. Who will denounce the US after this iraq war? No one. Why? Veto. Want to see a list of the US's latest vetoes:

on the killing by Israeli forces of several United Nations employees and the destruction of the World Food Programme (WFP) warehouse

on the renewal of the UN peacekeeping mission in Bosnia and the immunity of US peacekeepers from ICC jurisdiction

on the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Palestinian-controlled territory and condemning acts of terror against civilians

on establishing a UN observer force to protect Palestinian civilians
(report of Council meeting SC/7040)

These by the way, have been the only 4 vetoes since 1999, all by the US and all for less than noble-reasons.


Because I am a sport, I will include another conflict which you could have put, SUEZ 1956. It was only due to US economic pressure that the Brit/French withdrew. Once again, I say, the UN has failed in great power struggles because of the inablity to create an institutional check against their actions. The veto power prohibits this. Until the veto is withdrawn, each power is able to do as they wish, of course they are powers becuase they can probably do anything they wish anyway. Why do you expect the UN to be able to solve these types of issues? You are just about to shoot yourself in the foot because if you ask the UN to be more forceful in these matters, then you are also asking thse countries, including the US to cede some sovereign rights in their foreign policy decisions. Want the UN to work? Follow its rules, get rid of the veto. Don't whine when you end up having to do something that goes against your interests. Is any of the 5 veto powers going to accept this? Hell no, so in that sense, don't expect the UN to work. EVER.

Next,

Indochina 1947 FAILED

Frenchies, veto power.

China 1948-50 FAILED

what, stopped a legitimate revolution from ocurring? come on! under that standard the US revolution should also have been condemened had the UN been there.

Korea 1950 FAILED

Excuse me??? Failed? So the 500,000 troops under the UN flag (yes, it was under the UN flag) didn't exist!!!!

Hungary 1956 FAILED

USSR involved, what did you expect?

Vietnam 1960 FAILED

Guess who was involved in this one...

Congo 1960 FAILED

who was backing Belgium? gimme an F gimme an R...

Chezoslovakia 1968 FAILED

Another rusky attack...

Cambodia 1975 FAILED

This one was definitely a failure but then again so was 1972...

Afghanistan 1979 FAILED

do the letters USSR mean anything?

You want to play with the big boys, come up with an argument, not verbage kid.

Man, if you're a big boy, you make big boys look real bad... especially compared to this 23 year old!

BTW, if you ever go to New York, try and get documentation for just ONE month of UN work. You can fill an entire stand at a bookstore with it, probably more than one. And I would also suggest you read it, since I assume you wouldn't have done that...

Have you stopped to wonder the impact the UN has on most small nations? It is staggering the amoung of work that gets done, successful education projects, infrastructure work, technology cooperation, capacity building, meaningless things to people like you who on one hand get pissed that the UN doesn't work, yet at the same time sneer whenever it is even hinted that your country step in line which what it dictates.

The UN by itself will not solve the world's problems, not with the likes of countries like the US and France (yes, I am bashing both) having hegemony over its decisions, not while there is an economies stranglehold over third world nations (care to knock down your trade barriers and play fair? that more than anything will help underdeveloped countries get their first foot out of poverty)

[Master Zen]

After writing this extremely long post, even Masters of Zen must sleep...

[Master Zen]

just one more before I sleep:

these are the voting records of all vetoed resolutions since 1990
(veto country, in favor-veto-against)

USA 12-1-2
on the killing by Israeli forces of several United Nations employees and the destruction of the World Food Programme (WFP) warehouse

USA 13-1-1
S/PV.4563 on the renewal of the UN peacekeeping mission in Bosnia and the immunity of US peacekeepers from ICC jurisdiction
2001

USA 12-1-2
on the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Palestinian-controlled territory and condemning acts of terror against civilians

USA 9-1-4
on establishing a UN observer force to protect Palestinian civilians
(report of Council meeting SC/7040)

China 13-1-1
on the extension of UNPREDEP in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

USA 13-1-1
Demanding Israel's immediate cessation of construction at Jabal Abu Ghneim in East Jerusalem

