Is the UN useless?

deise boy

I want to know what peoples opiniond on this are? Do people think it is outdated or was it just doomed from the begining? Does it work as an institution. Any input?

bonkey

deise boy wrote:

I want to know what peoples opiniond on this are?

And we'd like to know yours.

Seeing as you started the thread, it would be rude of me to pre-empt you in this regard.

Any input?

Rhetorical question?

jc

cdebru

bonkey wrote:

And we'd like to know yours.

Seeing as you started the thread, it would be rude of me to pre-empt you in this regard.


Rhetorical question?

jc

hard to get it out of your system bonkey

Memnoch

while the permenant members of security council remain with their Veto the UN remains a useless institution for any REAL change that is needed.

It still does some good, but not nearly as much as it could do. Currently it's just a diplomatic forum and an excuse for the big boys to do what they like and pretend everyone in the world agrees with them.

pork99

Given that the USA is the world's only superpower the effectiveness of the UN depends on it's relationship with that country.

I think the current situation where the US administration does not take the UN terribly seriously is analagous to a situation in a country where the police (the US) decides they can ignore the lawmakers, courts and judiciary (the UN) and enforce law and order completely independently.

Kofi Annan can ramble on as much as he wishes about the legality of, for example, the Iraq invasion. It makes no difference what they decide is legal or illegal because the UN cannot enforce anything.

This is not a healthy situation for the world - the US is abdicatiing it's rightful position of leadership and "setter of standards" which it should occupy.

conformist

conformist banned, better things to be doing than reading his contributions so far on the entire site - sceptre

magick

conformist i think the UN is gay

brillant i dont think anyone can top that retarded comment :rolleyes:

personally, the UN peacekeeping forces needa bit of bite, the whole un should be streamlined to make its actions a little faster. Plus their should be standards like not having syria,iran, north korea etc on the security council.

toiletduck

It's a joke that Sudan and Libya can be on the human rights concil, the whole system needs a good kick.

DadaKopf

The countries of the world have a crucial moment coming up in a few months. The UN General Assembly gets to decided on Annan's UN reform package. It's unlikely but the G77 countries to go as far as they can with the reform to reduce the perm-five's power over decision-making.

Ivan

At the end of the day, as has been said, will that really make a difference?
There is shag all the UN can do, if the US does something they dont like.

Victor

Is society useless?

Society is not worse than the people who contribute to it.

DadaKopf

Ivan wrote:

At the end of the day, as has been said, will that really make a difference?
There is shag all the UN can do, if the US does something they dont like.

As the addage goes, the quality of the UN depends on the quality of its members. At the moment, since its inception in fact, the power to make the international order lies in the hands of the UNSC's permanent five members, especially the US and the UK. But the power over UN structures and its specialised agencies lies with the UN General Assembly. I'd consider the WHO's eradication of smallpox from the face of the planet a pretty amazing feat; and, in fairness, the UNSC was central in averting nuclear armageddon; UNICEF has done great stuff looking after poor children; the UNFPA has done amazing things promoting safer sex and family planning in poor areas around the world; and the UN Development Programme has done plenty of needed things to promote development. Now global structures have changed and so should the UN. But I think this reformation should also apply to the UN's sister organisations, the IMF and World Bank. A decision was taken in the 1940s to take power away from the UNDP and ECOSOC, the UN's specialised economic and human development agencies, exactly because they wanted to dominate who got the money instead of the poor countries that make up most of the world. The IMF and World Bank must be made more democratic.

The UN usually gets a bad rap for its inability, or rather the inability of the UNSC, to promote human rights universally, and it gets a bad rap when the US doesn't get its way. If the right decisions can be made at the UNGA, and the Western countries' power offset by India, Brazil and some others, that'd go some way to fix things.

But I'll admit, I'm sceptical about the possibility for change. Our best bet is regionalisation at this time.

elvenscout742

Victor wrote:

Is society useless?

Society is not worse than the people who contribute to it.

So... yes?

BTW, I think the UN is useless.

netwhizkid

Is the UN useless - YES,

Not what resolution can be passed even hinting that what the Israelis are doing in Palestine (basically ethnic cleansing) is wrong the US vetoes every one, that isn't countries working together thats a dictatorship.

