Has the UN been all that effective?

[Rockthekazbah12]

So my question is has the UN been all that effective. I know they bring humanitarian aid to countries that need it. When there is a violent crises for example Somalia in the 90's or Kosovo today they seem to just stand on the sidelines and wait for another organization like Nato to fix it. Plus the whole 1 veto deal is a jip. I'm not trying to cause flaming just want to see other people's opinions.

[offspring]

havent you played halo?

[Rockthekazbah12]

haha yea I've played halo but that takes place in the future where the world is one with itself

[Bongopete]

Move the UN to somewhere like Kosovo.

[hank]

Clearly the UN has achieved all its goals. There are no wars in the world, hunger has been abolished, disease is a thing of the past. It has been an unmitigated success.

hank

[Kaapeli]

The UN has saved millions of lives and improved the lives of many more directly and indirectly by mediating conflicts, offering humanitarian aid, peacekeeping, getting nations to work together solving problems and crisis situations.

The visible peacekeeping is just a small part of what the UN and it's affiliates do and some people are irritatingly ignorant about it.

[Invisigoth]

Almost as successful as the LoN.

[Firefly26]

A problem I have seen with it is its inability to gain a majority vote due to the expanding diversity in its members. They rarely agree on any resolutions until every member is happy with the resolution. This is often after the resolution has been so watered down so much it is only marginally effective.

I can only see it getting more and more indecisive. I believe it is neccessary, but it needs work, charisma, a few more hard-a$$es and someone who can articulate issues well enough to be able to gain a quicker majority on more effective measures.

China and Russia in the G8 have pretty much moved the fulcrum away from the interests of the west and caused a balance that will rarely land a decision on either side of an issue until it suits them.

It's fair and equal, hence it will continue to require alot of work to satisfy everyone and get work done. That's the disadvantage of having equal representation. Makes majorities really difficult when you usually have a 50/50 split on everything due to diversity.

[helomech]

The UN has saved millions of lives and improved the lives of many more directly and indirectly by mediating conflicts, offering humanitarian aid, peacekeeping, getting nations to work together solving problems and crisis situations.

The visible peacekeeping is just a small part of what the UN and it's affiliates do and some people are irritatingly ignorant about it.



Long List of U.N. Failures

Is it really a peace-keeping body?

Look at some of these failures:

Dutch Government resigns as a result of U.N. "peace-keeping". (http://www.truthnews.net/comment/2002_05_un_peacekeeping.html)

U.N. fails to condemn slavery in Sudan. (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/4/20/165110.shtml)

The U.N. is even a joke in Sierra Leone. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/933288.stm)

Where was the U.N. during the massacre in Rwanda in 1994? (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9806/04/rwanda.congo.probe/)

Where were they when Mugabe expunged all white farmers from Zimbabwe, and caused a famine that threatens to kill 8 million? Now they are talking with Mugabe about how to avert the disaster. What a joke! (http://www.aegis.com/news/afp/2002/AF021258.html)

They impede or war in Iraq, claiming diplomacy and inspections are the only answer. At the same time, they refuse to discuss the North Korea's brazen moves. (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/28/1043534058398.html)

U.N. ignores more human rights abuses. This time in Iran. (http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/04/iranno042202.htm)

U.N. takes over in East Timor, and then drops the ball leading to further violence and anarchy. (http://web.amnesty.org/web/wire.nsf/september2001/east_timor)

Remember those Buddist statues in Afghanistan that the Taliban destroyed? Well, you guessed it. The U.N. failed to save them. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1201763.stm)

The U.N. fails to protect those displaced by a civil war in Angola. (http://www.afrol.com/News2002/ang007_un_hrw_idps.htm)

That's right. The U.N. failed in Kashmir, too. (http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/archives/archives2003/kashmir20030105a.html)

The U.N. failed in Somalia.

The U.N. failed in Bosnia.

The U.N. failed in Israel.

The U.N. failed in Columbia.

The U. N. failed in Iraq.



Not too mention Darfur

[Bongopete]

I agree, the UN is hardly neutral and often allows reverse racist policies to creep in or marxist ideology to surface as well.

[IDF_TANKER]

The UN has saved millions of lives and improved the lives of many more directly and indirectly by mediating conflicts, offering humanitarian aid, peacekeeping, getting nations to work together solving problems and crisis situations.

The visible peacekeeping is just a small part of what the UN and it's affiliates do and some people are irritatingly ignorant about it.


I agree with you 100% on that one. The fundamental problem with UN (well, one of them) is that it has a basic democratic structure, while most of its members are pretty much the opposite of democracy. So in order to get all this thing to work somehow, the UN finds itself constantly pleasing the darkest regimes on this planet. This video would illustrate perfectly what I mean:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhWgZu6tcZU

A while ago I actually came across a proposition to create a similar to UN organization with only democratic countries as its members.

[SOG]

I think the UN has been effective to varying degrees (Ups and downs). But the UN consists of the worlds politics combined which makes it very hard to do anything without sides being taken, fingers being pointed, political and economic actions raised etc.

