The UN is useless

deise boy

If anyone has any doubts as to the uselessness of the UN go to this site and tell me you still believe the UN works!!!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ghosts/video/

At the end of the day we are judged by our actions and actions speak louder than words

Laguna

I didn't look at the link you posted and I still agree the U.N. is useless, an organisation that mirrors the League of Nations and its failings. The U.N. were brushed aside when George & Tony decided to drop a few ole' bombs on Afghanistan and Iraq (Iran, you're up next), didn't react to the catastrophe that has happened in Pakistan, didn't do enough for the Tsunami victims and is showing little or no iniative in laying down the law with the U.S. in regard to the stewardship of the Internet, let us not forget the all time classic, the oil for food program. They're a sham. What purpose do they exist for other than to exist?

mcgarnicle

Laguna wrote:

I didn't look at the link you posted and I still agree the U.N. is useless, an organisation that mirrors the League of Nations and its failings. The U.N. were brushed aside when George & Tony decided to drop a few ole' bombs on Afghanistan and Iraq (Iran, you're up next), didn't react to the catastrophe that has happened in Pakistan, didn't do enough for the Tsunami victims and is showing little or no iniative in laying down the law with the U.S. in regard to the stewardship of the Internet, let us not forget the all time classic, the oil for food program. They're a sham. What purpose do they exist for other than to exist?

The U.N. is useless in terms of the largest scale of international relations, ie. when the major powers are involved but that has always been the case. The UN has never been able to tell the US, the Russians or the rest what to do. The UN were ignored when Bush went to war but that's nothing new, all countries will always pay at best lip service to any organisation that does not have any real power to deal with them. Do you think if the UN wanted Ireland to do something tomorrow that Bertie was strongly opposed to we would simply do it? While politcally they are as you point out useless, they are at least a talking shop, at least leaders can talk here rather than remain isolated from each other and form false oppinions based on hear say and conjecture. Outside of the political arena is where the UN is strongest, in its roles providing aid and other servies. It is not perfect (what organisation is?) but it does a job and often does it well. I believe it should exist and that without it many people around the world would be far worse off than they are now. The US government does not control the internet, as far as I know it is an independent body based in the US. Why should this change? Say what you like about the US they are not openly supressing the flow of ideas on the internet, would you prefer to put the control of this medium, which in many countries is the only way people can express themselves without government censorship, to be placed in the hands of a body which gives a veto to a country (China) that actively tries to limit its peoples access to the internet.
As for the oil for food debacle, yes there are corrupt people in the UN, but get real there are corrupt people everywhere. Should the Republic of Ireland be abolished because of a few corrupt politicians?

deise boy

mcgarnicle wrote:

The U.N. is useless in terms of the largest scale of international relations, ie. when the major powers are involved but that has always been the case. The UN has never been able to tell the US, the Russians or the rest what to do. The UN were ignored when Bush went to war but that's nothing new, all countries will always pay at best lip service to any organisation that does not have any real power to deal with them. Do you think if the UN wanted Ireland to do something tomorrow that Bertie was strongly opposed to we would simply do it? While politcally they are as you point out useless, they are at least a talking shop, at least leaders can talk here rather than remain isolated from each other and form false oppinions based on hear say and conjecture. Outside of the political arena is where the UN is strongest, in its roles providing aid and other servies. It is not perfect (what organisation is?) but it does a job and often does it well. I believe it should exist and that without it many people around the world would be far worse off than they are now. The US government does not control the internet, as far as I know it is an independent body based in the US. Why should this change? Say what you like about the US they are not openly supressing the flow of ideas on the internet, would you prefer to put the control of this medium, which in many countries is the only way people can express themselves without government censorship, to be placed in the hands of a body which gives a veto to a country (China) that actively tries to limit its peoples access to the internet.
As for the oil for food debacle, yes there are corrupt people in the UN, but get real there are corrupt people everywhere. Should the Republic of Ireland be abolished because of a few corrupt politicians?

Im not so sure about your reasons but it is irrelevant. The biggest injustice since WW2. You should all go to the web page above it is about the genocide in rwanda and it just puts things into context. Romeo dallaire who was the UN's force commander was told once "their only blacks and theres too many of them anyway".

mcgarnicle

deise boy wrote:

Im not so sure about your reasons but it is irrelevant. The biggest injustice since WW2. You should all go to the web page above it is about the genocide in rwanda and it just puts things into context. Romeo dallaire who was the UN's force commander was told once "their only blacks and theres too many of them anyway".