USA 14-1-0
Calling upon Israel to refrain from East Jerusalem settlement activites

China 14-1-0
Authorization for 155 observers for the purposes of verification of the agreement on the definate ceasefire in Guatemala

USA 14-1-0
on the Occupied Arab Territories (East Jerusalem)

Russian Federation 13-1-1
on Bosnia and Herzegovina. (Transport of goods between the former Yugoslavia and Bosnia)

Russian Federation 14-1-0
on Cyprus (finances)

USA 14-1-0
on the Occupied Arab Territories

USA 13-1-1
on the Violation of Diplomatic Immunities in Panama

why am I putting this? because it just goes to show how this veto power is what blocks many resolutions which reach a big degree of consensus. When one nation vetoes a resolution which has the other 14 nations in favor it just showes who is truly not cooperating here. And that goes for ALL veto nations, not just the US even though the US has been the most willing to use this power as of late.

Fortunatley, the other commissions and councils work a little more harmoniously since there is nowhere near as much hegemony here (i.e. veto power) . During my stint at the economic council last year I had the pleasure of witnessing how the US and Israel and Australia were sometimes the only ones to vote against resolutions which were unanimously voted in favor of by 40+ countries. (and yes, delegates actually laughed when they saw in the electonic voting board just 1 red dot in a sea of green coming from none other than the US) Fortunatelly those resolutions were approved, for the benefit of mankind.

Too bad the security council doesn't work that well. If it did, no one would be complaining the UN didn't work.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Master Zen
I don't think so. At least I got the guts to tell people who I really am... or afraid your reptutation will precede you?

Since you seem to be slow on the uptake, the name is CHRIS 62, just like it says.

Before I start arguing each operation point by point I think you didn't really read (or understand) my very long post, I said the UN has failed during great power issues because in the end these countries have veto power and are able to trounce any effort the UN has to stop them. Who will denounce the US after this iraq war? No one. Why? Veto. Want to see a list of the US's latest vetoes:

The UN doesn't work, is what you are saying, and it's what I said.

These by the way, have been the only 4 vetoes since 1999, all by the US and all for less than noble-reasons.

All four attacking Israel, NONE vs the pals, I wonder why...

Because I am a sport, I will include another conflict which you could have put, SUEZ 1956. It was only due to US economic pressure that the Brit/French withdrew. Once again, I say, the UN has failed in great power struggles because of the inablity to create an institutional check against their actions. The veto power prohibits this. Until the veto is withdrawn, each power is able to do as they wish, of course they are powers becuase they can probably do anything they wish anyway. Why do you expect the UN to be able to solve these types of issues? You are just about to shoot yourself in the foot because if you ask the UN to be more forceful in these matters, then you are also asking thse countries, including the US to cede some sovereign rights in their foreign policy decisions. Want the UN to work? Follow its rules, get rid of the veto. Don't whine when you end up having to do something that goes against your interests. Is any of the 5 veto powers going to accept this? Hell no, so in that sense, don't expect the UN to work. EVER.

You don't seem to pay attention very well.
I'll try again:

WHEN HAS THE UN WORKED??????

Next,

Indochina 1947 FAILED

Frenchies, veto power.

Which means UN Failed.

China 1948-50 FAILED

what, stopped a legitimate revolution from ocurring? come on! under that standard the US revolution should also have been condemened had the UN been there.

It's mission is to prevent the loss of civillians and outside influences in soverign nations, ever hear of the USSR?
In other words, UN Failed.

Korea 1950 FAILED

Excuse me??? Failed? So the 500,000 troops under the UN flag (yes, it was under the UN flag) didn't exist!!!!

50 years the country is a devided stalemate.
YOU call THAT a success????

Hungary 1956 FAILED

USSR involved, what did you expect?

What happened.
UN Failure

Vietnam 1960 FAILED

Guess who was involved in this one...

UN Failure

Congo 1960 FAILED

who was backing Belgium? gimme an F gimme an R...

UN Failure

Chezoslovakia 1968 FAILED

Another rusky attack...

And ANOTHER UN Failure

Cambodia 1975 FAILED

This one was definitely a failure but then again so was 1972...

