United Nations - Is it working?

[Xellos-_^]

The UN was created after WW2 in attempt to prevent future wars and provide a place for nations discuss their difference and problems.

While the idea behind it is noble one I question how much of a effect the UN actually has?

Its peace keeper are toothless tigers as shown by the Bosnia civil war when Serb forces would over run UN safe havens and massacre the civilians. It didn't even try to stop the Rwanda civil war when at half million people were murder. The UN back government in somalia is a joke.

It has no military forces of its own and rely almost entirely on NATO and by extension the US.

Its bureaucracy is huge, corrupt and does almost nothing, at least anything i can see.

Is there actually any reason to keep it around? and it is fixable in anyway?

[Kang Seung Jae]

The UN is great for helping the poor nations.


However, I've always been against the idea of a world police force, expecially from an international organization.

[Lathdrinor]

The UN will never quite work (as it's intended) so long as nations have competing geo-political interests. In a thoroughly globalized world, where business interests are necessarily international, the UN will work. But by then, the nation-state would have ceased to exist.

[ApostleOfGod]

Team America - World Police!

Unfortunately, it's not a role that America should handle alone - the "lesser" nations should stop relying on her as well.

UN works better than its former League of Nations

It does look after the poor, rather, it takes into account of their existence as it IS the biggest international organization of countries..

Problems in the UN isn't something that you can fix with the blink of an eye - Capitalist exists along Communism, Christianity with Atheism along with all the other religions that are too many to mention, Principles along different Principles, morals and ideals, and so on.

[yezhanquan]

It may not be graceful, but it certainly is among the better things which we can come up with right now.

[Kyuusai]

Like most issues, there are many sides.

The UN has been valuable in providing an organized platform for discussion and for providing an avenue for providing military manpower for both violent and non-violent issues while defusing the national friction that would develop if it were provided through more direct means. It has also highlighted issues of poverty, famine, and lack of medical care in many areas.

Unfortunately, as with any such organization, it has grown fat, bloated, inefficient, corrupt, politically correct, and assumes powers it should never have had. On top of this, the abuses of power, money, authority, and diplomatic immunity by individuals is open and rampant.

The UN, by all rights, should be put down like the sick, broken down horse it is. The only problem is that the only thing worse than the UN is having nothing at all. We need an alternative to the UN. One with accountability, streamlined structure, integrity. I have no suggestions for how to make that happen, though.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

The only problem is that the only thing worse than the UN is having nothing at all.

Sort of like Democracy.

[ApostleOfGod]

What would be considered "better" considering that UN is next best to nothing?

[Sorrow-K]

I personally think the most important thing to consider with the existence of the UN is international law, and the question of who writes it, who maintains it, and who enforces it. Without knowing enough about it, my understanding is that the UN plays an important part in at least facilitating the multilateral relationships that give birth to international agreements and treaties which typically form the starting points for international law. And the UN also plays (some sort of) a role in enforcing it... though strong arguments can be made that it doesn't do this very well. But, as far as I can see, abandoning the UN would come at a great detriment to effectiveness of how international law functions in its current state.

I'm all for changes being made to the UN, and I think that certainly measures need to be implemented which address the accountability and efficiency issues that Kyuusai brought up. But it certainly shouldn't be abandoned. It certainly doesn't help, though, when some of the strongest nations involved, such as the US, a permanent member of the security council, actively subvert it like they did with the invasion of Iraq. Veto power for the permanent members of the security council is one of the many features of the UN that need to be re-thought.

Edit: (And, yes, the US isn't the only member nation that's guilty of such action).

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by Sorrow-K

It certainly doesn't help, though, when some of the strongest nations involved, such as the US, a permanent member of the security council, actively subvert it like they did with the invasion of Iraq. Veto power for the permanent members of the security council is one of the many features of the UN that need to be re-thought.

Edit: (And, yes, the US isn't the only member nation that's guilty of such action).