If it continues the way it's currently going I see more and more countries acting through other means than doing so through the UN umbrella.

[offspring]

I have question:
how would you reform the UN?

[SOG]

World War 3.

I don't think it can be reformed. I would instead focus more efforts on working with those who are more likely to commit, lay the ground work for that and have others join it if they want. Which seems to be what Nato is doing to an extent.

[Hispeed1]

I agree with what the U.N. stands for. But no, it hasn't been effective.

[Bongopete]

I have question:
how would you reform the UN?

Stick its offices and UN ambassadors in the middle of a region where war and strife are rampant...put the ambassadors in danger of being killed (rather than sitting in a nice office in New York) and let them get to work in making the place safe.

[muck]

The UN are weak and will ever stay so unless its structure becomes modified. The security council is a paper tiger. The veto right of its members don't simplify the challenges, too - because not the UN as an institution is weak but because its members don't want it to become strong.

Nonetheless I don't want to imagine what would happen in certain parts of the world if the UN did not continue humanitarian aid there.

[Clayton Gold]

I have question:
how would you reform the UN?

This is a good question.

I would think that some sort of 'measuring stick' of human rights would be required for membership.

This would instantly get rid of the small, backwards countries who consistently make it so hard for the UN to achieve any meaningful progress.

Then from there you could take it further.

[Bongopete]

This is a good question.

I would think that some sort of 'measuring stick' of human rights would be required for membership.

This would instantly get rid of the small, backwards countries who consistently make it so hard for the UN to achieve any meaningful progress.

Then from there you could take it further.


That would probably be seen as being racist or culturally elitist.

[Clayton Gold]

That would probably be seen as being racist or culturally elitist.

Well... So be it then. Any attempt at reform is going to be taken as such.

So the choice has to be made - continue with a "half-assed" approach, giving humanitarian aid indefinitely, and not solving any real problems - or make it clear to some of the countries making progress difficult that this will no longer be tolerated.

Any solution is going to be painful, but we can't just do nothing and continue like at present.

[Ordie]

The UN is a forum of nations. Not a governing body.

It was not designed to create heaven on Earth, but to prevent Earth from going to hell.

Without the UN and its associated organizations such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Health Organization, International Civil Aviation Organization, International Atomic Energy Agency, International Court of Justice, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea etc....
the World would be in bad shape.

[Freedom-Fries]

The UN works when the issues are medium and the battles are small, once the heat gets turned up they fail. The veto power from major powers with different objectives is the perfect way the cripple the organization

[CMNot]

The UN is a forum of nations. Not a governing body.

It was not designed to create heaven on Earth, but to prevent Earth from going to hell.

Without the UN and its associated organizations such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Health Organization, International Civil Aviation Organization, International Atomic Energy Agency, International Court of Justice, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea etc....
the World would be in bad shape.

QFT.

Most people think of the UN in terms of peacekeeping - where its failures have been far more glaring than its successes.

[Skutatos]

The UN has been a failure militarily since the Korean War. They should stick to relief efforts or just disband. Look at the member countries of the Human Rights Council, what a joke.

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/groups.htm

[Ordie]

QFT.

Most people think of the UN in terms of peacekeeping - where its failures have been far more glaring than its successes.

Peacekeeping implys there's a peace that needs to be preserved in the first place. Peacekeeping is 90% political settlement, 5% humanitarian and 5% policework. It is only as good as parties in the conflict are willing to accept and respect the ground rules.

[Dasein]

This is a good question.

I would think that some sort of 'measuring stick' of human rights would be required for membership.

This would instantly get rid of the small, backwards countries who consistently make it so hard for the UN to achieve any meaningful progress.

Then from there you could take it further.

The problem with this approach is multifold:

1. Who defines the measuring stick?
2. What happens if you exclude major powers like China, Russia and the US?
3. How could this new UN legitimately enforce it's will upon non-member states?

[Ordie]

The UN has been a failure militarily since the Korean War. They should stick to relief efforts or just disband.

Just remember that the next time you fly where ICAO, a UN organization, air traffic regulations make it safe for thousands of flights throught the world take off and land without a casualty.

Or the small pox vaccine you recieved thanks the WHO, another UN organization which was able to eliminate that disease within 20 years.

Or the bananas you ate today, thanks to the WTO, another UN organization that governs tariffs and trade between nations.

But I guess these are failures to you.

[NavyTimes]

The UN is a forum of nations. Not a governing body.

It was not designed to create heaven on Earth, but to prevent Earth from going to hell.

Without the UN and its associated organizations such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Health Organization, International Civil Aviation Organization, International Atomic Energy Agency, International Court of Justice, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea etc....
the World would be in bad shape.


Once again Ordie stands out on these boards. Excellent post.

