| Is the UN useless ?
Posted: 8/20/2006 1:43:28 AM | Did a thread search but couldn't find this one (which is odd considering I could have sworn I'd seen it before. Anyway....)
So what is it with the UN anyway ?
At this point the credibility of the organization is more or less down the tubes. It's not that it isn't TRYING to straighten things out, it's that it doesn't have the means to do so.
What can we do ? Should we even do anything anyway ? Perhaps we should just let it whither and die to be replaced by a more powerful and frankly, sovereign body. On the other hand, we could try and reconfigure it to be that way.
Let's face it, no matter what your politics are, the UN has failed you. It didn't do much of anything to keep Bush from invading Iraq. It certainly hasn't done much to keep Israel and Hizbollah away from each others' throats. Sure, they pass all kinds of resolutions which, without the backing by strong nations or muscle to enforce, are ignored. Like its predecessor, the League of Nations, the UN seems doomed due to its impotency. If it's a forum for discussion, it should have no (theoretically) binding policies. If it's an organization dedicated to keeping order, it needs to start doing what it says it's going to do.
So fix, dump it, build it up....what ? And how ? | |
|
| Is the UN useless ?
Posted: 8/20/2006 3:48:44 AM | When the UN was created after WW II, the world was a very dangerous place. Most of civilization had been destroyed and the nuclear threat hung over everybody's head like Damocles' sword. The victors of the war (US, UK, France, China, USSR) annointed themselves permanent members of the Security Council with four spots open for temporary membership. These nations had the power and (as Spiderman's uncle would tell you) the responsibility to keep humanity secure.
The UN was designed so that it had no power unless it came from the political will of the Security Council. That way, the UN couldn't be used against them. China and the USSR made the mistake of missing a vote, thus starting the Korean War. When Kofi Annan told Bush the War with Iraq was not a good idea, he was ignored because, at the end of the day, he's just a dude in an office. The UN has no standing army that can back anything up, let alone tell people what to do. If your problem isn't a problem for the Big Five, it just ain't a problem (ask the Rwandans).
The biggest opponent The UN has to empowering itself is the USA. They don't want Presidents held accountable for war crimes in some foreigner's court, they don't want to have policy dictated to by Africans (or worse, the French), and the religious right is frightened to death of a "world government" (unless it's run by the President of the US when America's Manifest Destiny becomes fulfilled). Hell, the US doesn't even want to pay its bills the UN says they owe.
To reform the UN, you have to start with the Security Council. Divide the world up in districts and re-assign the seats as follows:
1 seat to North America
1 seat to Central America
1 seat to South America
1 seat to Europe
1 seat to Africa
1 seat to Middle East (including Israel)
1 seat to Northwest Asia
1 seat to Southeast Asia
1 seat to Oceana (Australia, NZ, Fiji, etc)
Each district chooses what nation will sit for a five year term. That nation will be responsible for securty for their district (usually the one with the best army at the time). The US will oppose it because the "bad guys" will outnumber the "good guys", but it does more accurately reflect the political makeup of humanity and is flexible enough to change with the times.
While a standing army is a little too much for the UN at this time, I propose the formation of an Anti-Genocide Unit. When not in use, it would have a small staff of officers (perhaps from South Africa, Israel and Rwanda)who learn everything there is to know about combatting genocide and creating reconcilliation afterwards. When the Security Council formally recognize a situation as a genocide, just add troops and deploy. Unfortunatley, its acronym would be UNAGU, which is silly to say aloud (you-NA-goo? Ewww).
To put this plan into action, the Security Council members have to get off their high horse, which isn't likely to happen soon. | |
|
| Is the UN useless ?
Posted: 8/20/2006 8:06:49 AM | A seat for Central America?
