The United Nations

bonkey

In a number of the discussions which this board (and Humanities before it) has seen, the UN has had an amount of criticism levelled at it - most notably the security council.

So, I thought maybe this might make for some interesting discussion.

Is the UN worthwhile? Is it effective? If not, then what is the alternative (or do we even need one).

Please note that this thread is for discussing the purpose and role of the UN. This is not a Palestine/Israel/US thread, so while this is one tiny area where the UNs purpose has been apparently undermined, I do not want this discussion to break off into a history/propaganda lesson about those specific troubles.

Anyway....on with the show...

jc

Hobbes

It's good in theory. The problem is a lot of countries ignore rulings or other countries automatically discount others based on their opinions.

Take the UNHRC for example. Everyone goes on about terrible human rights in the countries that were selected (and to the most part it's true). However I would be intrested to know what country in the world has the best human rights record? I would easily take a guess that no country has perfect human rights. But the system is there to create a list of rights which define equality for everyone and work from there.

I would certainly like to see a united world. Of course it will probably take an Alien invasion to do it though.

Typedef

The United Nations is a really great and vauntable idea and in many ways it is an unabrogated success. One of the biggest encumbances to the UN is the fact that some nations within the UN can 'veto' UN resolutions. This system of administration creates a political elite within the system of the UN and in practice is a cop out for the 'powers' that influence geopolitics to make sure that in no way are their interests infringed upon in any great way by the UN.

The system of giving single countries the power to arbitrarily veto the will of the rest of the UN enfeebles the power and potential effectivness of the UN. Take the sanctions against Iraq, these sanctions are responsible for killing Iraqis by the millions, yet still the sanctions remain in place, Irish politicians have literally resigned from UN positions because of the continuity of these sanctionshere and the Irish are not alone in the desire to end the sanctions against Iraq, yet still the sanctions remain in place.

UN sanctions against Iraq must be stopped at all costs the weight of human catastrophy is unbelievable, if reports are to be believed then a human catastrophy has already taken place and it must be stopped now.

Sand

This nation is on the UN Commisson for Human Rights.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/4/155909.shtml

Like Hobbes says its good...in theory. The UN is hailed as the one hope for world peace but it has to be admitted that the world is not as peaceful now as it was in earlier times. Does this mean that we must go back in order to go forward? No. It just means that illogical situations like the example posted above shouldnt be allowed.

Apparently many of the seats on commissons such as the above are geographical- i.e like the world cup there has to be so many countries from each region. Of course while this sounds nice, it makes as much sense as Cameroon going to the World Cup as supposedly one of the best teams in the world while the Netherlands sit at home. Of course if for example the Human Rights Commisson was chosen on merit there would be an uncomftable amount of European , North American and a smattering of states from other continents like Japan and Australia. No such thing as perfect human rights state (And wed probably hate to live in one given we cant even stand Political Correctness) but these are havens in a world of few freedoms- Hence its the immigrants destination home of choice.

Might remind you of the way the Colonial powers used to decide how the world was going to be run- for better or for worse however at least you could travel from Paris to Beijing in those times without getting shot at or having to avoid "hot spots". So we can do without the UN. Of course fear of the alternative will prevent the UN ever being completely forgotten about- more than a few people have linked it to the future of civillisation as we know it despite the fact that it actually undermines the values we hold (Human Rights again).

The UN is pretty ineffective- It can only act in any meaningful way when it is allowed to do so. The veto allows the Powers to prevent any inteference in their sphere of influence which means its abilities are greatly curtailed. If you remove the veto you risk a conflict with a state (China and Tibet- Think China will back down?) and the state is going to win hands down - a particular state probably has more allies and dependancies than the UN. The balance of power lies with the powers as it always has.

Youll see this again and again- When asked how to solve world poverty etc etc its the powers who are called upon to act, the ineffectiveness of the UN is admitted.

Hobbes

While the seats are geographical what Typedef said about some countries have more voting rights then others, to the point of dismissing a majority vote.