For a more transparent Un of Equals theres should be no veto only a simple majority or 2 thirds for the case of military intervention.

Regards netwhizkid

Sparks

Saying the UN is useless is daft. The UN is meant to be the table everyone sits at to discuss their problems and find solutions. If people won't sit at the table with one another, blaming the table is an indication that you've failed to grasp the details of the situation!

bonkey

Sparks wrote:

Saying the UN is useless is daft.

Especially when the majority of criticisms against it focus on specific bodies within the UN and conclude "the UN is useless because this bit of it is".

Aside: There's no end of tasteless analagies that I'm refraining from making here.

jc

Sand

Especially when the majority of criticisms against it focus on specific bodies within the UN and conclude "the UN is useless because this bit of it is".

The UN is a half decent world civil service of sorts, though they seem to be under heavy fire in Kosovo. They are in no shape or form up to the primary task that is expected of them - keeping world peace. They never have. I wont say they never will, but the negotiation that kept the USA and the USSR at peace was carried out mostly by a direct line from the White House to the Kremlin, or prior to that lines installation by diplomats, not the Security Council.

Indeed the Security Council has been meaningless throughout the entire Cold War from the Korean war up until and including the Balkan conflicts when it was again ignored, as per usual. The idea of taking the UN security council seriously is a political revolution - it has'nt been taken seriously for the vast majority of its existence.

The basic criticism of the UN philosophy is that it treats countries as equals and doesnt differentiate between free and unfree countries. Zimbabwe is not the equal of France, in terms of power or influence. If France is dealing with Zimbabwe, it will simply go outside the UN where its power is realised - thats the way all countries are; France appeals to the UN when dealing with the US, it tells Eastern European EU states to shut the **** up when they say things they dont like.

Zimbabwe is not as free as France. But the UN doesnt recognise that. The government sovereignty is held above any other obligation - such as protecting human rights. Government soldiers can and have slaughtered civillians in front of UN personnel and they cant do anything about it. Its not a question of mandate - its goes against the defining principle of the UN - that governments are untouchable, regardless of whether they are democratic, liberal elected politicians, or merely thugs with guns. What is basically a mixture of gangsters and crooks has no moral authority to dictate to free/liberal governments to my mind. They certainly do not speak for the people they are oppressing.

UN reform wont work, because the main problem - the unassailable, unqualified superiority of a states government of the human rights of that states citizens will be defended tooth and nail by the worst offenders.

At the moment, since its inception in fact, the power to make the international order lies in the hands of the UNSC's permanent five members, especially the US and the UK.

This does not require the UN. Bismark and his concert of Europe is one example of major world powers creating international order by carving up spheres of influence and agreeing not to intefere in each others minor wars....like Chechnya.

The IMF and World Bank must be made more democratic.

States arent equal, hence democracy is not a realistic option.

deise boy

Memnoch wrote:

while the permenant members of security council remain with their Veto the UN remains a useless institution for any REAL change that is needed.

It still does some good, but not nearly as much as it could do. Currently it's just a diplomatic forum and an excuse for the big boys to do what they like and pretend everyone in the world agrees with them.

Ok.....so you think that every state should have the same say? So should Ireland have the same say as the US? How can they, they are not equal so lets not get lost in our own ideologicalness. The US is a nuclear country with over 250 million people. Ireland is an imaterial blip on the worlds map (no offence, im irish too but theres no point in building ourselves up to fall down) The world is not equal and it is not fair. Yes the UN is useless but not because of the security council. Its easy to point the finger at the council but the whole institution is flawed fately and infact the whole idea is unrealistic.

I give out about people who just point out problems and never try to give a solution. Well I dont have the solution but I know the direction we should go in. At the moment there is no way to inforce international law because you have to agree to be tried by the ICJ. Hence if we could have a way to enforce this law then we would be on the right track. Any ideas on getting every state in the world to sign up?


Didnt think so

deise boy

Sparks wrote:

Saying the UN is useless is daft. The UN is meant to be the table everyone sits at to discuss their problems and find solutions. If people won't sit at the table with one another, blaming the table is an indication that you've failed to grasp the details of the situation!

