United Nations - Is it working?

[Prestwick]

One of the greatest UN failures was it's peacekeeping operation in the Balkans in the 1990s. Total bureaucratic bullcrap, strict adherence to completely unrealistic rules of engagement and a totally faceless and inhuman approach to the problems of genocide caused the deaths of tens of thousands of lives and created a generation of mentally scarred men from the small number of nations who donated men to act as "peacekeepers".

I would invite the UN apologists in that period to speak to the Dutch peace keepers at Sebrenica (those who haven't committed suicide anyway) or those of the British contingent who had to watch while people were burned in their homes, unable to rescue them as that would constitute complicity in "ethnic cleansing" in the UN's eyes.

[Thingle]

Darfur, Georgia, Iraq, Palestine. Many more, you continue the list. The UN does not solve the issues here, individual countries do.

The UN is a bloated and impotent piece of ****. Dissolve it. It's everyone for themselves now.

Let's go back to gunboat diplomacy as all of the countries would rather hold on to their armies and deal with things with their own hands.

[Prestwick]

I think the UN can work but only if they have a more realistic view on how things work on the ground. Currently, on the one hand they like to hold back UN Peacekeeping forces from doing their work properly in areas such as the Congo and Sierra Leone but on the other hand they turn a blind eye to blatant criminal activity, child abuse and petty nationalistic bullshit (the latter one is the usual "lets annoy the Brits by adjusting the border between Cyprus and the British sovereign areas" game played by Irish UN peacekeepers there).

The UN shouldn't be disbanded, but it needs reform badly.

[bbduece]

The UN is a steping stone for a future global unity. The UN is not perfect, nothing is perfect. I personally think the UN should continue to grow and add more nations.

Without the UN there would be more anarchy in the world.

Some of thier old policies needs to be restructure.

[MidnightViper88]

I don't think perfection is as much of an issue as effectiveness is...For an international body, it should be able to enforce international law and order on nations that are unruly or threatening peace, but when nations ignore demands and sanctions by the UN and become defiant, then you have a delivery problem...

Of course the UN isn't perfect, or it's predecessor the League of Nations would've stopped WWII from occurring, but it otherwise could use some reform to make it operate better to deal with leaders who aren't within the realm of logical rationale...

[bbduece]

If the UN can enforce anything then it will become too dominant and the rest of the world will not tolerate. Thier efectiveness is only as strong as there policies and influece.

The UN can not force all their ideology into the whole world. Thats why WWII started when hitler tried.

World politics is not something that can be handle with ease. There is always a person that wants "yes" and another person that wants "no". Who gets to decide? Decisions can not be handle within second, minutes, or hours. By the time anything is resolve it might be too late and we have to expect that and anticipated it.

Can the UN be better - you bet. Is the UN useless in somecases - yes. Is there something better than the UN, i dont see anything that is even close to what the UN has to offer. BUt if does not continue to grow and adapt faster than dissolving it would be ideal.

[MidnightViper88]

Originally Posted by bbduece

If the UN can enforce anything then it will become too dominant and the rest of the world will not tolerate.

See, that's the thing...Most of the governing bodies are already tolerable with UN policy and are willing to go along with decisions, but then you have some governing bodies that are defiant and don't adhere to the UN's actions...

The situation is not if the UN can enforce anything (Since if is the problem), but what or how the UN can enforce where it needs to enforce...Nations like America hold it's tongue in light of policy difference with the UN but still otherwise manages to continue to fund and support UN efforts, so the UN doesn't need to enforce anything with America, or a vast majority of important international political players for that matter...But elsewhere with the likes of the Iranian clerics and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, those are people that probably couldn't give two craps a bit of difference if the UN got every single nation to go against them politically, they're that defiant...

What does the UN do to keep people in line from disturbing international peace? It's rhetorical to play the "What if" games before things even happen, especially since even the League of Nations probably wouldn't have expected Hitler to go as far as he did, but there has to be some sort of boundaries the UN can place to effectively keep hostile situations in check...Yes, you try diplomacy first to tackle the political problem, yes, you place sanctions to weaken their economic strength, but what steps can the UN take when diplomacy doesn't work and they stand arrogant? That may or may not be up to individual nations as their interests see fit, but otherwise the UN action is to sit back and hope things don't spiral out of control...That doesn't seem like a very secure way to tackle such issues or keep the peace...

To me, it almost seems that the UN would rather prefer to take a politically correct backseat when it comes to potentially hostile situations, understandably, obviously...But then that's only a handful of nations or leaders against about a hundred others, and it's that minority bunch that indirectly controls what actions are taken...Who's doing the leading there?

Of course, the UN can't do things, or everything, single-handedly, and their enforcement power is limited, so that's where influence and proper policy comes into play...If they could actually convince a hostile of consequences with actions to back, instead of just throwing out cliched pseudo-threats, then the UN could probably do what they're supposed to do more effective...They work great with the peaceful nations, just not with the less-than-peaceful, and there's room to reform on that...