They ALL are.

Afghanistan 1979 FAILED

do the letters USSR mean anything?

Does the letters "UN" mean anything?
Apparently not.

Man, if you're a big boy, you make big boys look real bad... especially compared to this 23 year old!

Dream on kiddie.

BTW, if you ever go to New York, try and get documentation for just ONE month of UN work. You can fill an entire stand at a bookstore with it, probably more than one. And I would also suggest you read it, since I assume you wouldn't have done that...

Guess who lives in NY, and knows a LOT more about it than you do?

Have you stopped to wonder the impact the UN has on most small nations? It is staggering the amoung of work that gets done, successful education projects, infrastructure work, technology cooperation, capacity building, meaningless things to people like you who on one hand get pissed that the UN doesn't work, yet at the same time sneer whenever it is even hinted that your country step in line which what it dictates.

Humanitarian efforts were carried out before there was a UN, and will be after it's a memory.
This part of your post is ANOTHER Canard, but a valient effort.

The UN by itself will not solve the world's problems, not with the likes of countries like the US and France (yes, I am bashing both) having hegemony over its decisions, not while there is an economies stranglehold over third world nations (care to knock down your trade barriers and play fair? that more than anything will help underdeveloped countries get their first foot out of poverty)

Your arguing MY side now.
The UN as constituted is a flawed and failed organization, you say so yourself.

[Ned]

Master Zen, I find it interesting that you credit the UN for advancing democracy and human rights in the world.

I think it is quite demonstrable that there are only two countries in the world consistently promoting democracy: the US and the UK. The UN seems, rather, to twart efforts to topple dictators, corrupt monarchies and one-party states because so many of its members are not democratic and do not respect human rights. The freed people of Eastern Europe do not thank the UN for freeing them, for example. Certainly, the people of Iraq have every reason to distrust the that UN, rather the US and the UK, will bring democracy to them in a post-Saddam world.

The UN does not have in its charter the advancement of democracy. This is a major reason why it is a failure because only through democracy will human rights and peace and security be guaranteed.

[Master Zen]

Can't help it, just one more:

No, YOU are not getting me. You are arguing the UN DOES NOT WORK. I have been arguing that the UN WORKS IN MANY WAYS, great power struggles being it's only major failure.

What you are doing is simply ignoring all that the UN has done well, and just mentioning it's failures. PLEASE TELL ME WHERE I HAVE SAID THAT THE UN WORKS COMPLETELY 100% TOTALLY PERFECTLY WELL. In fact quote me on it. I have not said it.

It is you who is just being blind to the truth, why? because you are really ignorant at the entirety of the UN's actions and only undesrtand what is fed to you by the news and the web or whatever else you choose to believe. If you actually bothered to investigate all that the UN does you will find it is a success in more ways than one. Will you actually bother to do this? I hope. That way you're arguments may have a bit more sense. In fact I honestly say this not only because we are arguing but because it would do you good to learn more about the things you sarcastically bash, for your own sake.

It is you who has failed to address the arguments behind the question you asked initially: "When has the UN been a success?" You have not proven at any time whether this has been correct and thus, your argument is a total shame, man. Believe it or not, you have been playing at MY game so far to the point that you have totally deviated your argument from the question you posed yoursel.

Unlike you, I am not arguming "when has the UN been a failure?" because unlike you, I am arguing that the UN has been both a failure and success, and I have been able to point out when it has been both and again, NOT once have I claimed the UN to be totally effective, that is the point that you don't understand.

You think I am arguing your side. Yes, I am arguing WHEN the UN has been a failure. You do not have a monopoly on this side of the argument as I have stated it from the start too. YOU have failed to backed up your side of the argument. Game Over. You Lose.

You have unlimited continues though...so keep trying. ... oh, and I actually argue better during daylight

(isn't being arrogant fun??? now I understand you!!! )

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Ned
Master Zen, I find it interesting that you credit the UN for advancing democracy and human rights in the world.