[maw]

I agree with you 100% on that one. The fundamental problem with UN (well, one of them) is that it has a basic democratic structure, while most of its members are pretty much the opposite of democracy. So in order to get all this thing to work somehow, the UN finds itself constantly pleasing the darkest regimes on this planet. This video would illustrate perfectly what I mean:

A while ago I actually came across a proposition to create a similar to UN organization with only democratic countries as its members.

i agree. how can countries that themselves abstain from democratic principles then conveniently seek democratic representation in an international forum. all the countries of the world should be able to join the un. however, only democratic countries with open and fair elections (monitored by the un, challenged) should be able to cast votes on policy.

lastly, to say the un has failed is grossly unfair. there are literally millions of lives that have been changed for the better directly because of initiatives that originated at the un. i've worked for unicef (as well as a couple of ngo's) so i'm somewhat biased, however i'll readily admit that in certain situations only a ngo can cut through the red tape and get results. for example, i've personally been very impressed with the plumpynut initiative and the widespread effects of micro loans in certain regions.

[Power_serj]

The UN is a forum of nations. Not a governing body.

It was not designed to create heaven on Earth, but to prevent Earth from going to hell.

Without the UN and its associated organizations such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Health Organization, International Civil Aviation Organization, International Atomic Energy Agency, International Court of Justice, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea etc....
the World would be in bad shape.

The UN is a governorning body, although it should only be a forum. Remember, it tells nations what they can and cannot do, therefore it is a governing body. The associated organizations should stay, but there should be no UN resolutions, or any other laws, sanctions (obviously, no veto because this would take all power from the UN) and it should just be a forum.

[Clayton Gold]

The problem with this approach is multifold:

1. Who defines the measuring stick?
2. What happens if you exclude major powers like China, Russia and the US?
3. How could this new UN legitimately enforce it's will upon non-member states?

Granted. But we were discussing reform, and this is just one very general idea that I can see that would address many of the problems that the UN is currently facing. The specifics for these questions would be difficult indeed.

Never said it would be easy - or that this is the best solution. I just hate having shared policy dictated by third world dirtbag countries.


Just remember that the next time you fly where ICAO, a UN organization, air traffic regulations make it safe for thousands of flights throught the world take off and land without a casualty.

Or the small pox vaccine you recieved thanks the WHO, another UN organization which was able to eliminate that disease within 20 years.

Or the bananas you ate today, thanks to the WTO, another UN organization that governs tariffs and trade between nations.This is a very good post, and shows some types of things that many, myself included - either take for granted, or overlook. Although, the UN was also (some would say primarily) created to help bring stability to areas that need it, when they need it. Currently, it barely seems to be capable of this.

[Bongopete]

I think the UN should be composed of countries that can actually contribute something. Money, equipment, troops or something and not just be sitting there.

[Ordie]

The UN is a governorning body, although it should only be a forum. Remember, it tells nations what they can and cannot do, therefore it is a governing body. The associated organizations should stay, but there should be no UN resolutions, or any other laws, sanctions (obviously, no veto because this would take all power from the UN) and it should just be a forum.

The General Assembly of the United Nations only passes non-binding resolutions.

The Security Council of the UN is considered the enforcement branch with five permanent members with veto power (UK, US, Russia, PRC, France). The rest of the Security Council members are temporary seats.

UN can lend legitimacy towards the foreign policy of a member state through te Security Council. Moreover the Security Council is the body that approves the deployment of UN Peacekeepers into hot spots.

This is why China becomes critical in which its long term policy of non-involvement in the internal affairs of other countries conflicts with the urgent realities of civil wars. This is why the sending of UN peacekeepers in Darfur (An internal conflict zone within Sudan) was stalled.

So too was the issue of sending UN Peacekeepers into Haiti, a nation that once recognized the Republic of China on Taiwan.

[seraosha]

Or the bananas you ate today, thanks to the WTO, another UN organization that governs tariffs and trade between nations.









I don't like bananas, but I get your point.
Eat more fruit for the UN WTF, gotcha.

[randomguy]

Effective? The US says Jump the UN says how high, thank god China and Russia are on the security council, to keep the others in check.

[Ought Six]

"Has the UN been all that effective?" rofl rofl rofl

[Ordie]

Effective? The US says Jump the UN says how high, thank god China and Russia are on the security council, to keep the others in check.

Think of it as consensus building.
There is alot that goes on behind the scene. The goal of the other Security Council members is to get the big five to agree or abstain. This way the member does not compromise on its policy, but move things along.

[randomguy]

Think of it as consensus building.
There is alot that goes on behind the scene. The goal of the other Security Council members is to get the big five to agree or abstain. This way the member does not compromise on its policy, but move things along.

China and Russia opposed Kosovo independence and voted against it, not abstained, voted against. yet the US, France, and UK ignored that. Care to explain how that is a "consensus"?

[Ordie]

China and Russia opposed Kosovo independence and voted against it, not abstained, voted against. yet the US, France, and UK ignored that. Care to explain how that is a "consensus"?

Then it becomes a question of weighing the consequences of whether or not the actions can move ahead without UN consensus.

[Gunpack]

Sometimes effective, sometimes ineffective. The question could be what sort of world would we live in if there was no UN, with none of the constraints presently on member states.

