The United Nations

[Søren]

What are your opinions on the United Nations ?

Please do not deviate from the topic

Especially do not enter heated posts about the U.N.'s role in the war in Iraq.

[Bovril]

Definately has one of the top 10 sites on the web.

This is such a vast topic I wouldn't even know where to begin. I'll just say that I think it does a lot of good aid, devellopment and human rights work and that before the mudslinging begins in earnest, let's remember that no state has a sovereign right to invade another state.

[Marshal Qin]

-It needs a military arm so that it doesn't have to rely on what amounts to mercenary forces from member countries.
-It is unable to achieve much except in 'feelgood' areas due to the ability by a small group of powerful nations to veto resolutions that might adversely effect them or their allies in some way.
-It has the potential to be a unifying force for the world though I doubt that that potential will be reached in this incarnation of the league of nations.

[Søren]

Istarted this, trying to see if anybody could give some arguement for its continued existance in its present form ?

Personally I think that while the U.N. is very good, changes need to be made to the power of the states within it. i.e. Some smaller(in terms of global power) states lose the right to veto othe nations troops; while retaining full authority whether or whether not to involve their own.

[Cicero2]

I think it can only go so far. As if right now its nothing more then a place for diplomats to talk world events.The world is not ready to be under control by 1 leader. We recently witnessed the dismissal of European Constitution by the French and Dutch. People are still proud to be French, Russians, British, etc... so the notion that its a world goverment or anything like it, is preposterous

[Søren]

:original:

so the notion that its a world goverment or anything like it, is preposterous

No-one ever said that I was just asking for opinions.

[Tom Paine]

I would say that in its current form the UN is a powerful, but not effective, force for "good" (ie my own opinion of what is good). The UN would be better off if it got rid of the veto altogether, had a permanent peacekeeper force rather than having to use soldiers of its member-states' armies, and a host of other ideas, none of which will happen because of the first. That is a real problem; the US can simply stop any measure it doesn't like. And yes, ther have been incidents like that; the US and Israel against a measure alone, all the other states for it, but it is still vetoed. Big problem...

[The Knight 2100]

Who made the United Nations the incorruptable, morally superior, end all be all judge of the world? For that alone I am opposed to the United Nations. It's a slippery road to perdition.

To me, the United Nations is to what the modern world what the Papacy was to Medieval Europe. The Pope was supposed to be above everyone, everyone was answerable to him, and anyone that opposed him or did not do as he said was a heretic, or in modern times with the UN, is a "rogue nation" or some such. Rulers would go to the Pope to get papal support for their causes and their wars, much like many modern leaders go to the UN for the UN's support for the war. Certainly there are differences between the Medieval Papcy and the modern United Nations, but there are some similarities.

The UN is simply an instution to be abused and manipulated for one's own purposes in global politics. Look at how the UN has handled some recent world crises, and you'll see that it only has as much power as the member states are willing to give it. And quite frankly, the UN has simply stood by while far too many genocides have taken place because it didn't suit the member states to intervene.

[Tom Paine]

Who made the United Nations the incorruptable, morally superior, end all be all judge of the world? For that alone I am opposed to the United Nations. It's a slippery road to perdition.

To me, the United Nations is to what the modern world what the Papacy was to Medieval Europe. The Pope was supposed to be above everyone, everyone was answerable to him, and anyone that opposed him or did not do as he said was a heretic, or in modern times with the UN, is a "rogue nation" or some such. Rulers would go to the Pope to get papal support for their causes and their wars, much like many modern leaders go to the UN for the UN's support for the war. Certainly there are differences between the Medieval Papcy and the modern United Nations, but there are some similarities.

The UN is simply an instution to be abused and manipulated for one's own purposes in global politics. Look at how the UN has handled some recent world crises, and you'll see that it only has as much power as the member states are willing to give it. And quite frankly, the UN has simply stood by while far too many genocides have taken place because it didn't suit the member states to intervene.

1) The world leaders did, 60 years ago. And they did it with the best of intentions (preventing another world war, ended up pretty successful). Sorry but do your history.
2) The UN does not declare people "rogue nations", that is more US terminology. I think you're confusing your acronyms. And yes, there are some similarities; but among the differences is that the UN does not use nations for conquest, or discriminate by religion, or many other important things.
3) Yes; especially states like the US. The veto is a big problem; that is a criticism of the way it is currently run, not the UN itself. That is the problem you are referring to, not the UN as such, given that most member states would love to intervene in these matters but the veto of the US stops the UN doing so too much of the time.