How are my reasons irrelevant? I don't have to look at that link to know that one racist in the UN doesn't reflect the entire organisation.

mike65

Where to start? The UN is all things to all people - hoped for protector, Aunt Sally, 'hostile world government', ego-booster (witness the fuss here about Ireland getting on the Secuity Council) and so on. The big boys don't need the UN, half the membership consists of one party states who have no intention of democatising. Most of those states also impoverish thier populations while looking for handouts.

I guess its hard to respect a body that won't formally recognise Taiwan.

Mike.

mcgarnicle

mike65 wrote:

Where to start? The UN is all things to all people - hoped for protector, Aunt Sally, 'hostile world government', ego-booster (witness the fuss here about Ireland getting on the Secuity Council) and so on. The big boys don't need the UN, half the membership consists of one party states who have no intention of democatising. Most of those states also impoverish thier populations while looking for handouts.

I guess its hard to respect a body that won't formally recognise Taiwan.

Mike.

Like I said, it is irrelevant on the international political stage. I think it does a lot of good work in other areas though, enough to justify its existence.

Zombrex

The UN is only as useful or as useless as the political will of the countries that make it up.

The reason the UN did not do more in Rwanda was because the US government at the time didn't want to commit more forces to back up Dallaire's men. And without the rest of the UN members going to war with the US it is pretty hard to convince the US to do anything it doesn't want to do.

The UN is limited by the will and purpose of the countries that make it up, but it is better than nothing. Why people expect it to magically solve all the worlds problems by itself it a bit beyond me. If anyone has an alternative I'd like to hear it

mike65

Like I said, it is irrelevant on the international political stage. I think it does a lot of good work in other areas though, enough to justify its existence.

True, if it stuck to aid, education, health etc it would be much more effective I suspect. But its not going to change now.

Mike.

bonkey

mike65 wrote:

I guess its hard to respect a body that won't formally recognise Taiwan.

You mean like Ireland? (i.e. Ireland does not formally recognise Taiwan. Interestingly, nor does the US).

There are only 25 nations who formally recognise Taiwan. Ist that really a fair benchmark to be judging a 192-nation conglomeration on?

I don't want to get dragged off on a tangent, but just thought its worth pointing out

Personally, I think the UN is far more effective than people give it credit for, but given that there's no way to prove its efficacy (as it involves the "what if it wasn't here" game) its a stance that I don't think is worth getting into here just yet.

Maybe the UN doesn't have a glorious history of military intervention, but it seems to do as well as can be expected on the whole humanitarian front. Take South Lebanon, UNIFIL were overrun by the Israelis. But they did have success in helping communities behind Israeli lines to function and survive.

deise boy

Deleted User wrote:

Maybe the UN doesn't have a glorious history of military intervention, but it seems to do as well as can be expected on the whole humanitarian front.

They try their best. Oh well thats alright then, so lets place that logic into another situation, any situation. Say for example we didnt have the gardai instead we had the peoples front that had no power of arrrest, no power in fact to do anything without a vast majority consent and provided that the 6 richest men in the country all agreed aswell. Now a person murders your family, your mother ,your father, your cousins etc. They get away with it cus they dont give them permission to arrest them. People dont give a **** cus its effort to set up a new system and it will cost money also their families havnt been murdered. (yet)

Do you honestly think that we wouldnt at least try to change the system it would be completely unacceptable. The UN's best isnt good enough. The lebanon is different because its on our doorsteps but who gives a **** about anyone else?? Thats right nobody does.

Everyone needs to wake up and smell the stale excuses we are frrding each other

mcgarnicle

deise boy wrote:

They try their best. Oh well thats alright then, so lets place that logic into another situation, any situation. Say for example we didnt have the gardai instead we had the peoples front that had no power of arrrest, no power in fact to do anything without a vast majority consent and provided that the 6 richest men in the country all agreed aswell. Now a person murders your family, your mother ,your father, your cousins etc. They get away with it cus they dont give them permission to arrest them. People dont give a **** cus its effort to set up a new system and it will cost money also their families havnt been murdered. (yet)

Do you honestly think that we wouldnt at least try to change the system it would be completely unacceptable. The UN's best isnt good enough. The lebanon is different because its on our doorsteps but who gives a **** about anyone else?? Thats right nobody does.