[Alfacentori]

I think the UN has done some stellar work but it is becoming more and more unworkable and is hopelessly divided.
It does bear some resemblence to the old League of Nations in that it is only relevent if all the major powers play along, as soon as one leaves it will collapse.
I think in the futute that regional bodies will be more significant, ones Like Nato, Asean etc, groups of States in a specific region forming their own alliances and trading spheres to look after their own interests, a sort of Multi regional UN breakup.

Just a theory but a UN type organisation for Africa, Asia, Europe etc, you could argue that it has already begun with the EU and similar organisations, a global organisation just seems to be unworkable.

Alfa

[SoSo]

The UN is useless. I believe that in the future NATO will expand beyond Europe, to become a Worldwide Treaty Organization. This will replace the UN as the force for stopping genocide, keeping peace and providing relief in the world.

[Ulytau]

quote from Dave Mustaine

http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/megadeth/unitedabominations.html#4

Still saying;

Biggest problem for the world is your terrorist my terrorist idea or my idea is best idea..

Its not about UN NATO or other groups..

There must be serious meeting or something between countries,politicians cause its lookin like there is no serious trust..

After Soviet Union history pages are saying Cold War finished but its looking like HOT WAR started..

Oh its only my personal idea

Killing all politicians will work too..

[Ordie]

The UN is useless. I believe that in the future NATO will expand beyond Europe, to become a Worldwide Treaty Organization. This will replace the UN as the force for stopping genocide, keeping peace and providing relief in the world.

What do you think NATO's policy on subsidized farming and intellectual rights?

What about NATO's policy on AIDS?

Do you think NATO is able to obtain new commercial air routes rights through Russia?

" More than the end of war, we want an end to the beginnings of war."
-FDR 1945

[rgjbloke]

So my question is has the UN been all that effective. I know they bring humanitarian aid to countries that need it. When there is a violent crises for example Somalia in the 90's or Kosovo today they seem to just stand on the sidelines and wait for another organization like Nato to fix it. Plus the whole 1 veto deal is a jip. I'm not trying to cause flaming just want to see other people's opinions.

Welcome to the "Anonymous U.N." This question just underlines the massive complexities that the U.N. faces on a daily basis that the majority of people just don't see and therefore don't have a clue about. It's mostly not about the headlines that people see in the press about another U.N. failure. It is mostly about the dedicated work that many thousands of people including many service men and women carry out around the world in often difficult and sometimes very dangerous situations. I would bet that most people including many who post here do not actually know all the work that the U.N. does and where it's been doing it both in past and present times.

The U.N. also has to very much consider diplomacy in what it does and how it does it. Quite often diplomacy is more important to the parties involved than a resolution to the problem. That may not be the right approach but the U.N. is quite often stuck with it. Not an easy job! Never has been and never will be. The security council veto bit is perhaps a reflection of a slightly different world than what the world is today but, the problem there is how do you get them to change it! The bottom line is the U.N. needs to be more progressive for that to happen. Not an easy thing to pursue through diplomatic channels because by it's very nature, progressive diplomacy is a skill practised very sparingly.

My final point is that the U.N. provides the legality for many actions that are carried out by other international bodies such as N.A.T.O. and sovereign states. That includes the obvious such as Iraq and Afghanistan and maybe the less obvious such as the Australians in East Timor. There are many other examples but, that's my point. We simply don't know about a lot of them.

[Wolfmanjack]

No offense to those of you here that have worked for or with the UN.. But in my opinion the UN has done a lot more harm with their wishywashy BS then good. Granted it has done some good but comon.. No amount of sanctions will ever make a real difference. they only server to starve the poor people on the ground. Doesn't effect the leadership IE Sadam, Kim ill .. etc The UN should ether **** .. or get off the pot altogether.


http://www.planetd.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/Dilbert_at_UN.jpg

http://inklesspress.com/united_nations.jpg

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

The UN can only be as affective as it's members want it to be.

The US for example acted without the consensus of the international community over Iraq.

USSR ignored the international community in Afghanistan. Then the US and Pakistan deliberately prolonged the conflict.

China ignores the Sudan issue despite international pressure

Russia ignored Iran despite international pressure

US, Australia, NZ, South Korea ignored international pressure over Vietnam.

It's plainly clear that reform needs to take place. Remove the Veto and install 2/3 majority rule voting system and the UN would become much more effective.

[gaijinsamurai]

The UN is a forum of nations. Not a governing body.

It was not designed to create heaven on Earth, but to prevent Earth from going to hell.

Without the UN and its associated organizations such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Health Organization, International Civil Aviation Organization, International Atomic Energy Agency, International Court of Justice, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea etc....
the World would be in bad shape.

Well said, Ordie. Most of the UN's day to day operations go unnoticed, but make a huge difference, even the difference between life and death, for tens of thousands of people throughout the world. I myself worked for the UN in El Salvador, and am proud of what we did there.

[Flagg]

The UN can only be as affective as it's members want it to be.