I think it is quite demonstrable that there are only two countries in the world consistently promoting democracy: the US and the UK. The UN seems, rather, to twart efforts to topple dictators, corrupt monarchies and one-party states because so many of its members are not democratic and do not respect human rights. The freed people of Eastern Europe do not thank the UN for freeing them, for example. Certainly, the people of Iraq have every reason to distrust the that UN, rather the US and the UK, will bring democracy to them in a post-Saddam world.

The UN does not have in its charter the advancement of democracy. This is a major reason why it is a failure because only through democracy will human rights and peace and security be guaranteed.

Umm... I never credited the UN for advancing "democracy" explicity. I mentioned it has promoted certain values like human rights which most democracies adhere to. It is this "re-education" of the human self which has made democracy a more accepted form of government. Before 1945 many people didn't give a damn about democracy. Now, even if you sneer at it in public, most people want it in private. I honestly think the UN should be partially credited for this, after all it is an instituation which has given each country a voice (though perhaps not a well-funded vote). When even dictatorships squeal for having rights in the UN forum, then it goes to show that it does touch a nerve...

Now, you are absolutely right about democracy not being mentioned in the UN Charter (AFAIK at least). I believe it is mainly because the USSR would not have like this in 1945. However, much of what the UN advances these days is tainted with the advancement of democracy (again, I hope you qualify my experience in the UN as proof). The problem however, is that democracy is intrinsically linked to the regime of each country. And regime change is not official policy of the UN. Therefore the UN really can't force democracy at anyone.

Basically my view of the UN advancing democracy is in spreading consciousness of the benefits of this type of system, not by doing it by force. Call it positive propaganda. But it works. Little by little it does. Again, I did not credit the UN solely but definitely as a major influence.

On the other hand, I hardly believe the US/UK truly promotes democracy by shoving it down other countries throats. And the number of dictatorships supported by these countries in the last 50 years alone just totally nullifies this argument.

The people of Iraq have reason to distrust all 3.

[Master Zen]

Well guys, now I REALLY will sleep

This Apolyton "one more post" syndrome is almost as bad as Civilization "one more turn" syndrome.

just hope no one posts while the page loads when I reply because knowing myself I will force myself to answer.

And I have to wake up early to hand in a big chuck of my thesis tomorrow, if I don't I will say to my advisor, it was this guy called Ned and this other dude called AoA... (oh, Chris 62 with a rolleyes) who are sabotaging my career...

[Velociryx]

A Short Skit

Vel, GePap standing near a chain link fence. Penned in by the fence is a large dog.

GePap: Hey…nice dog!

Vel: Umm…actually, I think he’s rabid.

GePap: Well, you obviously have no idea what you’re talking about (Ad Lib – Insert superior-sounding phrases here). Sticks hand over fence and calls to dog.

The dog leaps into action at once, snapping and snarling, nearly succeeding in taking GePap’s hand off….he barely pulls it back over the fence in time.

GePap: Did you see that!? That dog tried to bite me!

Vel: I know….shocker, huh?

***Time Passes***

GePap: Hey….nice dog!

Vel: Same dog….still rabid.

GePap: Why on earth would you say that? You really should get a clue.

Vel: Oh…I dunno….the insane gleam in its eyes, frothing at the mouth, the way it growls every time you look at it….if it looks like a rabid dog, and acts like a rabid dog….odds are that it’s….a rabid dog?

GePap: How utterly simplistic of you. sticks hand over fence and calls to the dog

Again, the dog leaps into action, and again, nearly succeeds in removing GePap’s hand…..an even closer call this time!

GePap: Did you SEE that?! Dog almost ripped my hand off!

Vel: What reaction were you expecting?

***Time Passes****

GePap: Hey man….nice dog!

Vel: (Rolls eyes) Here we go again.

GePap: What are you talking about?

Vel: Dude….nothing has changed….it’s still the same rabid dog it was before, and if you stick your hand over the fence again, every indication says that he’ll try to remove it from your arm.

GePap: WHAT indications?!

Yeah.

PS: And for the record, I have read extensively on Saddam’s rule. He’s a regional bully.

