United Nations - Is it working?

[2H-Dragon]

Originally Posted by Nightbat®

So even the members don't take their utopian organisation seriously, all the more reason to rethink it's existance

might as well leave humanitarian help to the red cross (which has no military threat)
and the peacekeeping to the Americans


Perhaps it looks like I blame the UN for being incompetent
but I know very well that the tool is only as good as the craftsman that uses it

It's bullshit to think that the red cross can handle everything the UN does. The red cross holds absolutly has no power nor does it have the means to force countries to take in refugies. In the UN the countries have a certain pressure to do so.

That you think that UN does nothing is because they prevent shit. Remember that one of the reasons it isn't all it's cracked up to be is because the Americans only to do things they want.

While I understand the critics. It is needed.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

You've quoted me slightly out-of-context.

Not really, I'm just saying there is no cabel.


The rest of your writing is truth itself. Ban needs to wake up a bit more to the organization: it's not the all-powerful position like when he was the minister of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

[Hage-bai]

Finally the US starts to move. It seems to be walking away from the shite hole that is the UNHRC.

[clarakiss~]

nope, it's not working and no one does take the un quite seriously. just a speed bump on the road is all it is i'm afraid. u.u

[Daughter!]

The UN is working...they're just not doing a very good job.

For example, promising that another holocaust would never happen...and I think there's more than one going on currently.

[Spectacular_Insanity]

It has issues, but they can be fixed, I think. In any case, it shouldn't be dissolved - that would be disastrous.

[Xellos-_^]

NEWS ANALYSIS — After more than two years of accusations and probes into the operations of the United Nations Development Program in North Korea, a weighty report finally reveals how routinely, and systematically, the agency disregarded U.N. regulations on how it conducted itself in Kim Jong-Il’s brutal dictatorship, passing on millions of dollars to the regime in the process.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,365676,00.html

http://www.undp.org/dprk/docs/EIIRP_...t_31%20May.pdf

Anyone actually who runs the various UN depts? Where do they get their hires form and who do they answer to?

[Xellos-_^]

So just how useful is the UN if no one listens to it?

[Epyon9283]

Originally Posted by 2H-Dragon

Remember that one of the reasons it isn't all it's cracked up to be is because the Americans only to do things they want.

Anyone in the UN can do whatever they want. Unless they're receiving aid from the UN there is precious little the UN can do in retaliation to disobeying resolutions.

[Aoie_Emesai]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

So just how useful is the UN if no one listens to it?

Just as useful as a tankful of hydrochloric acid for vehicle.

[Irenicus]

So let me get this straight, first you people say that the UN should not have any power over sovereign nations, and then you say it fails because it can't enforce its resolution on sovereign nations, correct?

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

So let me get this straight, first you people say that the UN should not have any power over sovereign nations, and then you say it fails because it can't enforce its resolution on sovereign nations, correct?

Funny how that works, isn't it? They also tend to ignore any successes the UN has had and focus only on the failures, but that could be because the failures are better known.

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

So let me get this straight, first you people say that the UN should not have any power over sovereign nations, and then you say it fails because it can't enforce its resolution on sovereign nations, correct?

The ideal of "Sovereign nation" must first needs to be questioned.
What is a Sovereign nation anyways?
If we still had monarchy and/or the sense of nationalism or extreme racialism it may make sense but if you look at it closely what is the difference between nations and local administrative states and/or counties?
We collect and redistribute wealth within a nation but we do the very samething in an administrative state as well so what is the difference?
Look at EU they differentiate by old national borders but they share the same currency, people can move beyond borders without government papers and tax money is moved from one nation to the other to develop multi-national project so what is the difference?
The same can be said with the United States of America where in theory, state government has equal saying as the federal government.
Of course the bigger the bureaucractic organization, the bigger the white elephant gets but who selects UN officials anyways?
I do not remember voting for an UN official.
How about a permenent millitary organization which only takes orders from the UN organization?
And why in the world is a Security Council with non-elected regular board nations that has veto rights needed?

If UN is going to substain a Security Council, at least they should abolish non-elected regular board nation status and/or privileged veto rights.
Does representative of the State of NewYork and/or Main have a veto right in the Senate and/or house representatives just because they are one of the founding nation of the US?
Of course not.

They should also regulate the numbers of deligates so to match the number of people they are representing and create a taxing system to match economic status.