We can't do without the UN. The other option is that every country is a power answering to no one else in the world.

If you didn't have the UN such things like the cuban missile crisis may have ended a lot worse.

Sand

The whole point of the veto is because it recognises the futility of the voting- Its assumed that all member nations are equal, much like in a normal election all the voters are by and large equal. However unlike a normal election its patently untrue there is equality between the memberstates of the UN. None of the powers such as Russia or China is going to accept a resolution imposed on it by the likes of Andorra. Its that simple. The UN was created with the veto there to prevent any embarrassing confrontation between the UN and a superpower which would undoubtedly result in a defeat for the UN.

We can definitly do without the UN. Its corrupt, ineffective and hypocritical (Srebinica again). The world has done without it before.

The resolution of the Cuban missle crisis (a clash between superpowers) had more to do with MAD than with the UN.

The only thing the UN actually does is provide neutral diplomats (like they were impossible to find previously) and do NGO work that NGOs already do.

Hobbes

I'm just curious. What countries have the power to Veto? The US is the only one I know of.

MAD had nothing to do with ending the cuban missile crisis. Both sides where prepared to go to war.

Victor

The five countries with permanent status on the Security Council - China, France, Russia, UK and USA ('the WWII victors and China' - did China loose WWII?)

Germany and Japan have asked for permanent status on the based on their large populations and economies and stable politics.

mike65

Originally posted by Victor
The five countries with permanent status on the Security Council - China, France, Russia, UK and USA ('the WWII victors and China' - did China loose WWII?)

The 5 permanant members were the members of the Nuclear
Club when the UN was founded, nothing to do with the outcome of WW2 as such. Of course using that critiera now would also
mean India, Pakistan, Israel and few others getting permenant status. That would be fun!

As for the wider thread discussion, the UN would be useful
if it were'nt so hidebound by geopolitical rivalries and sheer
size, like no other body its top heavy. Its also fairly corrupt and will too often run rather than fight the good fight. Remember
Rwanda anyone?

Mike.

Victor

Originally posted by mike65
The 5 permanant members were the members of the Nuclear
Club when the UN was founded, nothing to do with the outcome of WW2 as such. Of course using that critiera now would also mean India, Pakistan, Israel and few others getting permenant status. That would be fun!

I think you are mistaken on this. The UN was formed in 1944/45 and the (potential) nuclear powers then were Germany, Japan and the USA. The UK was essential opperating a joint effort with the USA. I understand the UK didn't expode a bomb of it's own until about 1953.

I understand it wasn't until after the war that the USSR became a potential and not until 1948 (?) that they expoded a bomb (was this more to do with the Berlin blockade?). I'm not sure how exactly the French developed their programme, but I doubt it was in place in 1945 (it being rather too close to the retreating Germans). And China wouldn't have have had the bomb until the 1960's.

Yes, what you say was true for a long time that the 5 permanant members were the members of the Nuclear Club, but that is not how they gained permantent status.

EDIT
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/nuke/index.html

China began developing nuclear weapons in the late 1950s with substantial Soviet assistance. ... When China decided in 1955 to develop atomic bombs it faced a number of technological choices as to the most appropriate route to follow. ... China made remarkable progress in the 1960s in developing nuclear weapons. In a thirty-two-month period, China successfully exploded its first atomic bomb (October 16, 1964)

FURTHER EDIT
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/france/nuke/index.html

The first Soviet bomb exploded in 1949, that of the British in 1952, that of the French in 1960, and that of the Chinese in 1966. In parallel, these countries developed the vectors able to carry the bomb: planes initially, land-based missiles, then missiles launched by submarines.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/uk/doctrine/index.html

In order to remain a world nuclear power, Britain decided in 1945 to create a weapons programme with the aim of producing atomic bombs, using plutonium as the fissile material in the bombs. Until 1945, Britain had collaborated with the Americans but the latter passed an act in 1946 forbidding information on weapons being passed to another country. On 03 October 1952 the first British atomic test was carried out aboard a ship moored off the north west coast of Australia.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/nuke/index.html