I failed to grasp the situation? Ok so for argument sake lets say im a state. I arrgue with you and guess what i dont want to talk with you. Id prefer to drop a bomb on you instead. What are you going to do? Tell me I dont understand the complexity of the situation?

Sparks

I arrgue with you and guess what i dont want to talk with you. Id prefer to drop a bomb on you instead.

At which point, you've pretty much stated that the reason the negotiations failed is your lack of desire to negotiate, rather than it somehow being the UN's fault.

deise boy

Sparks wrote:

At which point, you've pretty much stated that the reason the negotiations failed is your lack of desire to negotiate, rather than it somehow being the UN's fault.

And at which point exactly did i say it was the UN's fault??? When exactly did I say the UN are to blame???????

Thats right I didnt

Sparks

What's the title of the thread Deise?

Quantum

Memnoch wrote:

while the permenant members of security council remain with their Veto the UN remains a useless institution for any REAL change that is needed.

It still does some good, but not nearly as much as it could do. Currently it's just a diplomatic forum and an excuse for the big boys to do what they like and pretend everyone in the world agrees with them.

I find this point of view incredibly amusing and frustrating all at the same time.

Since when was the UN supposed to be an agent of change ?

The UN is an organisation formed to allow nations to TALK instead of fight. In other words A DIPLOMATIC FORUM or a TALKING SHOP. It was created for this purpose and that's what it is, no more and no less.

Where this idea got around that the UN is supposed to some kind of world police organisation beats me - and all it does is to create an expectation that will inevitably be disappointing.

The UN is for talking and negotiating. It is a place for nations to come together and meet and talk instead of going to war. If you want an agent of change then you need to look to nations and the people of those nations.

DadaKopf

The UN is an organisation formed to allow nations to TALK instead of fight. In other words A DIPLOMATIC FORUM or a TALKING SHOP. It was created for this purpose and that's what it is, no more and no less.

That's not quite true, Quantum. The UN was established after the League of Nations failed to prevent World War II. The lesson of WWII was that talking alone couldn't replace raw power. So the UN was set up as a halfway house: an international organisation designed to avoid conflict through negitiation, but backed up by raw power if that failed.

Quantum

DadaKopf wrote:

That's not quite true, Quantum. The UN was established after the League of Nations failed to prevent World War II. The lesson of WWII was that talking alone couldn't replace raw power. So the UN was set up as a halfway house: an international organisation designed to avoid conflict through negitiation, but backed up by raw power if that failed.

Wrong. The UN was set up with the same purpose as the League of Nations. Some differences were indeed adopted over time such as the ability to agree UN sanctions and the ability to send reprsentatives to monitor certain events such as elections and cease fires etc.

But essentially the purpose behind the UN and the de factor role of the UN has and remains a place for Nations to meet and talk. It was never intended to have any exective power, any independent power to take executive action. Indeed the structuring of the Security Coucil and the veto powers of each of the main political and military opponentswas such that it ensured no action would ever be taken.

This is the way it is - and it's about time people accepted the limitations of the UN as it stands. But to concentrate on it's limitations is to ignore the enormous value that a talking shop has. It's far better to talk than to go to war.
If we want an executive, active world police organisation we had better be careful what we wish for. The implications and potential side effects of such an organisation are profound. Personally I prefer it the way it is, with some adjustment to jettison the irrational and anti human freedom status of the sovereignty of nations ruled by dictators.

Victor

Quantum wrote:

Indeed the structuring of the Security Coucil and the veto powers of each of the main political and military opponentswas such that it ensured no action would ever be taken.

Well, no action that went against their interests ...

Quantum

Victor wrote:

Well, no action that went against their interests ...

Sure...

But when you look at the world since 1945, there's little of it that doesn't fall in the interest on one or other of the veto countries - or else the action suggested had implications for the veto countries. It adds up to the same thing. It was designed with inbuilt guarentee of no action.

Flukey

It is not just a talking shop. They are there to talk for a purpose, though they don't often achieve much on some of the things they discuss. It does need reform, but there are always going to be powerful countries that will use it or abuse as they see fit. A lot of its problems are more down to how people approach it, than its actual self. It is constrained by its members, by vetoes and the fact that we don't live in an ideal world.