Everyone needs to wake up and smell the stale excuses we are frrding each other

That is a ridiculously bad analogy.

Zombrex

deise boy wrote:

They try their best. Oh well thats alright then, so lets place that logic into another situation, any situation. Say for example we didnt have the gardai instead we had the peoples front that had no power of arrrest, no power in fact to do anything without a vast majority consent and provided that the 6 richest men in the country all agreed aswell. Now a person murders your family, your mother ,your father, your cousins etc. They get away with it cus they dont give them permission to arrest them. People dont give a **** cus its effort to set up a new system and it will cost money also their families havnt been murdered. (yet)

Do you honestly think that we wouldnt at least try to change the system it would be completely unacceptable. The UN's best isnt good enough. The lebanon is different because its on our doorsteps but who gives a **** about anyone else?? Thats right nobody does.

Everyone needs to wake up and smell the stale excuses we are frrding each other

The problem with that example is you assume it is possible to force the creation of something like the Gardi for the world ... it isn't ... as I asked before what are you going to do if the US government refuses to provide more troops for something like Rwanda? Do you think the rest of the UN should invade the US and force them through conscription to provide troops to fight in the region?

The UN has provided, through its member organisations, a lot of badly needed peace keeping in the world, and thats forgetting the huge amount of health and development aid they do as well. But, like any organisation like this, the power of the UN is limited by the willingness of the member countries to have body bags on the evening news.

deise boy

deise boy wrote:

They try their best. Oh well thats alright then, so lets place that logic into another situation, any situation. Say for example we didnt have the gardai instead we had the peoples front that had no power of arrrest, no power in fact to do anything without a vast majority consent and provided that the 6 richest men in the country all agreed aswell. Now a person murders your family, your mother ,your father, your cousins etc. They get away with it cus they dont give them permission to arrest them. People dont give a **** cus its effort to set up a new system and it will cost money also their families havnt been murdered. (yet)

Huh?



Now I like a good analogy.

But you really lost me with the people's front, majority consent, richest men, mass murder, permission to arrest and families being butchered.

All I said was that we shouldn't just look at the UN in terms of military intervention, but rather look at the overall record including work with children, refugees, disaster victims etc.

DadaKopf

Deise boy, you're talking about the UN Security Council, not the whole UN system. I dunno, maybe the UN has done some good things.

Don't forget, the UN was designed to preserve the international status quo that emerged after WWII, not to radically change anything.

bonkey

DadaKopf wrote:

I dunno, maybe the UN has done some good things.

Its interesting to note that an awful lot of stuff on that list is about promoting stuff.

This is a point thats very often overlooked. The UN's job is often to promote - or provide a forum for the promotion of - a particular agenda/solution, not to implement it or ensure it is implemented.

Lack of implementation is not necessarily a useless outcome.

jc

deise boy

Hmmm, well i accecpt the point about the UN being a forum for talking and trying to resolve problems through dialogue. However, it has failed and while some good has come out of the UN not enough has been done. With regard to my analogy;
1. it was off the top of my head.
2. Every point raised in it has a direct correlation to the UN security council. If you found it hard to follow then you dont have a clear understanding of the UN.
3. The UN is the security council!! It has other branches but in reality, the only power the UN has is a threat of force.

I am not discrediting the UNs humanitarian efforts but its purpose is to stop wars, masacares and mass genocide. In this it has failed.

Calina

deise boy wrote:

3. The UN is the security council!! It has other branches but in reality, the only power the UN has is a threat of force.

Then you don't understand much either, to be honest. The UN is an organisation made up of more than one hundred nations. As only a limited number of them are on the Security Council, it's probably more accurate describe the Security Council almost as the executive arm. By your analogy, the Cabinet is the same as the Dáil and I don't buy that at all. Additionally, it was not set up to be a power, but a forum. A better description is the General Assembly which I don't think anyone has mentioned.