The US for example acted without the consensus of the international community over Iraq.

USSR ignored the international community in Afghanistan. Then the US and Pakistan deliberately prolonged the conflict.

China ignores the Sudan issue despite international pressure

Russia ignored Iran despite international pressure

US, Australia, NZ, South Korea ignored international pressure over Vietnam.

It's plainly clear that reform needs to take place. Remove the Veto and install 2/3 majority rule voting system and the UN would become much more effective.

Oh hell no......

Mommar Quaddafi, Kim Jong Il, and Mugabe(just to name 3) having influence over my life!?!

A factory owning white devil like me would be dead or in jail before the ink was dry.

Hell no my friend.........I better liked your idea of taking the man down from the inside :)

[Rictor]

"Effective" depends almost entirely on one's opinion of the UN's mandate.

The way I see it, the UN should be a debating society, not a world government. In which case, it's not their job to intervene in civil wars or sanction nations or any such thing.


Oh hell no......
Mommar Quaddafi, Kim Jong Il, and Mugabe(just to name 3) having influence over my life!?!

As opposed to Vladimir Putin, George Bush, Gordon Brown, Nicolas Sarkozy and Hu Jintao having influence over your life?

In principle, I don't think one is worse than the other. A random UN member, let's say Hungary, isn't likely to have a better or worse government than any of the 5 Security Council nations, in the long run. It's not as if these 5 states have somehow been blessed with the gift of good governance. They're just bigger, richer and better armed, and by that virtue lord it over everyone else.

[Wolfmanjack]

Well said, Ordie. Most of the UN's day to day operations go unnoticed, but make a huge difference, even the difference between life and death, for tens of thousands of people throughout the world. I myself worked for the UN in El Salvador, and am proud of what we did there.


Let me tell you a little story

There was once a log floating down a stream, On this log was a family of termites. This family of termites had problems for one their home was floating down this river. The decided to form a group to decide what to do.

On part of the group wanted to try and make it to shore, another wanted to sit tight and just wait it out. While another group didn't have a opinion on what to do at all.

While this was going on a small group of termites were doing good things, Helping other termites with food and housing etc.. You know the decent things that termites do for each other.

Well some time passes and FINALY the discussion groups have come to a conclusion on what to do about there log floating down this river. Just about that time the log goes over a waterfall and is smashed to pieces on the rocks below killing all of the termites.

The moral of my little story here is yes you can do good things but in the end those good things are meaningless if you ignore the big picture.

A little over simplified and my story telling sucks but i think you get my point. The UN does do some good things, But compared to what they DON'T do .. Well you get my point.

[SBL]

^What kind of termites were they?

[Doublethinker]

Blaming the UN for Mugabe is an excellent move.

Too bad, it was actually the US and the UK that didn't accept a mutually acceptable figure for blacks and whites - Bishop Muzorewa. No, the US, more than ANYONE, pressed for Mugabe's success, led by that idiot, US ambassador in the UN, Andrew Young, who had such a great influence on Carter with regards to international affairs. Young was one of the first to welcome 'election' of Mugabe.

All the blood, of the black tribe of Matabels and whites spillt by Mugabe, is on mr. Young's hands.

Thank you, mr. Civil Rights Activist. You almost single-handedly screwed up one of the few successful states in Africa, by throwing US support to a crazed terrorist.

[Doublethinker]

No offense to those of you here that have worked for or with the UN.. But in my opinion the UN has done a lot more harm with their wishywashy BS then good. Granted it has done some good but comon.. No amount of sanctions will ever make a real difference. they only server to starve the poor people on the ground. Doesn't effect the leadership IE Sadam, Kim ill .. etc The UN should ether **** .. or get off the pot altogether.


http://www.planetd.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/Dilbert_at_UN.jpg

http://inklesspress.com/united_nations.jpg

Sure, these whiny losers at the UN.

They aren't like americans, who bomb and invade first, and then complain about 'poor intelligence'.

[Dercius]

I agree with you 100% on that one. The fundamental problem with UN (well, one of them) is that it has a basic democratic structure, while most of its members are pretty much the opposite of democracy. So in order to get all this thing to work somehow, the UN finds itself constantly pleasing the darkest regimes on this planet.

X2

That is the problem. I do not trust in an organization that gives the same value to the vote emited by Belgium, New Zealand or Austria, to the vote emited by any of those African totalitarian dictatorships or the teocratical regimes ruled by the peace and love religion. Only democrats believe in democracy, for dictators, its just an instrument, they use its weakens to achive their goals.

[Calanen]

Remove the Veto and install 2/3 majority rule voting system and the UN would become much more effective.


Screw that. The middle east plus africa and china voting for what they want..yeah right.

[gaijinsamurai]

Let me tell you a little story

There was once a log floating down a stream, On this log was a family of termites. This family of termites had problems for one their home was floating down this river. The decided to form a group to decide what to do.

On part of the group wanted to try and make it to shore, another wanted to sit tight and just wait it out. While another group didn't have a opinion on what to do at all.