Great post Pulse! IMHO The UN's uselessness comes from the arrogance of powerfull players like our current administration that see no profit in peace or genuine participation in our modern community of nations. When you label an entity as irrelevant just because that entity is not a means to your ends then you've completely seen fit to throw the unity portion of the entity right out the window now haven't you? The UN may be useless to the Bush Administration, but it has helped to raise the standard of living in less developed countries all over the world for decades. They could be much better, but only with a spirit of cooperative and quasi altruistic participation this Administration apparently has no compulsion to assume. | |
|
| Is the UN useless ?
Posted: 8/20/2006 9:24:58 AM | | The UN is no better or worse than its member nations. The permanent five members of the Security Council hold all the power in the UN. Nothing they do not apporve of can go through because they have veto power over any Security Council resolutions. In case any of you are wondering who those all powerful five member nations are they are the US, UK, France, China, and Russia. If anyone has any problems with the way the UN functions or does not function, take it up with them. | |
|
| Is the UN useless ?
Posted: 8/20/2006 2:49:16 PM | to one as tyrranical as****Cheney and as unskilled as George Bush, the UN is useless... yes.
Kind of like three syllable words are to George Bush... there's a reason for it to be there, but he'll never be able to use it, yaknow?
| |
|
| Is the UN useless ?
Posted: 8/20/2006 2:51:14 PM |
Is the UN useless ?
Is this a rhetorical question? | |
|
| Is the UN useless ?
Posted: 8/20/2006 3:26:39 PM | It ain't perfect, but it is a forum for all nations. So stuff like the bombing of Lebanon can be dealt with. Most of the useful things never get reported since they are things that avert crises, but the crisis would be reported if there was no UN.
Plenty of shortfalls; corrupt, unaccountable agencies; often moves too slow, like in Rwanda; but we're better off with it's existence. | |
|
| Is the UN useless ?
Posted: 8/20/2006 3:39:31 PM |
It becomes useless when we send someone like "Stop the count Bolton".
Clown congressman checking out Oil for food.
Why it is not working??
We the people of the USA hate the UN.
We dont want it to work, dont b!tch when we get what we want.
Thank you Jess Helms. | |
|
| Is the UN useless ?
Posted: 8/20/2006 3:46:00 PM | | the un is useless only when the decisions do not go your way. the un gave existence to israel but of all the countries israel is the one which least respect the un and its decisions. it does not need it anymore. of course many idiots have been repeating what bush and his cronies think about the un and the need to do without it. but for a lot of country, it's the last hope. | |
|
rks58
|
Joined: 1/28/2006
Msg: 10 | |
| Is the UN useless ?
Posted: 8/20/2006 3:51:34 PM | Is this a rhetorical question?
Let's see:
UNESCO, UNICEF, WHO, UNDP, OCHA, etc.
Congo, Namibia, Cyprus, Croatia, Prevlaka, Cambodia, Guatamala, Dominican, etc.
For as much as the US tried to convince the world that the the UN wasn't doing anything to make sure Iraq destroyed its' chemical and biological weapons, the results of the US's Iraq Survey Group admitted that they were actually very successful.
Pretty interesting isn't it, for months Bush was making statements almost daily about how the UN was failing on the WMD issue but once the ISG came back and said "no WMD's" there was not one word from him about how successful the monitoring actually was.
The reality is that the UN can only be as effective as the Security Council and which permanent member has used its' veto the most?
Not including applications for membership, the US has vetoed more resolutions than any other member with the USSR being a close second.
US, 76 other than membership.
USSR, 71 other than membership
(US has vetoed 5 memberships, the USSR has vetoed 51 memberships. All of these membership applications eventually passed).
Since '91 France and Britain have used 0, China has used 2, Russia has used 3 and the US has used 12
Before anyone complains about the UN being useless maybe they should look at who has made the most significant contributions to the problem and see if the answer isn't there. | |
|
| Is the UN useless ?
Posted: 8/20/2006 6:51:36 PM | The UN was created to promote collective security among the nations of the world.
When the leading nations of the world actually become interested in collective security again, perhaps the UN will be more effective. | |
|
| Is the UN useless ?
