nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The United Nations

Lapin

Can someone please tell me of one positive thing they have ever achieved in relation to conflict resolution ?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

darkpagandeath

errrrrm ..... Problem is the major powers have vetoes.

Lapin

darkpagandeath wrote: »

errrrrm ..... Problem is the major powers have vetoes.

Good point.

So the U in UN is a bit of a misnomer then.

We are all united but some of us are more united than others.

preston johnny

Kofi Annan................say no more

Manach

The UN provides a great deal of post-conflict support to ensure that the civilian population can survive and societial structures are put in place. Offhand, work in Nepal, Central Africa and East Timor attest to that.

The One Doctor

They're a lot better than the League of Nations were.

Lapin

Manach wrote: »

The UN provides a great deal of post-conflict support to ensure that the civilian population can survive and societial structures are put in place. Offhand, work in Nepal, Central Africa and East Timor attest to that.

Would such efforts not prevail without the assistance of a diplomatic talking shop though?

The international community has a record of pulling together without the self serving bureaucracy provided by the UN ?

Lapin

The One Doctor wrote: »

They're a lot better than the League of Nations were.

The motives behind the establishment of The Leaque of Nations were admirable though. As they were for the UN and EEC/EU and other international organisations.

But the initial reasons for their foundation has long since been lost in the interests of diplomatic back scratching and vested interests.

The United Nations has long since passed the sell by date of the motives it was established to represent.

c_man

Lapin wrote: »

Can someone please tell me of one positive thing they have ever achieved in relation to conflict resolution ?

Did a good job after WW2 right?

Lapin

c_man wrote: »

Did a good job after WW2 right?

Did they?

mezuzaj

Lapin wrote: »

Can someone please tell me of one positive thing they have ever achieved in relation to conflict resolution ?

Probably not very much as its impossible to get the world to agree

Fratton Fred

Lapin wrote: »

Would such efforts not prevail without the assistance of a diplomatic talking shop though?

The international community has a record of pulling together without the self serving bureaucracy provided by the UN ?

Such as?

Most , if not all of the pulling together has come via the UN.

DamagedTrax

The One Doctor wrote: »

They're a lot better than the League of Nations were.

a lot worse than the league of gentlemen though

c_man

Lapin wrote: »

Did they?

Maybe. No way I'm checking this evening! :pac:

whiskeyman

They've nice coloured hats.

Son Of A Vidic

As long as a privileged veto stays in play for the elite members of the club. The UN will remain a glorified talking shop for posturing and time wasting.

Adamantium

This much....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TEvacFETvM

Sand

darkpagandeath wrote: »

errrrrm ..... Problem is the major powers have vetoes.

Major powers are major powers. By granting them vetoes, the UN is just recognising realities. The UN certainly wont be able to impose a view without the support of major powers, and wont be able to oppose a major power, as major powers have armies and the UN does not.

darkpagandeath

Sand wrote: »

Major powers are major powers. By granting them vetoes, the UN is just recognising realities. The UN certainly wont be able to impose a view without the support of major powers, and wont be able to oppose a major power, as major powers have armies and the UN does not.

Yes and it's usually the major powers that have hands in or steaks in what's happening throughout the world. When you have your backers vetoing any action against you, you get to do what you want pretty much.

lazybones32

Lapin wrote: »

Can someone please tell me of one positive thing they have ever achieved in relation to conflict resolution ?

They boost the local economy of wherever they* stay. They also bring a lot of business to large Corporations: the UN spent more on new air-conditioned Jeeps/Land Rovers in Cambodia than they spent of building infrastructure in the aftermath of Pol Pot.

An Englishman with an Irish name wrote a very good book about Cambodia and he gave some interesting info on how the UN 'helped'.

* "they" refer to the commanders (colonel's, Generals, clerks, mid and high end management etc). They keep the hotels busy and consume lots of alcohol and can be very generous in buying 'free' drinks for locals. Don't forget the boon to the local prostitution Industry.

Awkward Badger

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

As long as a privileged veto stays in play for the elite members of the club. The UN will remain a glorified talking shop for posturing and time wasting.

Those that have the veto are the winner of world war 2. They gave themselves the right to rule the world between them. Its a security police to protect the interests of those nations and its not gonna change.

Manach

Lapin wrote: »

Would such efforts not prevail without the assistance of a diplomatic talking shop though?

The international community has a record of pulling together without the self serving bureaucracy provided by the UN ?

From talking to both ex-refugees and camp admin people, rich nation states have a tendency to be rather fickle in their support of such programs. Only the UN with its dedicated bureaucracy can provide a respected and neutral framework to provide assistance.