While this was going on a small group of termites were doing good things, Helping other termites with food and housing etc.. You know the decent things that termites do for each other.

Well some time passes and FINALY the discussion groups have come to a conclusion on what to do about there log floating down this river. Just about that time the log goes over a waterfall and is smashed to pieces on the rocks below killing all of the termites.

The moral of my little story here is yes you can do good things but in the end those good things are meaningless if you ignore the big picture.

A little over simplified and my story telling sucks but i think you get my point. The UN does do some good things, But compared to what they DON'T do .. Well you get my point.

I think there are a lot of people in South Korea who have benefitted from the United Nations Forces which stopped them from being united with the North, under Kim Sung Il.

Do you honestly think the UN is going to stop all wars and make the earth a utopian paradise?

[Wolfmanjack]

I think there are a lot of people in South Korea who have benefitted from the United Nations Forces which stopped them from being united with the North, under Kim Sung Il.

Do you honestly think the UN is going to stop all wars and make the earth a utopian paradise?

No i don't , But they sure as hell could do a bit more then what they have.

Nothing is perfect in this world, But sitting by and letting thousands of people be lead off to slaughter is not what i would call doing a good job.

Hey .. Before you chastise me for saying that remember i think the UN does do a good job on certain things. And on a lot of things they just flat out don't do enough.

You know that old saying, **** or get off the pot ? Well it applies to the UN in my opinion.

Note this is my opinion, I don't know everything the U.N does. I doubt anyone knows everything they do.

The only real changes in this world come from hard choices backed up with force. Like it or not but sanctions don't do a damn thing except make the poor starve.

Edit .. Case is point.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1719595,00.htmlIran Calls UN Sanctions 'Worthless'

(Tehran, Iran) — Iran vowed to push ahead with uranium enrichment Tuesday, a day after the U.N. Security Council passed a third round of sanctions that Tehran called "worthless" and politically biased.

Click on link for the rest of the story as Paul Harvey used to say

[martinexsquaddie]

the UN has no troops of its own so it has to borrow them if something needs doing.
the US does'nt want a world police force that might restrain it
sorry funding illegal insurgents bad us the contras:(
niether does anybody else

[Mastermind]

To answer the question at hand succinctly and completely...No!

[ozumn]

I blame the Veto states.

[Dasein]

The UN is a convenient scapegoat, but for all the alleged failings of the UN, how many would have turned out substantially different had there been no UN at all? Is it the UN that's holding back action on Darfur, or is it that no one really wants to get involved, but it's easy to blame the UN than admit to being unable or unwilling to help?

[Zerazax]

The UN is a forum of nations. Not a governing body.

It was not designed to create heaven on Earth, but to prevent Earth from going to hell.

Without the UN and its associated organizations such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Health Organization, International Civil Aviation Organization, International Atomic Energy Agency, International Court of Justice, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea etc....
the World would be in bad shape.

Well said. The ultimate goal of the UN was to prevent another world war from happening, and so far its worked. So big picture? Yes, it has worked in the ultimate goal of post WW2 era of preventing another world war.

That being said, it has had lots of failures in areas where it decided to get too involved in or decided to not get involved enough in. Lots of peacekeeping missions as well as missions where they should have gotten involved. For instance, Korea worked out fine - the S. Koreans still exist today, thankfully, because nations had the backbone then to agree to save them.

The UN does not control what states can or cannot do - as we can all see, Saddam didn't care, neither did Iran, etc. But, that's not what the UN was designed for - it was designed as a forum to prevent war, not a government designed to create a utopia, but since it is non-binding, nations will still do waht they want.

[Bongopete]

Yes, the UN has been VERY effective......in showing how to make an overblown govt-ish operation that is great at wasting money and employing outcase govt ambassadors.

[Ordie]

Yes, the UN has been VERY effective......in showing how to make an overblown govt-ish operation that is great at wasting money and employing outcase govt ambassadors.

I'd rather have that than have planes crashing into each other, suffering through small pox today, economic depression every ten years, and trade wars that leads to open warfare.

[NavyTimes]

I want to get rid of the UN and welcome my new neocon overlords.

[maw]

within certain circles in the us it is fashionable to bash the un, this is to me is similar to the french bashing of a few years back. ordie certainly raises some very good points, alternatively if you're ever in new york with some time to kill go see unicef and listen to some of the stories of lives they've transformed. i'm not sure if they still offers tours/guides but even if you just read the literature in their lobby and look at the huge photos of children's faces you'll get an idea of what they're about. i'm certain that any of you who so callously call for the closure of the un would be moved. there are literally millions of human beings alive today because of humanitarian efforts spearheaded by the un. and i know its a tired old cliche, but if you'd seen what i've seen you'd feel differently. in this age of space shuttles and semiconductors there is still an abundance of human suffering that people in the first world don't see and take for granted. out of sight, out of mind i suppose.

the facts are that the majority of governments around the world don't care about the weak, the poor and the hungry. and as uncomfortable as it makes you feel, the truth is that demographically the majority of the population of this planet are in fact weak, poor and hungry and that as netizens whether you see it or not you all live privileged lives with ready access to water, power, healthcare, education, intertubes and of course opportunities. the majority of the world doesn't have all of these things and additionally have very little say because their governments only listen to the rich and powerful.

i'm not trying to play the guilt game, but when people call for the closure of the un i don't think they truly know what they're talking about.