The UN is hampered by the behaviour of its most powerful member, who apart from its more recent history of sidestepping, and ignoring the UN, has also been known to refuse to pay its dues to the UN.

Someone else pointed out that without an alternative world without a UN, you have no way of knowing how successful it has been. I'd venture to say that in western Europe, the cradle of international cooperation, it's been pretty successful. Where it has been less successful is where it has less of a mandate by local governments or powerbrokers.

By the way, your analogy below was pretty much incomprehensible to me. Could you explain it again in a simpler fashion? That thing about not having gardai and no power of arrest and the will to change and stuff?

For the record, I take a dim view of people sitting on the sidelines and complaining about something instead of getting involved and trying to reform things. But as I'm not entirely sure what you would want to achieve other than some vague "let's stop wars" lark, I'm not entirely sure what kind of change you would implement. So could you outline what differences you'd like to see rather than vaguely muttering about "not good enough" and "must change"?

DadaKopf

bonkey wrote:

Its interesting to note that an awful lot of stuff on that list is about promoting stuff.

This is a point thats very often overlooked. The UN's job is often to promote - or provide a forum for the promotion of - a particular agenda/solution, not to implement it or ensure it is implemented.

Lack of implementation is not necessarily a useless outcome.

jc

Of course, it's a fair point that the UN is only as good as its members, but specialised agencies like the WHO, ILO, IAEA, UNICEF etc. do things. Eradicating smallpox is, presubably, a really cool thing. The WHO didn't simply 'promote the eradication of smallpox'.

DadaKopf

deise boy wrote:

I am not discrediting the UNs humanitarian efforts but its purpose is to stop wars, masacares and mass genocide. In this it has failed.

Well, by misrepresenting 'the UN' as the UNSC and not its specialised agencies, you sort of are. And your thread is titled "The UN is useless". You should have said "the UN Security Council is useless".

I desparately would like to see the UNSC reformed, but it hasn't been a total failure. It was, afterall, designed to keep the geopolitical status quo, i.e. to promote the interests of the world's remaining superpowers after WWII. Its purpose was to prevent clashes between big power from engulfing the entire world in war. It worked in terms of this objective because wars fought since then have been local wars and proxy wars between less developed states and, increasingly, within states.

In terms of responding to humanitarian crises and averting wars of these kinds, it's been crap, but the UNSC was designed this way. And in any case, we all know the UN is only as good as its most powerful members. It's a systemic problem with the UNSC, and also the specialised agencies in terms of their capacity being limited by UN members' good will and depth of their pockets, essentially.

We all know about Srebenica, Rwanda, Israel-Palestine, Burma, Sudan, Uganda, all these recent UN failings. The UNSC does need reform. But "useless". What else do you suppose should replace it?

I think, if anything, the UNSC needs to be reformed and the UN system needs to be given a proper task, the one that was envisioned for it in 1945. Not only 'defend human rights' but actively promote "human security". This involves, as was intended in the beginning, placing the IMF and World Bank under genuine global democratic control, and absorb the WTO into that, too. Give UNGA more power and generally follow a more democratic form of institutional governance while working in penalties for countries who fail to promote peace, human rights, diversityl, and political and economic obligations of governments. The reason this didn't happen was because the drafters realised, with decolonisation, that they wouldn't be able to control the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and other agencies if they were given real power, so they went and set up the IMF and the Bank. If we want to promote human rights, we have to promote real development.

In terms of human rights, I also think much more emphasis has to be given to social and economic rights to make them at least equal to civil and political rights that dominate because of who dominates.

Zombrex

deise boy wrote:

...its purpose is to stop wars, masacares and mass genocide. In this it has failed.

It's purpose is to try and stop wars masacares and mass genocide .. and this it does. Sometimes stopping events like these is not possible given the circumstances involved.

deise boy

deise boy wrote:

They try their best. Oh well thats alright then, so lets place that logic into another situation, any situation. Say for example we didnt have the gardai instead we had the peoples front that had no power of arrrest, no power in fact to do anything without a vast majority consent and provided that the 6 richest men in the country all agreed aswell. Now a person murders your family, your mother ,your father, your cousins etc. They get away with it cus they dont give them permission to arrest them. People dont give a **** cus its effort to set up a new system and it will cost money also their families havnt been murdered. (yet)

Do you honestly think that we wouldnt at least try to change the system it would be completely unacceptable. The UN's best isnt good enough. The lebanon is different because its on our doorsteps but who gives a **** about anyone else?? Thats right nobody does.

