What is the point of the UN?

Yonge Street

What an utter waste of money on bureaucratic nonsense. It failed to prevent the Rwandan genocide in 1994, the Srebrenica massacre in 1995, the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the continuing destruction of Palestinian homes in the West Bank, continuing genocide in Darfur, North Korea's nuclear program, and now the government sanctioned massacre of civilians in Syria, in which the latest estimates suggest up to 8000 have died so far.

If a country wants to go to war or create nuclear weapons, it seems that the UN security council is powerless to stop them. The veto system is to blame of course. However, I'm sure they will write a strongly worded letter to the culpable country or issue another resolution that will be happily ignored :rolleyes: .Can we please end the charade of the UN as one big happy family and disband this waste of money. It solely exists to give diplomats a day out in New York and serves as a platform for nutjobs like Admedinejad and the late Gaddaffi to spout consipracy theory nonsense. Also the West contributes the vast majority of the UN's budget (the USA alone makes up 22% of this) so we're subsidising hate speeches from the likes of Mugabe. Lovely.

I'm interested to see how some of you will try to justify the existence of this waste of space.

karma_

And what do you propose?

Sure the UN has many, many faults, but what would the world look like without it? For all it's faults it's done a hell of a lot of good around the world and although it's not perfect I'd rather we have something like the UN than not.

OS119

karma_ wrote: »

...Sure the UN has many, many faults, but what would the world look like without it? For all it's faults it's done a hell of a lot of good around the world and although it's not perfect I'd rather we have something like the UN than not.

the problem with this view is that the bodies that 'have done a lot of good' - the WHO, WFP etc... primarily those relating to health and development (and they have done a lot of good - they have genuinely saved millions and millions of lives), don't really need the rest of the UN in order to exist and operate.

the 'political' aspects are even more problematic - for every example of effective peacemaking/peacekeeping/nation-building (and they do exist), there are half a dozen examples of the UN doing very little in the face of chaos/genocide/whatever, even disregarding the machinations of the vetos of the security council. then, assuming you abolished the veto's of the P5 you have a problem in that you'd have to come up with a system where countries weren't just picked on by force of numbers, but also the issue of, if all votes are the same, should some brutal, kleptocratic dictatorship have the same authority of a democratic, rule-of-law country that does its bit and is a good boy?

personally, i'd live happily without most of the UN apparatus - the health/development arms would continue to exist because they enjoy widespread support, but the political aspects would, IMV, be just as well served by the regional organisatons - the EU, AU, Arab League etc...

sarkozy

One of the reasons for the UN's 'ineffectiveness' in preventing 'bad things' is that, due to the strategic interests of certain countries, particularly those with a veto on the UN Security Council, it's blocked from doing 'good things'.

If you look at the UN, it was envisaged as an organisation to ensure peace and guarantee civil and political and economic and social rights. This had the support of 'capitalist' and 'communist' and 'other' governments at the time. Realpolitik has meant that only the civil and political rights have been pursued in the main. The economic and social rights, the ones that arguably address the causes of human rights abuses [a preventative], have been consistently suppressed.

This is because it conflicts with the interests of the powerful. Unless it suits certain governments to promote economic and social rights against those supporting civil and political rights because it happens to be in their interests. And so the cycle of inaction continues.

rodento

Thought the UN Security Council was just full of spies

gurramok

Remove the veto powers of those who are only there because they won in WWII. It ain't democratic at the moment with vetoes wielded by the non-democratic Russians and Chinese just because the rest of the world oppose govt sponsored massacres in Syria.

Yonge Street

karma_ wrote: »

...the UN...what would the world look like without it?

I don't think there would much difference at all, except that Western countries would be slightly richer without having to donate money to this bureaucratic black hole.

I'd be here all night if I had to list every time the UN failed to prevent genocide or civilian massacres (Rwanda, Bosnia, Mao Zedong in China etc) so let's discuss the times when the UN did intervene.

In its entire history, the UN has authorised military action only twice: The Korean war in 1950 and the first Gulf War in 1990. Both times the UN army was really just the American army wearing blue helmets and acting in America's national interest. Of course, America will pursue its interests with or without UN approval, as seen during the Iraq invasion in 2003. I can't help but wonder, if the UN didn't exist, would countries like France be more inclined to unilaterally intervene in today's Syrian massacre? They wouldn't have to worry about meaningless security council vetoes.

The way I see it, the UN is just an international version of "jobs for the boys". Reward a few diplomats with an ambassador position in the general assembly where they listen to a few speeches, get put up in a cushy hotel and enjoy an extended holiday in the Big Apple at our expense. Sickening. Less government please. Will Ron Paul dismantle this bureaucratic black hole if he gets into power?

Kinski

Yonge Street wrote: »

In its entire history, the UN has authorised military action only twice: The Korean war in 1950 and the first Gulf War in 1990. Both times the UN army was really just the American army wearing blue helmets and acting in America's national interest.

The Coalition which fought Iraq was UN-mandated, but it was not a peacekeeping force under UN operational control. No "blue helmets", and in no sense a "UN army."

Will Ron Paul dismantle this bureaucratic black hole if he gets into power?

That's a question for writers of speculative fiction.

Manach

The UN has provided auspices for peacekeeping missions. These missions have kept the peace in numerous trouble-spots around the world. Generally this is to be applauded. Thus the UN is on balance good for world peace.

That is not to say it should be tweaked now and again, perhaps by aiding extra permanent seats for new powers, such as Brazil or India.

Yonge Street

Let's move on from wars and genocide because we've seen time after time that the UN is useless when it comes to intervention and/or prevention.

What is the point of the UN charter of human rights when it's not enforced? Homosexuals are openly hanged in Iran as a spectator sport, and yet Ban Ki-Moon sits back and continues to collect his salary of over $120,000. This fact is casually mentioned on threads about Iran but I don't think posters realise the depravity and barbarity of the human rights situation over there. Here is video link of the savagery at work. Warning, it's not for the faint hearted hence I didn't embed it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E05mriWcR6c&feature=related

Why isn't Iran expelled from the UN when it continues to break the rules? Need I remind anyone of Admedinejad's "9/11 was an inside job" speech last year? He was speaking to an empty house by the end of it. The UN is a joke and has zero credibility.