Will the UN ever not be useless?

[Justinian]

Throughout its 60-plus year history, the UN has never failed to not accomplish a damn thing. Failures all around the globe in peacekeeping, civil rights, democracy and the UN's other missions have led to even more failure. To me it seems like the UN is just a big joke that exists so people can talk about the global community and equality for all while they go do their own thing, like Bush ignoring the UN to invade Iraq.

So why is the UN so useless? Is it because it has no real power or authority? Is it because the Security Council nations have a chokehold on what happens and doesn't happen? Or is it because the UN is just too damn lazy to do anything about situations that happen throughout the world?

Lastly -- would a more powerful UN be a good thing? Would a global "government" be a good thing? Would the UNPA (United Nations Parliamentary Assembly) be a good thing and have actual power in making people equal?

[Behind The Mask]

Let us consult the magic eight ball

*SHAKE*

"WTF are u asking me... I already get aksed enough **** by those twits at the UN, I dont have any answers!"

Inspiring.

But all in all I wouldn't say its completly useless... no World War III!

[Vince Noir]

Ha, agreed. The last sixty years, the UN has achieved has what exactlty? Achieved peace in Europe? Ask the people in Bosnia. Settled the Middle East? Ask the people in Gaza. Improved life for Africans? Ask the people in Darfur, or Rwanda, or anybody for that matter. Burma? Do they even know where Burma is on the map? The UN, like the League of Nations before it, has shown the futility of trying to achieve a commonality of purpose among nations who do not share a common political philosophy or experience. While organisations such as NATO, the OAS, ASEAN, or the AU are far from perfect, they are far more likely to remain at the end of this century than the UN.

[Martin N]

Justinian, i have been believing for a while the un's weakness, is the complete veto of the top 5 permanant members, each one has more or less ties to each individual matter, like the us with israel, they will vote against propositions to do with israel, same with russia, they will vote against anything iran related.

If i had a choice in it, i would remove the complete veto power, and go on the member states complete tallied vote, not the dictatorship esque power in the hands of the few.

[Justinian]

I agree, the Security Council is a fundamentally flawed concept -- but is also the only way that the idea of the UN could ever have been formed, with Russia or the US not feeling like they'd be outvoted by people less powerful than them.

[Martin N]

But still, the whole point of the UN is the world working together for peace, but its still exactly the same as before if the strongest countrys rule, its a flawed concept, might is not always right, if all seperate countrys voted together, it would be a more fair - democratic process.

Better than nothing i suppose, i agree it hasnt accomplished nothing of great value, same with its predeccessor the league of nations, it handled small scale combat and warfare well, but with the big scale warfare and conflicts they couldent always agree because of the fear of another world war, it was right after WWI after all.

[Kiljan Arslan]

i wholeheartedly support the security council it keeps the UN weak.

[Justice and Mercy]

The UN in general is entirely anti-Israel and anti-US.

Thank GOD the US has an absolute veto power.

[Lancy]

Wow! As soon as I saw the beginning of the thread's title "Will the UN..." I automatically assumed the rest would read "ever not be useless?" and then there it was. Spooky

In answer to your question, my guess is no; just look at its involvement in anything, it either fails to respond or does so too late or ineffectually.

[Justinian]

Wow! As soon as I saw the beginning of the thread's title "Will the UN..." I automatically assumed the rest would read "ever not be useless?" and then there it was. Spooky

Great minds think alike.

In answer to your question, my guess is no; just look at its involvement in anything, it either fails to respond or does so too late or ineffectually.

So is the more pertinent question -- should the UN matter more? Would it be beneficial to the world community?

[Admiral Piett]

I'm for the US withdrawal from the UN if the UN and the EU does not step up in securing security and humanitarian missions. We can't be the ones policing the world all the time.

[YuriVII]

The Security Council...... its Stalin's idea actually. I like that idea of his too. I am glad the weaker nations cant challenge my nation. BTW, understand the UN's mission. It is not there to advance democracy. Its there to maintain order among the large powers and offer an open forum. I dont think it was DESIGNED to do anything, so in that it is a success. AU, EU, NATO cant be compared to the UN as these are not universal organizations like the UN. Sure, you could act more decisively with just these organizations (and you do), but you risk larger conflict with other power blocs who arent part of your little club.

I dont understand why Americans hate the UN so much, you basically own that institution, its just not as firmly in your hands as you would like.

[The Devil's Sergeant]

Give it guns, big ones.

[Justinian]

The UN has plenty of guns, just not the will to use them.

[The Devil's Sergeant]

Give the UN tanks and aircraft and give the UN Chieftan the sole authority to command them.

[Justinian]

Chieftain? You mean Secretary-General?

So basically you're proposing the creation of a UNDF?

[IronBrig4]

As previously stated, the UN's main purpose is to provide an open forum. It does that well. They also do a pretty good job overall with refugees and famine relief.

The main problem with the UN is decolonization. When it was founded, the old empires and the Soviet Union controlled most of Africa, Asia, and eastern Europe. Each member state had one vote, and there were a lot less of them. That is one reason why it wasn't too hard to mobilize a UN force at the start of the Korean War. With the rise of post-war nationalism and the Soviet breakup, however, there are dozens more states, each with one vote. Now tiny countries like Togo or Macedonia have as much voting power as Germany or Japan. Each of those states has its own agenda as well.

[Nouvelle Vague]

As previously stated, the UN's main purpose is to provide an open forum. It does that well. They also do a pretty good job overall with refugees and famine relief.

Agreed

[The Devil's Sergeant]

[quote=Justinian;4727564]Chieftain? You mean Secretary-General?

In my native language there is no word for secretary -general, the closest word is cheiftan. There are also no words to describe color like there is in english.

So basically you're proposing the creation of a UNDF?

Heck no, no one ever accomplished any thing with a defense force.

[motiv-8]

Aw, I wanted to rep Future Filmmaker but apparently TWC thinks I'm approving too many of his posts at once.

For the UN to be relevant it needs to be seriously reformed. It represents a political situation that existed in the 1950s following a large world war and the establishment of a bi-polar world. The continued veto's of powers now less relevant on the world stage, as well as that of the world's sole superpower acting as general dictator and executor, in what should be very important decisions seriously hinders the ability of the UN to be anything more than a playground for a small amount of largely anachronistic powers. The more agreeable solution is for the Security Council to be dissolved and its decision-making powers to be either transferred to the General Assembly or to a new body that better represents today's geopolitical realities rather than those of 1945.

That, and the UN needs an executive that doesn't begin with 'US' and end with 'Army'.