The Second World War demonstrated to Stalin the backwardness of Soviet science and technology. After the war, he ordered the continued expansion of the research and development base, particularly in defense and heavy industries. Allocations for science increased, new research facilities opened, and salaries and perquisites for scientists were improved dramatically. All available personnel, including captured German scientists and imprisoned Soviet scientists, were employed. This effort led to some important technological successes, such as the explosion of the atomic bomb in August 1949.

mike65

Whoops, your're right and I'm completely wrong!
Its funny how you get an idea in your head and never check to see if its correct...

The veto came about because neither the US or USSR would join unless there was one.

Mike.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
The whole point of the veto is because it recognises the futility of the voting

Incorrect, the whole point of the veto is that the superpowers of the day would not join without this safegaurd. In other words, the US, the USSR (and possibly the other 3 permie members) wanted a "UN for the rest fo them" - one which would be effectively powerless to enact anything these nations did not see as being contrary to their own best interests, but which provided a sense of legitimacy for the dictates they wanted the rest of the world to play by.

This veto, more than anything, has been what has crippled the UN. It was not introduced because of the futility of voting - it is what has made voting futile.

None of the powers such as Russia or China is going to accept a resolution imposed on it by the likes of Andorra. Its that simple.

Its not that simple. Andorra, or any other nation, is incapable of imposing a resolution on anyone. Resolutions go to a vote, which require a majority. So you can only have a resolution imposed on you when over half the nations of the world agree that you should have it imposed...and if I recall, it also requires a majority of the permie members as well. Thisis slightly different to the farcical situation you paint....

We can definitly do without the UN. Its corrupt, ineffective and hypocritical (Srebinica again). The world has done without it before.

The world has survived from the consumption of fossil fuels up to now, so why should we stop using them?

Slaves have existed in society since time immemorial, why should we remove them now - society hasnt fallen apart. And so on and so forth.

Hell, war has been raging amongst mankind in one part of the world or another since time immemorial as well - so obviously we dont need to fix that.

Oh - not to mention famine, disease, oppression and all the other bad things in life. We've survived with them up to now, so no need to get rid of them either, is there.

Put a different way - that argument is complete horsemanure.

The only thing the UN actually does is provide neutral diplomats (like they were impossible to find previously) and do NGO work that NGOs already do.

I would suggest that you go an deducate yourself on the UN and what it does. You seem to have forgotten UNICEF, UNESCO, and a myriad of other aspects of the UN....unless of course that you thought the UN was only the peace-keeping troops sent to various places around the world.

jc

Sand

Veto: Were both saying the same thing but looking at it from different points of view. The members arent equal, the powers will not accept resolutions against their interests because Lichtenstein thinks they should, so the veto prevents any embarrassing clashes.

I exaggerated to make a point but given a choice between using a veto and suddenly ignoring its national interest, what do you think China is going to do should Andorra and whoever else tell it to leave Tibet? Pack up tommorrow?

Muddying the waters Bonkey wont make the UN any more effective. We have survived without the UN, and in my opinion at least there has been more peace in previous eras than the last 50 years. You can try and throw unrelated issues in to cloud the issue but its merely the debating tactic of those whove already lost. (Why exactly are you comparing the UN to things like famine war disease etc)

swiss

The UN has done a lot of good work in relation to bettering the human condition and making people aware of the injustices that take place in the world today. However, their activities have been hampered in the first place by the power certain member states have to veto resolutions taken, and secondly, and perhaps more fundamentally - by 'Political Correctness'

In order to highlight many of the worlds injustices with a view to ending them it is often necessary to step on many toes, to injure the sensibilities of states who often disdain outside interference or scrutiny. I am drawn to the comments of the UN High Commissioner for Human rights, our very own Mary Robinson who described the political restraints that were put upon her in order to avoid souring relations between the UN and member states.