I actually think Iraq is a great example of what's wrong on all sides (I know you're not singling the US out, I'm just running with the example).

Toothless resolutions, member nations refusing to enforce their resolutions and conditions, the farcical, overly-limited-in-scope inspection programs, eagerness of the nations who'd made resolutions limiting Saddam's armaments to sell him arms that violated the resolutions, the corruption of the "Oil for Food" program, and the horribly designed and both improperly applied and removed sanctions, to finally the US invading without a UN mandate (All discussions of legality or legitimacy aside, a mandate was not required, legally, but I think ought to be obtained in such an important situation).

Had any of the above not been so, we wouldn't see the situation in Iraq we do right now.

[Lanner Falcon]

No, it isn't.

It was made for diplomacy, but then set its goal as something akin to a supreme body.
And that goal has failed.

World government could only come though a gradual process akin to to unionization, that would end in a world republic. And it might not be a good idea, either…

[Kamui4356]

The UN certainly has problems with corruption and bureaucracy and needs some reforms, but in general the world is a much better place with the UN than without it. The general assembly isn't all there is to the UN after all. UN agencies have done a lot of good, most notibly the World Health Organization which played a big role in the eradication of small pox and is working on doing the same with polio. Yes the UN has had some very public failures, but it's had some much less publicized successes.

[Irenicus]

Instead of the usual approach, I'd ask this question instead:

Is the UN as good as the sum of its parts?

[Reckoner]

Another thing that pisses me off about the UN, besides comments already posted, is that America basically funds the majority of it by ourselves. I mean... what the hell?

[yezhanquan]

The US share of the UN budget is large, but it's not more than 50% of the whole thing.

The UN money issue is one which had to be sorted out. Everyone knows that cash is one of the easiest things to be angry over.

[Slice of Life]

Only 22 percent to be exact. That the US "funds the majority" is a national myth.

Quoting some official site to put things into perspective:

"If one divides the percent of US contribution to the UN budget by America's share of world wealth [= share of GDP, SoL], the ratio is almost one-to-one. Other wealthy states contribute significantly more given their share of global wealth. For example, using the same formula as above: Japan: 2.9; Germany: 2.1; France: 1.8; UK: 2.2; Canada: 1.6; and Italy: 1.7. There are, however, nations that contribute much less, such as Russia: 0.4, and China: 0.2."

[sa547]

UN is in dire need of reform on all levels. Replacing it with a similar organization may not solve the problem, because the problem IMHO isn't the organization... it's some of the people working in there who are not supposed to be in the UN.

What is an organization that's supposed to provide a level ground for an open forum for all nations if there are some parts of it that needs to be corrected and changed in today's world?

[Vexx]

You need a place for nations to have to come to regularly and at least chat.... you just need such a place (just like any other level or scale of social organization).

Does it work well? Sometimes it just looks pathetic when it wrings its hands. Sometimes it does a fair job of disaster relief, sometimes it does a fair job with peer pressure via a world stage. I'd rather have it than not.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Does it work well? Sometimes it just looks pathetic when it wrings its hands. Sometimes it does a fair job of disaster relief, sometimes it does a fair job with peer pressure via a world stage. I'd rather have it than not.

I certainly like how it's helping the world's poor, sick, and refugees, but hate it when it attempts to correct Korea's "racism".


Seriously, the UN is for WORLD issues, not for tampling on a nation's sovereignty.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by Slice of Life

Only 22 percent to be exact. That the US "funds the majority" is a national myth.

Quoting some official site to put things into perspective:

"If one divides the percent of US contribution to the UN budget by America's share of world wealth [= share of GDP, SoL], the ratio is almost one-to-one. Other wealthy states contribute significantly more given their share of global wealth. For example, using the same formula as above: Japan: 2.9; Germany: 2.1; France: 1.8; UK: 2.2; Canada: 1.6; and Italy: 1.7. There are, however, nations that contribute much less, such as Russia: 0.4, and China: 0.2."

Well now, that makes things interesting. That's good to know.