United Nations - Is it working?

[KholdStare]

I'm with most people here. There are actions by the UN that I like and some I condemn, but it would be better than having nothing at all.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by 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.

on the whole i wonder how much *help is the UN to poor nations in getting them out of poverty. The world bank for decades lend money to military juntas in South America and elsewhere, without oversight of where that money was spend. Now that those nations are under civilian government that is nominally responsive to the people. These governments are now saddle with a huge debt left over the from the pervious military regime. These debt are dragging down the economy of these developing nations that the world bank is suppose to help.

Originally Posted by 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).

They could open a account on face book.

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.

it does do a good job at disaster relief and sending food to countries that are starving but the Red Cross and Unicef could do the job just as well.

The other parts of the UN is a huge bloated burecreacy that i doubt the people in those dept knows what they are doing.

[Alleluia_Cone]

Answer: It does not work, it never has, it never will.

Case-in-point: Uganda, Somalia, Iran, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Dafur, North Korea, Afghanistan, and so on. Feel free to add your own countries, trust me, I could go on but I feel my point has already been made.

[yezhanquan]

I think the UN is better off as a forum. The logistical situation now is a nightmare, and I doubt that it can be fixed. And yes, I do think that it's better to have the body around.

[Nightbat®]

the UN, an old toothless lion constantly being whipped back into it's cage by anyone of the superpowers

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by 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.

I never really thought of the UN as a police force, even though they send peacekeepers and such. When I think of an international police force I think of an organization like Interpol. As far as I know, they're not associated with the UN.

The idea of the UN is a good one, but I think that right now its reason for existence is a bit murky. It's a good place for allowing nations to discuss matters (this is a crucial function) but when it comes to things like enforcement it's relatively weak and doesn't have much respect. The goal of the UN should probably be redefined, and it should work to be a bit more specialized.

[nanafan]

i think the un was a good idea, to be able to talk out problems and get other countries insight into important issues. i admit that the un has made mistakes, but they can try and fix them. the purpose for the un was to avoid the last resort war, and also if one country is attacked by someone outside of the un, the other un members would help the country that was attacked.

[Nightbat®]

Originally Posted by nanafan

i think the un was a good idea, to be able to talk out problems and get other countries insight into important issues. i admit that the un has made mistakes, but they can try and fix them. the purpose for the un was to avoid the last resort war

Unfortunatly, they haven't even prevented 1 from beginning anyway

and also if one country is attacked by someone outside of the un, the other un members would help the country that was attacked.

I thought that was the NATO's treaty?

[nanafan]

i guess i was wrong about that part, i thought it was the un who backed up a country that got attacked..

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by nanafan

i guess i was wrong about that part, i thought it was the un who backed up a country that got attacked..

with digging for the history books the only two country would be South Korea and Kuwait. Both country were attack and ask for help. The US in South Korea and US and NATO in Kuwait had UN approval to help. but it was mostly a US effort and the US would have gone in with or without UN approval in either case.

kosovo could be consider a 3rd case but it was again US led effort with UN approval.

And as Nightbat@ said, the UN never prevent a war that i can remember. If the country wanted to go at it they would go it regardless of the UN.

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

And as Nightbat@ said, the UN never prevent a war that i can remember.

Sometimes the art of diplomacy is to prevent even a chance of war to occur: a thankless job to the public at large, but crucial.

We can't possibly have every situation being an international crisis and the UN flexing its muscles down to gain popularity points time and again after all. A world like that is going to be bad for my heart...

[Kitsune]

The UN prevents those wars are not useful for rich countries and encourages those who are economically useful for those powerful countries

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Sometimes the art of diplomacy is to prevent even a chance of war to occur: a thankless job to the public at large, but crucial.

We can't possibly have every situation being an international crisis and the UN flexing its muscles down to gain popularity points time and again after all. A world like that is going to be bad for my heart...

So basically you want to trust the UN when it say it has prevent wars but can't give any example.

So how is that different form Bush telling american citizens that the government has prevent terrorist in the US since 9/11 but can't tell us about it and that we just have to trust him?

i really can't fine much of a difference between what wrote and what Bush said.

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

So basically you want to trust the UN when it say it has prevent wars but can't give any example.