I accept that many people who work for the UN and support it's structures are idealistic individuals who do wish to see positive change - and see themselves as being in a position to effect those changes. Since the foundation of the League of Nations the need for an impartial and effective organisation to oversee peace in Europe has been recognised.

The UN has now diversified into other fields, and has created offshoot organisations, such as those bonkey mentioned. While these are worthy organisations that aspire to lofty goals the central tenet has always been the preservation of peace and stability.

Perhaps the very existence of the UN as an entity helps to ensure that - as it is an organisation whose ideals are held in high regard by many people as well as states, and provide a model to which others can aspire.

However, as an effective instrument of peace, I believe the UN fails quite miserably. Without an effective military force to back it up, unhampered by political restrictions (as opposed to restraint) the UN shall remain, in my view, a voice without a body - a conscience in the back of the world's mind that can either be listened to or ignored.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Muddying the waters Bonkey wont make the UN any more effective. We have survived without the UN, and in my opinion at least there has been more peace in previous eras than the last 50 years.

Just because we survived without it in the past, does not mean it is not necessary, which is what I tried to point out in my previous post...but I'll get back to that.

As for more peace in previous eras. When? I defy you to name any 50 year period in the modern era which was "more peaceful". I would also suggest that you look at the 50 years preceeding the UN's foundation, and spot the military trends which were emerging - larger wars, more advanced weapons, multi-national alliances. It was only since these events that a body like the UN Security Council was in any way needed.

You can try and throw unrelated issues in to cloud the issue but its merely the debating tactic of those whove already lost. (Why exactly are you comparing the UN to things like famine war disease etc)

I'll ignore the "lost" comment, because I was never of the opinion that this was a competition. I'm sorry you see it that way.

1) I would suggest that you noticve that I am dealing with issues which the UN tacles directly, every day of the year, as part of its Human Rights programmes.

2) Oce you've done that, I suggest you refresh yourself on what exactly it is that the UN does, as opposed to just the UN Security Council, which seems to be all you are thinking about.

3) While you're at it, go an drefresh your knowledge on the Security Council, because your veto arguments re: China and <small nation of choice> are so ridiculously unrelated to anything the security council does, I'm not even going to begin to try and correct you

4) Finally, when you're read all that, come back and explain to me how any of the issues I raised are outside the remit of the UN, and are therefore "muddying the waters".

Once youve all that reading done, you can then come back and explain to me how I am muddying the waters.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by swiss
However, as an effective instrument of peace, I believe the UN fails quite miserably. Without an effective military force to back it up, unhampered by political restrictions (as opposed to restraint) the UN shall remain, in my view, a voice without a body - a conscience in the back of the world's mind that can either be listened to or ignored.

I'm not sure I agree with this view. The UN Security Council is supposed to be about a number of things :

1) A forum for discussion. This can only work if nations are willing to discuss their issues in the UN. Normally, at least one of the nations says "this is none of the rest of the world's business, and you can all sod off". While this idiotic nature persists, then the UN is worthless as a forum for discussion. Take India and Pakistan. They are not telling the US, the UK, and anyone else willing to mediate to sod off, but they will not simply take the issue before the UN. Why?

2) The UN provides mechanisms for helping nations recover after a conflict. By attempting to alleviate post-conflict tensions, through the use of a "buffer zone" of blue-helmets. Their job is to try and keep the peace....not to enforce it, or to hunt down militants. Their job is to stand in the way and say either "you shall not pass" or "to pass, you have to kill international soldiers who are not part of your grievance - are you that stupid?". By and large, this has been a success.

3) The UN may also be involved in "peace enforcement" where it sends in troops to resolve a situation, or where it endorses the sending in of troops to resolve a situation. So, if we look at (for example) the Afghanistan issue at the moment, we see that the US, UK, and others went in. Several people commented that they had to do this because the UN isnt worth a damn. However, they went in there (initially) with the blessings of the UN.