[Mastermind]

Reform the UN? It is just not possible.

There comes a time in any organization's life that there is no possibility of correcting it. The complexity of the past log of rules, ammendments, clauses and such are just too jumbled to fix. As proof of this I point you to the United States Tax Code. It is just not fixable.

The only solution is a total dissassembly and scrapping of the organization. It would then be replaced by a new device that has re-oriented goals and a new consitution that is written with the mistakes of the old one in mind.

The UN was doomed immediately from it's inception in the same way the Wilson "League of Nations" was doomed. It is a lovely debating club....but could never achieve a status of a controlling authority. The UN, thank God, had no teeth from day one. The absurd establishment of a Ruling Council above all others and then allowing just about any micro state to join that ruling council with veto powers mocks the conscinece of any mentally organized person.

In short...the UN is a total joke and a waste of tax payer's money and should be disbanned ... the sooner the better.

[Ordie]

In short...the UN is a total joke and a waste of tax payer's money and should be disbanned ... the sooner the better.

Thank God we don't ever need to suffer from small pox. Without the UN we might not be living today.

[Limeyfellow]

however, only democratic countries with open and fair elections (monitored by the un, challenged) should be able to cast votes on policy.

The US banned UN observers monitoring the US elections, so under that rules the US itself wouldn't get to vote, nor would most the world's powers and then the UN wouldn't work at all. What the UN can do with bringing in countries into the fold is help to change those countries by economical and political ties. Think what happened with the Chinese and Vietnamese and so on as opposed to those where there is no ties such as North Korea and Cuba.

The UN have done far more good than they ever get credit for unfortantly.

[Wolfmanjack]

Thank God we don't ever need to suffer from small pox. Without the UN we might not be living today.


Yea.. The UN sure does a lot of good. Lets see here..

(Warning links contain some Graphic pictures)
Srebrenica Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre
U.N Dutch troops stood by while 8000+ people were killed.

U.N troops accused of Massacre in Hati
http://www.haitiaction.net/News/HIP/7_12_5.html

U.N troops Accused of Second Massacre in Hati
http://www.haitiaction.net/News/HIP/1_21_7/1_21_7.html

Another link about the Hati UN Massacre
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=710

"While Rwanda slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, UN representatives were dining in New York's finest restaurants.

When China eliminated Tibet from the face of the earth, those same UN reps were shopping in Bloomingdale's with their wives and girlfriends.

As Sudan murdered over one million Black Christians for not becoming Muslim, most of the UN ambassadors were at Broadway shows or escorting hookers around Manhattan."
http://www.freeman.org/m_online/aug03/graulich.htm

"U.N. fails to condemn slavery in Sudan. (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/4/20/165110.shtml)

U.N. ignores more human rights abuses. This time in Iran. (http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/04/iranno042202.htm)

U.N. takes over in East Timor, and then drops the ball leading to further violence and anarchy. (http://web.amnesty.org/web/wire.nsf/september2001/east_timor)

Remember those Buddist statues in Afghanistan that the Taliban destroyed? Well, you guessed it. The U.N. failed to save them. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1201763.stm)

The U.N. fails to protect those displaced by a civil war in Angola. (http://www.afrol.com/News2002/ang007_un_hrw_idps.htm)

That's right. The U.N. failed in Kashmir, too. (http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/archives/archives2003/kashmir20030105a.html)

The U.N. failed in Somalia.

The U.N. failed in Bosnia.

The U.N. failed in Israel.

The U.N. failed in Columbia.

The U. N. failed in Iraq."
http://www.4forums.com/political/showpost.php?p=4815&postcount=1

Yea... The U.N sure has done a lot to further world peace and prevent the slaughter of innocent people.

I think it comes down to Great intentions poor follow through or none at all. I don't place the blame on the U.N i place the blame for this BS on those who have the power in the U.N. Kind of circular logic i know but there is a difference.

[Dasein]

Yea.. The UN sure does a lot of good. Lets see here..

(Warning links contain some Graphic pictures)
Srebrenica Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre
U.N Dutch troops stood by while 8000+ people were killed.

U.N troops accused of Massacre in Hati
http://www.haitiaction.net/News/HIP/7_12_5.html

U.N troops Accused of Second Massacre in Hati
http://www.haitiaction.net/News/HIP/1_21_7/1_21_7.html

Another link about the Hati UN Massacre
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=710

"While Rwanda slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, UN representatives were dining in New York's finest restaurants.

When China eliminated Tibet from the face of the earth, those same UN reps were shopping in Bloomingdale's with their wives and girlfriends.