I'm not accepting it at face value (and did the UN itself said it prevented wars? I can't remember; it made statements towards trying to achieve that for sure though), merely pointing out the alternative possibility to your assertion. A plausible alternative by all means; international diplomacy isn't exactly a black marker-free zone -- even academics find it hard to build a full picture when so many things are left in the dark.

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

And as Nightbat@ said, the UN never prevent a war that i can remember. If the country wanted to go at it they would go it regardless of the UN.

Think of the various UN peacekeeping missions, for example. Without them, the next war in the balkans would already be underway.

People look at the UN with the wrong expectations. They are

1) A forum for diplomacy
2) A place to address international issues and grievances
3) An important cornerstone for International Law
4) An indispensible vehicle for humanitary help
5) A widely accepted source of international legitimacy

This is what the UN is _not_

1) World Police
2) World Government

Therefore, criticism that the UN fails these two requirements is bogus - that's not what the UN is about. Yes, it's plagued by corruption (like any other government too). Yes, its resolutions are often ignored (and yet, their political pressure is better than nothing).

So what would the alternative be? Drop out of the UN (which was a US initiative, by the way) to save a couple of bucks? Would that help ANYTHING? Obviously not. But just look at the latest middle east developments on how things deteriorate when the UN is actively sidelined and ignored.

[WanderingKnight]

Since a while ago (I can't remember the exact date, but it was around 2000), every single year Argentina has presented a petition to restart negotiations with the UK over the supremacy of the Falkland Islands. And, every single year, it got approved. And, every single year, the UK shat on it and refused to begin negotiations.

So yeah, I wouldn't say it's exactly working. Perhaps it's useful for those countries with lots of power at stake among their ranks, but for small countries, no can do.

In my mind, it's more like a cruel joke, as someone said already, sort of like democracy. I know, it's the best we've got, but it's like this sort of game where everyone pretends to be fair and just, and things just don't work like that at all.

[Nightbat®]

Originally Posted by Mentar

Think of the various UN peacekeeping missions, for example. Without them, the next war in the balkans would already be underway.

People look at the UN with the wrong expectations. They are

1) A forum for diplomacy
2) A place to address international issues and grievances
3) An important cornerstone for International Law
4) An indispensible vehicle for humanitary help
5) A widely accepted source of international legitimacy

This is what the UN is _not_

1) World Police
2) World Government

Therefore, criticism that the UN fails these two requirements is bogus - that's not what the UN is about. Yes, it's plagued by corruption (like any other government too). Yes, its resolutions are often ignored (and yet, their political pressure is better than nothing).

So what would the alternative be? Drop out of the UN (which was a US initiative, by the way) to save a couple of bucks? Would that help ANYTHING? Obviously not. But just look at the latest middle east developments on how things deteriorate when the UN is actively sidelined and ignored.

What use is an organisation that has 0 authority?
that says "don't do that" but noone listens until the shit hit the fan and they're sent to clean up the mess?

that's what the UN is, and has been since it's beginning

the world's cleaninglady

a bloody expensive one at that

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Nightbat®

What use is an organisation that has 0 authority?
that says "don't do that" but noone listens until the shit hit the fan and they're sent to clean up the mess?

that's what the UN is, and has been since it's beginning

the world's cleaninglady

a bloody expensive one at that

The real value of the UN is in it's humanitarian relief agencies. People tend to think of the UN as just the general assembly and security council, but behind the scenes they help organize humanitarian relief across the globe. Sure there have been failures, but you rarely hear about the successes.

[yezhanquan]

Wandering Knight: This is from wiki, so I can't vouch for its accuracy. With that disclaimer...

"n June 2003 the issue was brought before a United Nations committee, and attempts have been made to open talks with the United Kingdom to resolve the issue of the islands. As far as the Falkland Islands Government and people are concerned, there is no issue to resolve. The Falkland Islanders themselves are almost entirely British and maintain their allegiance to the United Kingdom.[24]

On 2 April 2007 (exactly 25 years after the Argentine invasion), Argentina renewed its claim over the Falkland Islands, asking for the UK to resume talks on sovereignty."

[Aoie_Emesai]

22% eh? So basically America hold 22% of the stock to the UN.