[Amray]

Their are specific areas in which they can improve, although it is nothing drastic and seriously bad. Their is no denying that they can get a tad better at what they do, although I just think that they are fine at the moment. The UN as a whole is not a topic in which I focus most of my attention on at the moment to be honest. I am the "sit back and watch" type of person.

[Irenicus]

Tri-ring: I'm a fan of the EU as an ideal and my idealist half does prefer a more globalist world, where "sovereign" moves away from single countries upwards towards something bigger and more all-encompassing. However, we're talking about the modern world, and nations are still very much the core structures of international politics, like it or not. I'm merely playing the same ball game that the "UN suck!" people are playing.

As for "sovereign," it's a technical term referring to the highest level of authority acknowledged by its people. In this it is true: the EU countries cede part of their sovereignty to the central organization in Brussels. But this was very much a voluntary decision by the countries involved -- countries, not provinces or cities; if the citizens of Brest or even Bretagne disliked the idea of ceding part of that law-making, judgment-delivering power to the EU, too bad, France agreed. And though I'm not sure of the exact procedure of removing oneself from the EU and the corresponding set of treaties and agreements, or if there even is one such procedure, it is indeed a possible action as long as the individual European countries remain sovereign. So if the government and citizens of France agree to remove themselves from the EU, they could.

That is to say, in the end, France and not Provence, Aquitaine, or Paris, or conversely the EU, has the final say in the fate of its people. The USA is a Federal model -- one that shares sovereignty between the central government and its constituent provinces -- but it differs from the EU or a Confederation in the proportion of power distributed, and of course just how "voluntary" is the participation in the Federal state: which the Civil War gave us the definitive answer I think.

The UN...is entirely different. Its member didn't cede an ounce of sovereignty to the organization, despite what both its strong proponents -- and its detractors, a.k.a. just look at this thread -- believe. True, UN peacekeeping forces regularly intervene in Africa and other disturbed parts of the world, but that's because the area is either in such anarchy that the source of sovereignty is in doubt, or the local government is widely considered illegitimate especially by the major world powers, or the local government agreed to accept UN intervention and aid.

Pointing out at this war between two sovereign nations and say the UN fails because peacekeepers aren't storming into South Ossetia right away just feels like opportunism for delivering cheap shots. On the other hand, it might or might not play a role in the post-war reconstruction, peace-keeping efforts, or even the diplomatic table where the peace treaty will be worked out.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Pointing out at this war between two sovereign nations and say the UN fails because peacekeepers aren't storming into South Ossetia right away just feels like opportunism for delivering cheap shots. On the other hand, it might or might not play a role in the post-war reconstruction, peace-keeping efforts, or even the diplomatic table where the peace treaty will be worked out.

There are UN peacekeepers in S.Ossetia just that all of them are Russian.

My commenting on UN and the Russian/Georgian war has nothing to do with peacekeeper but more on how the UN fail to resolve the powder keg problem while it simmer for 18 years.

Georgia broke away form Russia in the early 90s and S.Ossetia try to break away form Georgia the same time. Yet the the UN has manage to do a single thing about it. and it couldn't stop the resumption of hostilities.

[MidnightViper88]

Let's just say this; When it comes to hostilities, it's the only thing the UN is uber-fail with...

They were in bed with Saddam Hussein with "Food for oil", they can't get Mahmoud Ahmahdenijhadajkljsfklj to cease the Iranian nuclear program, they can't disarm Hezbollah or stop the flow of support they receive from Syria or Iran, and when it comes to their blue helmets, they can't stop them from raping the people they're supposed to protect...

Kofi Koffee used to taste like corruption and had no strength, so I thought that Ban Ki-Moon guy would jive things up, and years later, the UN is still the same as ever...

John Bolton would've worked miracles, if his stay at the UN wasn't so short-cut...

[yezhanquan]

The UN can only work when the powerful members want it to. Otherwise, it's a "talkshop". (And people say that ASEAN is a "talkshop".)

[MidnightViper88]

I love how people were clamoring for the UN to do something about the Georgia-Russia situation...

Hello, people? Russia is a permanent member of the Security Council with veto power; They're not going to shoot themselves in the foot!

IRONY

[yezhanquan]

Originally Posted by MidnightViper88

I love how people were clamoring for the UN to do something about the Georgia-Russia situation...

Hello, people? Russia is a permanent member of the Security Council with veto power; They're not going to shoot themselves in the foot!

IRONY

......People should do some reading before they post such stuff. As long as any of the 5 permanent members has a beef with the issue, you can forget about the UN coming in.