[The Knight 2100]

1) The world leaders did, 60 years ago. And they did it with the best of intentions (preventing another world war, ended up pretty successful). Sorry but do your history.
2) The UN does not declare people "rogue nations", that is more US terminology. I think you're confusing your acronyms. And yes, there are some similarities; but among the differences is that the UN does not use nations for conquest, or discriminate by religion, or many other important things.
3) Yes; especially states like the US. The veto is a big problem; that is a criticism of the way it is currently run, not the UN itself. That is the problem you are referring to, not the UN as such, given that most member states would love to intervene in these matters but the veto of the US stops the UN doing so too much of the time.

Even if the United Nations may not call them "Rogue Nations", the nations that act against what the UN says have a blackened image in the world community. Like I said, there are definately some differences, but they serve a very similar purpose.

Let's face it though, in the end, the UN can only do what the member states want to do. And because of human nature, the member states will only look out for their own interests. Maybe if it was a perfect world organizations like the UN could prevent wars, stop genocides and solve every humanitarian problem, but it isn't a perfect world. Any time the UN has prevented a war, stopped a genocide, or solved a humanitarian problem, they did it because it was in the best interest of the member states. Why did the UN intervene in Korea, but not for Darfur? Because it was a good move for the member states to intervene in Korea, but the member states don't really care about Darfur. Human nature is the same as it was yesterday, and will be the same tomorrow. No amount of reforms or changes in US policy can change that.

[Tom Paine]

True; and why mention US policy? They are one of the most self-interested nations... but that is another thread. I fear for humanity, if an attitude like yours prevails; If we do not try to change human nature, it will remain th same; if it remains the same, we will not change it. We must try, try and try agfain; even meeting with constant failure. For if we do not, and we just give in, then what is life for?

[><sam><]

The UN will never work in the way that its founding members (Woodrow Wilson and his crowd) visualized, because the way it works is that it really should be a detatched, neutral, super-super-power that mediates between everyone. However, when u break it down, it is simply a group of small nations that all have their own interests and particular corners to fight, so will never function as well as it could in an ideal world.
Also, the US delivered the massive sucker-punch to the UN by ignoring it and invading Iraq. It is ridiculous to take an active role in, and even champion something, if you're going to ignore it when it won't tell you what you want to hear...

[Tom Paine]

Remember that they don't really take a role in it now; they ignore it most of the time, except to exercis their veto. So they are not even riding roughshod over it once, but every time a measure they don't like is passed. The UN is now a chimeric organisation, with each head having its own aganda and fighting all the others. This needs to be sorted, possibly with a refounding; something like United Nations 2: This Time Its Impersonal, maybe?

[The Knight 2100]

Are you suggesting some nations are more benevolent than others? j/k

Perhaps my attitude may not be the most idealistic, but that's just how the world is. I was pointing out the flaws in the idea behind an organization like the UN. It is very important that people act in an upright manner and try to do good instead of evil, and it is the responsibility of the individual to live their life morally, no matter the circumstances. Organizations like the UN cannot be relied upon to behave as such because it is very seldom that nations ever behave benevolently.

[><sam><]

Yeah but the problem is that the un IS a re-founding... of the League of Nations. What they really need is a complete overhaul of how the whole thing is run, and something that they can actually do to nations that don't comply with them- except to tell them how naughty they are

[Tom Paine]

First, Knight: No, I suggest that some are less non-benevolent, and some are more so. The problem with your idealism (for it is such) is that people have different standards of morality which may clash. How does one deal with those?
And now Sam: that's what I mean. While refounding it the first time, the Security Council and vetoes were added; now they need to be removed, for the good of the UN, and a permanent army needs to be drawn up as a volunteer force. Then we may have something resembling the original purpose of the UN and League of nations, both of which lost effectiveness because of having no standing and permanent army or ability to impose and uphold sanctions put in place.

[><sam><]

Yeah that sounds about right- but could you ever imagine them allowing a UN army? It wouldn't happen.... The US would veto it for a start

[Tom Paine]

Dissolve it; the US would support that, wouldn't they? Given that it seems to keep disagreeing with them. Then form a new, entirely democratic one where each country gets one vote and no veto, or maybe a vote block based on population; give this assembly a new name, maybe International Assembly or whatever, and create the IA Army with volunteers from the member states. Then you can impose sanctions and enforce them, and have the threat of force to use when required to defuse a situation or to keep the peace.

[><sam><]

But the Americans still wouldn't want it- because then it would break their monopoly on a properly large army, and it would be even more effective when it disagreed with them....
besides, the problem is that it would lead to a massive military stand-off between somewhere like China or Iran/the Arabs and the International Assembly, and you'd get the Cold War problems again....

[Tom Paine]

But they couldn't object, as there would be no veto. And those stand-offs? Remember, the nations would be represented by their own diplomats in this assembly, and thus could object or whatever perfectly reasonably. So it would be better and more effective than the UN by far.