[Prestwick]

I think it is wise to point out that the system under which the Security Council resides works. It is meant to be a system of compromises as it was always meant to be a place where the great powers of the earth could meet, discuss and compromise on the pressing issues of the day.

The places where the UN needs to be reformed is in its bureaucratic structures, the UN assembly (little more than a 3rd world old boys club) and the UN Human Rights commission (little more than a authoritarian regeime old boys club) immediately come to mind.

The UN must become leaner in order to adequately combat the dangers of ethnic cleansing, genocide and war in the 21st century. The UN we know today is simply to large, ponderous, rotten and lethargic to do anything in any timely fashion once permission has been passed by the Security Council.

[MidnightViper88]

As with any large governing body, the UN could also use some leaders that are more realistic in decision/policy-making and aren't easily corrupted by power and outside influence...

When I first learned about the "Food for Oil" scandal involving some members of the UN and Saddam Hussein, it kind of made me reevaluate the legitimacy behind some of the UN's actions...Obviously it's not representative of the UN in general, and not everything they do is that scandalous, though it was still significant in that billions of dollars were exchanged since the programme's incursion of 1995 and that it didn't really reach public light until 2003...Kofi Annan claimed that he wasn't aware of what his son was delving into, but I still don't believe that...And even if Kofi was truly unaware, then what of those that were aware? Why was it allowed to continue as it did?

Responsibility goes a long way when it comes to reputation and influence...

[bbduece]

Originally Posted by MidnightViper88

As with any large governing body, the UN could also use some leaders that are more realistic in decision/policy-making and aren't easily corrupted by power and outside influence...

When I first learned about the "Food for Oil" scandal involving some members of the UN and Saddam Hussein, it kind of made me reevaluate the legitimacy behind some of the UN's actions...Obviously it's not representative of the UN in general, and not everything they do is that scandalous, though it was still significant in that billions of dollars were exchanged since the programme's incursion of 1995 and that it didn't really reach public light until 2003...Kofi Annan claimed that he wasn't aware of what his son was delving into, but I still don't believe that...And even if Kofi was truly unaware, then what of those that were aware? Why was it allowed to continue as it did?

Responsibility goes a long way when it comes to reputation and influence...

I'm sure the UN is used as a tool for opportunist; activities we mere mortals do not approve of. All governing bodies are tools for the elites. All we can do is minimize it because human greed is a reality. If we can remove human greed then we can fix this problem.

[Tri-ring]

Unless all nations recognize UN as a higher body authority and gives up some of their sovereign rights, it is never going to change.
The security council with perment members and their veto rights needs to be abolished.
Direct election by the people instead of appointed officials by the government needs to be initiated.
Last, direct taxation system and centralized re-distribution of wealth system is needed to be placed.
Unfortunately most countries still uses ODAs and other "Donations" as a mean to buy votes in the UN which must be the worst way to manage an organization.

[bbduece]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

Unless all nations recognize UN as a higher body authority and gives up some of their sovereign rights, it is never going to change.
The security council with perment members and their veto rights needs to be abolished.
Direct election by the people instead of appointed officials by the government needs to be initiated.
Last, direct taxation system and centralized re-distribution of wealth system is needed to be placed.
Unfortunately most countries still uses ODAs and other "Donations" as a mean to buy votes in the UN which must be the worst way to manage an organization.

I agree with the election part. But wouldnt the countries with a bigger population - win out? Or do we give less voting power to the countries with more available voters (single votes from certain countries are only worth a percentage) then that means a single individual from smaller country will have more voting power. But if no one minds then i guess it would be ok.

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by bbduece

I agree with the election part. But wouldnt the countries with a bigger population - win out? Or do we give less voting power to the countries with more available voters (single votes from certain countries are only worth a percentage) then that means a single individual from smaller country will have more voting power. But if no one minds then i guess it would be ok.

Yes, areas where large population is centralized will have larger voting power, but you are still thinking national centric, the first thing to do is to evaluate constituency.
I really do not think it is wise nor fair for people who are oppressed by the present government be represented by them. That is the reason why taxation and re-distribution of wealth must be one set with direct election and not be seperated.

This may be somewhat off topic but in the lyrics of the opening theme Real Drive, it sings that national borders are bruises of past history which I think is true.

[AnimeFangirl]

UN officials pay themselves big salaries and ride around in big cars. Dissolve it now.

[bbduece]

Originally Posted by Dorfl

UN officials pay themselves big salaries and ride around in big cars. Dissolve it now.

So is every single governing body in the world. Sadly it is the price we have to pay so we can skip anarchy. It is impossibe to abolish greed, we can only try our best to minimize it.

[Gemstar]

I think the UN was a fabulous idea and should sustain it's effort very much. I support the UN.

[AnimeFangirl]

Originally Posted by bbduece

So is every single governing body in the world.

Since when is that an excuse?

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Dorfl

Since when is that an excuse?

If the positive efforts by the UN are outweighed by its negatives (which includes the corruption you've mentioned) then the UN should either be revamped or abolished. Politicians treating themselves a little less humbly than they should isn't unique to the UN and thus it's a poor stand-alone reason for why the UN should be dissolved.