-=Vel=-

[Frogman]

Originally posted by Master Zen


If some of you people hate it so much then why did you sign the Charter in the first place, and why do you still remain as members?

I find it pathetic that the UN get's slammed for everything just when it doesn't do whatever the heck the US wants it to. It is not there to satisfy the US's wishes. Believing that is the utmost of arrogance.

Sadly, we don't have another forum for any sort of world council so I guess we're stuck with it.

The UN gets slammed for not being relevant. Sanctions and world opinion add up to much if there is no enforcement. Regarding serious consequences. We already had sanctions on Iraq. If it didn't mean war, I never heard a french alternative.

The problem with the UN as I've said before is that they don't have a unifying mission. I'd like to see it be human rights, but many member nations, even on the security council are years away from accepting it. Until they do, the UN will continue to struggle with disparate ideologies that will undermine any ability to act with unity and moral authority.

Hopefully one day we'll get enough countries to agree to a mission worthy of the UN. Until then, we'll just have to accept that the UN is not united but only a forum for fingerpointing and namecalling, coming together only on the most obvious issues of humanitarian aid.

[DAVOUT]

Is not this a fable? The rabid dog and the idiot.

Fables are good for pedagogy in illustrating difficult ideas. In this one, Vel is playing the role of Europe watching and counselling without doing anything; Gepap is playing the US ignoring what Vel says, and acting as if he was afraid by the dog behind the fence.

And the dog, the rabid dog ? The dog is playing Saddam, unable to hurt Gepap, whatever unreasonnable moves he does.

[TheStinger]

The UN will always be handicapped by the guff about sovreign nations being able to do what they want to their own people. Until a set of ideals and rights are agreed on and are enforceble the UN is always gonna have problems. Take Rwanda, the UN charter says that intervention is ok with genocide but anything below that is left to the country concerned, so what does the UN do, say that it isn't genocide. Mass murder of people whether genocidal or not should not be allowed to go on but the UN whilst saying that it shouldn't go on does nothing to stop it.

[Velociryx]

Good analysis, Davout.

What I was going for though, was:

The dog is Saddam, rabid and predictable. If you give him a target, he will take it.

GePap is Europe - who seems to be of the mindset that trying the same thing over and over again will yield a different result than it did last time ("let's pass a resolution through the UNsc, that'll stop mean ol' Saddam!" (resolution passes). "he's still misbehaving...but I know how we can stop him! Let's pass another resolution through the UNsc!" (resolution passes). "I don't understand! He's STILL misbehaving!? Well, let's try something different....let's try....a resolution!" (and also to illustrate that past actions form trends that can assist in predicting future actions....a thing GePap seems unconvinced of)

Vel is the US, who is mildly amused at the antics, but eventually will get tired of the lack of progress and endlessly repeating cycle, and will put the dog out of everyone's misery (serious consequences in action) (which will no doubt draw the reaction of "but I was so close to making progress with the poor beast!")

-=Vel=-

[DAVOUT]

Vel, good pedagogy should not be ambiguous; in this case however I would think that the two possible understandings reflect the difficulty of the case.

[Velociryx]

Hey...I liked yours! I'll be curious to see what other interpretations come along...

-=Vel=-

[My Wife Hates CIV]

I like this one... however, i bet it's not going over very well with everyone.

'On Thursday, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told a Senate panel that the United Nations "can't be in charge." He suggested that Russia, France and Germany could contribute to postwar reconstruction by writing off Iraq's debts.'



and this... hahahahaha i pissed myself laughing at this one...

'Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said Friday that Russia was hoping that the U.N. would play "the central role."

"The United Nations is endowed with unique powers that other international organizations do not have," said Ivanov, who was attending a meeting of foreign ministers from former Soviet republics in Tajikistan. "These powers are necessary to use in order to quickly find the route to normalizing the situation in Iraq."'



'endowed with unique powers that other international organizations do not have' ????

like who??? and what??? the UN is a bunch of f* ups. i think the last 3 months pretty much sums it all up - as far as how well the UN would do with iraq rebuilding.