Everyone needs to wake up and smell the stale excuses we are frrding each other

I will now attempt to answer the several people who have asked me to explain my metaphor (its not an analogy).

The lack of power to arrest is a correlation with the ICC (International criminal court) which is only able to out people on trial if they accept the courts power i.e. if you were up for murder then you can just say i dont accept your power and they have no way of enforcement. The family being murdered is anything bad that has happened in the world. Wars, famine, etc etc etc. The 6 richest men refers to the veto which the permanent members of the security council hold. The vast majority refers to the "qualified majority voting" which takes place. The money issues is the money issue. People in the US and Britain and Ireland dont care about reform of the UN in real terms because the way most people see the UN is as a shining light. This is because they have never had to rely on it. Hence "if it aint broke dont fix it". The politicians only do what the public opinion is. In reality, however, it doesnt work like it should.

With regard to the security we have found ourselves in the last 60 odd years. Well lets see;

Europe is enjoying unprecedented wealth, prosperity and peace. Thanks to the EU. We are lining each others pockets so why would we kill each other. However, outside of Europe lets take a look.

Korea
Vietnam
Afghanistan, twice
Iraq, twice
Rwanda, mass genocide
Somalia
Congo the 3rd world war as its been dubbed
etc etc

Hasnt been too good for the rest of the world really. How much intervention from the UN?

mcgarnicle

deise boy wrote:

I will now attempt to answer the several people who have asked me to explain my metaphor (its not an analogy).

analogy - A form of logical inference or an instance of it, based on the assumption that if two things are known to be alike in some respects, then they must be alike in other respects.

It's a crap analogy but it is still an analogy. Maybe you say it is not an analogy due to the lack of logic?

deise boy wrote:

With regard to the security we have found ourselves in the last 60 odd years. Well lets see;

Europe is enjoying unprecedented wealth, prosperity and peace. Thanks to the EU. We are lining each others pockets so why would we kill each other. However, outside of Europe lets take a look.


Korea
Vietnam
Afghanistan, twice
Iraq, twice
Rwanda, mass genocide
Somalia
Congo the 3rd world war as its been dubbed
etc etc

Hasnt been too good for the rest of the world really. How much intervention from the UN?

For a start there was the Cold War, the US and Soviets squared up to each other several times in the UN, everyone has seen those famous images of the US revealing their spy plane photos of missiles in Cuba. Without the UN it is much more likely the entire planet would have been ravaged by nuvlear war.


Afghanistan -
Are you suggesting the UN should have advocated World War III to stop the Soviet invasion? The second invasion was sanctioned by the UN.

Korea -
UN sanctioned to stop an invasion by North Korea.

Iraq -
First time was a UN sanctioned act as a result of the invasion of Kuwait. I won't start a debate on the second one, but supporters of the war would cite UN resolutions as justification for the war.

Somalia -
UN were present there, not too sure on the details. Anybody?

mcgarnicle

Not sure what the policy on abusive pms is but I just got this from deise boy

**** off
your a **** head **** off

deise boy

Clearly you have nothing better to do with you time. I am now very tired of this fiasco. I am deeply sorry to anybody who i have insulted by expressing my opinions and now i consider to whole matter closed! I will not respond to any more queries on this topic any longer.

DadaKopf

Real mature.

mcgarnicle

deise boy wrote:

Clearly you have nothing better to do with you time. I am now very tired of this fiasco. I am deeply sorry to anybody who i have insulted by expressing my opinions and now i consider to whole matter closed! I will not respond to any more queries on this topic any longer.

I'm not the one who posts ridiculous arguments and then turns into a baby pming insults to people when the argument doesn't go his way. Don't act all gracious now, you didn't offend anyone you just bemused a few people with that incomprehensible analogy.

DadaKopf

It's a discussion forum, deise boy. Differences of opinion and fair criticism is common in discussions.

deise boy

I dont appreciate you making public my PM to you. I am perfectly calm!! I wont debate the point any longer as i feel i have made my argument.

HybridTech

I think it might be time to call in the UN?!