Posted: 8/20/2006 7:12:52 PM | | YES .. The U.n. is terroist organization. It favors every anti American Terroist group out there. ANY GROUP Anti American gets backed by the Anti American U.N. Terroist Suck ass Shit heads.. Anna Digs Taylor is a threat to the U.S. | |
|
vivid
|
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 13 | |
| Is the UN useless ?
Posted: 8/21/2006 4:49:07 AM | When the leading nations of the world actually become interested in collective security again, perhaps the UN will be more effective.
I think oil's usefullness has another 100 years to go so it'll be a long wait before
nations' leaders respect the law.
U.N. Terroist Suck ass Shit heads
Tough weekend? | |
|
Hezron
|
Joined: 12/15/2005
Msg: 14 | |
| Is the UN useless ?
Posted: 8/21/2006 5:03:29 AM | Power comes only when you have the ability to inflict damage. Damage can be economic, military, but if you don't have the muscle to back up your resolutions then you are just wasting money with fancy offices. I watched Team America World Police this weekend and they summed it up...the UN inspector visits North Korea and warns that they must open for inspection...if they don't...well...they will get very upset ...so upset that they will leave and then write them a letter detailing how upset they are....hehehehehehehehe. | |
|
vivid
|
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 15 | |
| Is the UN useless ?
Posted: 8/21/2006 5:13:06 AM | ^^^ the scary thing is, knowing humanity, all nations will have the bomb
in their a***nal and ultimately it will end in a stalemate and the UN will
all of a sudden become a pretty damn important place to be.
China....they see nothing wrong with sharing Nuke technology with Iran - their
national security depends on securing oil. And Iran...well, once they secure
a ready-made nuke from China (could happen), the smug attitudes will
change rapidly.
Here's to that day! | |
|
| Is the UN useless ?
Posted: 8/21/2006 11:37:07 PM | | The U.N. isn't useless, it is merely weak and not very effective...The U.N. said no to an invasion of Iraq, the U.S. went ahead and did it anyways. Now, if that were some other country wanting to invade Iraq, such as, let's say Poland, and the U.N. said no, Poland would have complied. But, let's say they ignored the U.N. like America did. Poland would have invaded, and found itself punished severely by the U.N. and her member nations...If you're only willing to throw your weight around against every country except the U.S.A. then you may as well fly the U.S. flag and admit you're just a branch of the U.S. military that uses troops from other nations... | |
|
| Is the UN useless ?
Posted: 8/22/2006 12:01:12 AM | The UN is a fundamentally flawed body that does not deserve much respect.
It's not democratic, it does not work, and it causes respectable nations like Canada to shift responsability for foreign policy away from our country, an onto an unelected collection of bureaucrats in New York.
It is riddled with corruption and scandal, it is unaccountable...at best it's a well intentioned failure, at worst it's a joke. | |
|
| Is the UN useless ?
Posted: 8/22/2006 1:11:52 AM | The UN is a reflection of its members - and of the world it exists in.
Like I said before, when nations actually get around to caring about collective security again, the UN will become more effective.
Unfortunately, the U.S. agenda, and the inordinate power of multinational corporations is what runs the world right now.
The UN's humanitarian, educational, and scientific contributions, though, are a great asset to humanity. | |
|
| Is the UN useless ?
Posted: 8/28/2006 11:05:54 PM | Great topic, and a darn good choice of Nicks
At this point the credibility of the organization is more or less down the tubes. It's not that it isn't TRYING to straighten things out, it's that it doesn't have the means to do so.
The UN has no standing army that can back anything up, let alone tell people what to do. If your problem isn't a problem for the Big Five, it just ain't a problem (ask the Rwandans).
The UN's humanitarian, educational, and scientific contributions, though, are a great asset to humanity
I won't bother copying the politically biased drivel that I disagree with. I copied the above to show solidarity with those who appear have a more enlightened view of what is being discussed, and haven't chosen this thread for their political soap box. The UN's peacemaking abilities do have a lot to do with the interests of those with veto power, but the veto does help keep the world safer when one super power wants to meddle with the interests of another super power and the meddler is subsequently vetoed. I suppose that is the simplicity of the primary mission: Prevention of a large scale conflict.