[centrifuge]

I think that I took the Rabid dog story in the way that I believe Vel intended. It would seem at least from my perspective that there has been somewhat of a "forgive and forget" (mainly forget) mentality by a few members of the UNsc.
This dog has been rabid for a very long time, so it was necessary to have it put to sleep, not only because it has caused harm in the past, but so that it can't continue to cause harm.

...and now, those that refused to deal with the Rabid dog, want to have control over his back yard.

[Ned]

Originally posted by TheStinger
The UN will always be handicapped by the guff about sovreign nations being able to do what they want to their own people. Until a set of ideals and rights are agreed on and are enforceble the UN is always gonna have problems. Take Rwanda, the UN charter says that intervention is ok with genocide but anything below that is left to the country concerned, so what does the UN do, say that it isn't genocide. Mass murder of people whether genocidal or not should not be allowed to go on but the UN whilst saying that it shouldn't go on does nothing to stop it.

I am very glad that others are now seeing that the UN cannot succeed unless it has an ideology of good government. Democracy and the guarantee of human rights is the only acceptable ideology, IMHO. But we know that so long as most of the members, including some who are permanent members, are of the non democratic flavor, the UN cannot officially be in favor of democracy. So what are we to do with the UN?

But to think that we could turn Iraq over to the UN and get democracy is fantasy. The UN cannot impose a form of government on a people.

However, the US can and will.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by TheStinger
The UN will always be handicapped by the guff about sovreign nations being able to do what they want to their own people. Until a set of ideals and rights are agreed on and are enforceble the UN is always gonna have problems. Take Rwanda, the UN charter says that intervention is ok with genocide but anything below that is left to the country concerned, so what does the UN do, say that it isn't genocide. Mass murder of people whether genocidal or not should not be allowed to go on but the UN whilst saying that it shouldn't go on does nothing to stop it.

Actually the UN's standards for intervention go way beyond just genocide. Read Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

[Velociryx]

"UN Standards"....isn't that like saying "Military Intelligence"?

-=Vel=-

[SlowwHand]

The U.N. will resemble the former U.S.S.R., no longer existing.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Ned


I am very glad that others are now seeing that the UN cannot succeed unless it has an ideology of good government. Democracy and the guarantee of human rights is the only acceptable ideology, IMHO. But we know that so long as most of the members, including some who are permanent members, are of the non democratic flavor, the UN cannot officially be in favor of democracy. So what are we to do with the UN?

But to think that we could turn Iraq over to the UN and get democracy is fantasy. The UN cannot impose a form of government on a people.

However, the US can and will.

Most of the UN members are actually democracies. I think I already explained that the UN does in fact promote democracy officially even if it is not explicity stated in the charter.

Also, consider that true liberty is allowing countries to choose their destiny. Hitler got to power democratically just in case you forgot. The OAS (kind of an American version of the UN) recently signed the "democratic charter" in which it stated more or less that democracy should be the only accepted form of government in the region (it was donde just to screw Cuba and Venezuela actually). Most countries signed it but there was a huge backlash by most peoples in these countries.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Velociryx
"UN Standards"....isn't that like saying "Military Intelligence"?

-=Vel=-

yeah, just like saying "Operation Iraqui Freedom" too right?

[SlowwHand]

[yavoon]

so ur saying the agreed upon "serious consequences" is that they will get another resolution? ur a joke, and the very fact that u think that proves howmuch of a joke the UN is.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by yavoon
so ur saying the agreed upon "serious consequences" is that they will get another resolution? ur a joke, and the very fact that u think that proves howmuch of a joke the UN is.

first go and take a lesson in diplomatic language and how the UN works, then come back and post something intelligent.

[yavoon]

isnt that at the heart of the problem tho? "how the UN works." I mean many ppl call it a useless organization and ur only proving their case w/ utter trash like that.

think about it, draft one resoultion, if u dont comply we will draft another resolution that might or might not permit us to declare war. doesnt comply.....france decides to veto resolution, point becomes moot, entire house of cards falls. UN is once again useless.

I mean dont make my pt for me too well.

[Master Zen]

The US knew all along how this worked. If they didn't, why did they draft up the 2nd resolution which never got voted on?