The UN is not about a standing army. IOt never was and never should be. You cannot enforce peace through superior firepower. The founders of the UN realised this, and basically tried to give the world an alternative to armed conflict. If the world wishes to continue on its path of armed conflict, then fine, but we have four possible futures in front of us :

1) People decide to give peace a chance, and the UN comes into its full glory
2) People discard the UN, and other worthless international treaties, and we return to fedalism
3) Some superpower decides it should replace the UN, and we either have a new world war, or a new world order.
4) We contine the way we are, paying lip service to peace, and homage to war.

Personally, I know which one of those 4 I would be in favour of.

jc

Victor

Originally posted by Sand
The only thing the UN actually does is provide neutral diplomats (like they were impossible to find previously) and do NGO work that NGOs already do.

You mean they abolished the Universal Post Office!! B******s!!

Sand

The Concert of Europe, From the end of the Franco Prussian war to the fall of Bismark. The concert continued but under the German Kaisers new exspansionary policies tensions were consistently being raised. However from the Franco- Prussian war right up the First World War there was no major clash between the powers and one could travel far more safely overland from Paris to Beijing than you can do today. As opposed to the Vietnam War and related conflicts, The Middle East conflicts, The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, The African Conflicts (Congo - (Thats still going isnt it?), Rwanda, Angola, Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, The French in North Africa), The Yugoslav Conflicts (4 of them, all pretty bitter), The Gulf War, The Iran-Iraq War before it, Checnya (Twice) - thats just the ones I can remeber off hand, There are others but lets just say they cancel out with The Boer War.

And jsut because we have the UN now does not mean we cant do without it:)


"I would suggest that you noticve that I am dealing with issues which the UN tacles directly, every day of the year, as part of its Human Rights programmes"

Hilarious thing is Sudan, the UNs expert on Human Rights recently attacked UN aid convoys and wont allow UN Human Rights facilities to be set up in Sudan. Well theyre the UN appointed experts.

"2) Oce you've done that, I suggest you refresh yourself on what exactly it is that the UN does, as opposed to just the UN Security Council, which seems to be all you are thinking about. "

Its one of the few things that it does that governments or NGOs doesnt already do. And its pretty much the UNs central misson. You can buy a magazine from your petrol stations store but you still go there for the petrol, cos you can get the mag anywhere.

"3) While you're at it, go an drefresh your knowledge on the Security Council, because your veto arguments re: China and <small nation of choice> are so ridiculously unrelated to anything the security council does, I'm not even going to begin to try and correct you "

Youre right- they dont even have the balls to approach China. they prefer to pick up their brownie points by voting resolutions against Israel. What is it 66 or something so far? Typedef your moment to shine.

"4) Finally, when you're read all that, come back and explain to me how any of the issues I raised are outside the remit of the UN, and are therefore "muddying the waters". "

Well lets see you went on a rant about fossil fuels, slavery, war , famine, disease and oppression, some of which have nothing to do with the UN, and many of which are not unique to the UN.

Fossil fuels- It wont be the UN who invents an alternative power source I can tell you that for sure.

Slavery- Funnily enough most western nations managed to find it in themselves to abolish slavery wihtout the UN being about. The fact that slavery still exsists in other cultures isnt a triumph for the UN.

Famine,disease- Still present despite the UN. More disease has been prevented by government vaccinations and health programmes than by the UN. The UN doesnt do anything for famine victims that NGOs and governments dont already do.

Oppression- Yes. Well recently the Afghans were given an interim government and freed from oppression by the Taliban. It had more to do with a Superpowers milatary than the UN tbh. Opression is usually a case of the oppressed actually standing up and demanding their rights- you cant give people rights. they have them already- they simply have to be willing and able to take them.

Manach

Just to interject, in general I think it was and mostly still is a good notion. Vetos aside, the UN should be the sole arbitor of what is a just conflict, outside of a nation's right to self defense.

Slydice

Originally posted by bonkey


Is the UN worthwhile? Is it effective? If not, then what is the alternative (or do we even need one).

In Comparison with "The League of Nations" I think the UN is doing Grand.