The smaller nations occasionally have to go into the ring with bare fists. They have to plead their case to the Judges. They might even try to bribe them from time to time. Imagine that? It's a kangaroo court with a few really big kangaroos. Its success was dependent on the collective wills of the super powers, and their resolve to enforce the resolutions with or without bribes and oil deals and hidden arms shipments. It's future success is changed by the Iraq/Bush/Blair/terrorism adjustment in the eyes of the "Free World," though I suspect that Bush's actions were preceded by similar previous aggressions by the USSR and maybe China. A small region called Tibet and another known as Chechnya come to mind if anyone would like to carry this reference further. If another nation chooses to enforce a resolution that the UN has failed to enforce, it will now depend only on that nations resolve to enforce an existing resolution when the security council takes no additional action; and consequently, it will depend on the resolve of the rest to defy the actions of the first. If the resolve is there, the fight will occur anyway.
The UN is a diplomatic tool. The meaning of diplomacy infers that there are two sides, and usually leaves options. The UN is also a humanitarian organization which attempts to resolve crisis other than wars. The UN can only carry the mandate of non-vetoed resolutions. As such, it is not impotent, but relies on the resolve and interests of the super powers for its success. It would take a very strong power, from within or without, to actually destroy the UN. It appears feeble now, because there are no clear mandates of the combined will of the super powers. This Lion could roar if it wants to. It just doesn't want to.
at best it's a well intentioned failure, at worst it's a joke.
I dare to say that we have not yet seen its best, and actually pray that we will never see the type of devastation that would probably have to occur to see the super powers unite with a common goal and forgo their private interests. | |
|
| Is the UN useless ?
Posted: 8/29/2006 1:35:53 AM | I read most of the replies and I somewhat agree and I somewhat disagree. Yes, the U.N. isn't as helpful to the U.S. as most would hope, but then again the U.N. isn't designed to help countries that don't need help. It's designed for the leading powers of the world to help countries that can't help their people. The U.N., however, is not completly useless. I think that people get the wrong idea for what the U.N. is about. The U.N. is not there to prevent wars; it doesn't have the capability. It's there for humanitarian clean-ups, peace keeping (and when tensions rise it's up to the powers of the world to individually stop it), and other non-violent purposes. Another thing is that how can you really expect the U.N. to get anything major done when it's got most of the major powers of the world in it that all have a say. Most of them are enemies with each other and it only takes one veto for something to get rejected. I think we need to stop expecting the U.N. to be able to prevent wars and then we might start seeing the little things that it actually does.
-Drew- | |
|
| Is the UN useless ?
Posted: 8/29/2006 1:44:22 AM | Oh yeah, and I almost forgot.
Trailsman5:
Your seats are way off. You can't give seats solely by geography. According to your proposal, North America, which consists of the U.S. and Canada gets 1 seat and all of Africa gets 1 seat. How is that fair? You also have Europe getting 1 seat, and Europe does consist of the UK, Ireland, Sweden, Frace, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, etc. One seat goes to the Middle East? So either your forgetting about most of the arab countries or your excluding Israel, hmmm...What country in Central America is even worth a seat? Mexico? We also have that problem in Africa. What consists of Northwest Asia? Russia and Mongolia? And what country in Southeast Asia is worth a seat? And then Australia, NZ, Fiji, and all the other islands that basically have no military power? I'd say Australia would be the only option. So in Europe you easily have 4 or 5 countries that could take the seat while in North America you really only have 1 and in half the world you my as well flip a coin to give seats away...this proposal is horrible. | |
|
| Is the UN useless ?
Posted: 8/29/2006 2:42:39 AM | My goodness, don't you see what UN stands for ??????
Useless Nation !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seriously, I'm not in any position to judge........ | |
|
|
Home
login 