As Sudan murdered over one million Black Christians for not becoming Muslim, most of the UN ambassadors were at Broadway shows or escorting hookers around Manhattan."
http://www.freeman.org/m_online/aug03/graulich.htm

"U.N. fails to condemn slavery in Sudan. (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/4/20/165110.shtml)

U.N. ignores more human rights abuses. This time in Iran. (http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/04/iranno042202.htm)

U.N. takes over in East Timor, and then drops the ball leading to further violence and anarchy. (http://web.amnesty.org/web/wire.nsf/september2001/east_timor)

Remember those Buddist statues in Afghanistan that the Taliban destroyed? Well, you guessed it. The U.N. failed to save them. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1201763.stm)

The U.N. fails to protect those displaced by a civil war in Angola. (http://www.afrol.com/News2002/ang007_un_hrw_idps.htm)

That's right. The U.N. failed in Kashmir, too. (http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/archives/archives2003/kashmir20030105a.html)

The U.N. failed in Somalia.

The U.N. failed in Bosnia.

The U.N. failed in Israel.

The U.N. failed in Columbia.

The U. N. failed in Iraq."
http://www.4forums.com/political/showpost.php?p=4815&postcount=1

Yea... The U.N sure has done a lot to further world peace and prevent the slaughter of innocent people.

I think it comes down to Great intentions poor follow through or none at all. I don't place the blame on the U.N i place the blame for this BS on those who have the power in the U.N. Kind of circular logic i know but there is a difference.

And without the UN, how would these have turned out differently? You need to realize that the failings of the UN are really the failings of it's member states.

[Alexandr]

UN not bad in humanitarin missions in peaceful regions - deliver water,food,medicaments to suffering from catastrofes and diseases,providing first help.In militatry conflicts UN is a sad joke.

[Trenk]

UN not bad in humanitarin missions in peaceful regions - deliver water,food,medicaments to suffering from catastrofes and diseases,providing first help.In militatry conflicts UN is a sad joke.

I like this description... :|

[Doublethinker]

When NATO is eager to rush in, bomb the **** out of the country, and then blame the UN for NOT cooperating (Iraq anyone?) is that really "UN failure"? Moreover, how much of 'UN failures' are actually US failures?

[torgadon_Horus]

The UN stands for the right causes, but it seems that their favorite activity in resolving crisis is the all powerful 'sanctions'. Somehow I fail to see the effectiveness of it in anyway.

So many humanitarian crisis not yet resolved. I'm no expert, but with a social club made out of countries, some even are 'world super-powers', and a decent divisioned task organization, how can they not just finish the job ASAP.

Maybe it is true, they just "don't" have the money.

[Yosy]

Has the UN been all that effective? No, but belive me - we would be worse off without it. At least it has organizations like FAO, WHO, etc that really make the world a better place.

[koalorka]

The UN is an absolute, joke, an impotent failure, inefficient kleptocracy and over-inflated corrupt bureaucratic machine. This joke on the international community should be disbanded immediately and allow specialized humanitarian agencies with little overhead distribute humanitarian aid.

[Ordie]

This joke on the international community should be disbanded immediately and allow specialized humanitarian agencies with little overhead distribute humanitarian aid.

Who will monitor and lead efforts to improve air safety and air traffic control in Africa? Or service loans to countries? or the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia?

[koalorka]

Who will monitor and lead efforts to improve air safety and air traffic control in Africa?

Uh, Africans?

[1911-a1]

http://uppladdning.com/uploads/20080325_00.46.27_ceasefire.jpg

[Mastermind]

The UN is nothing but a re-do tool of that lunatic Wilson who wanted the League of Nations....and then the U.S. refused to join for it's idiotic communist leanings and destruction of state sovereignty. It was re-invented as the U.N. by that old socialist (Franklin) and his global pals who envisioned a one world government...a utopia of diversity and love of all man kind. Franklin just died before his dream could be crammed down American tax payers throat….fortunately, Truman was there with Marshall to finish the job…Good old Artillery Man Harry.

Trillions of dollars have been flushed down that U.N. rat hole…most of it provided by U.S. tax dollars…you know, the currency of the nation the U.N. delegates despise and curse for being too rich and powerful.

It is interesting that the Marshall plan set the seeds for the New European Union with it’s coupling of European Free Trade and Unity to acceptance of the aid.

The EU and the UN have demonstrated the desire of the organizations to crush individual freedoms in favor of all things supporting the “Common Good” just like the old Soviet system did. How coincidental.

[Telmar]

It's interesting that the UN is either criticized for not having done anything in Rwanda, Bosnia, or the Darfur, but then is also criticized and despised for trying to interfere in sovereignity of nations...

[SoSo]

The whole idea behind the League of Nations and the United Nations, that independent nations cause wars and that peace can come through artificial political unity, is wrong. Wars are not caused by differences between nations, but by the desire of some men to tyrannize their fellow men.
No two democracies have gone to war against each other in this century. Obviously, the way to bring about world peace is to promote democracy around the world. Democratic states don't wage wars of aggression (although they can and do wage wars to free oppressed peoples). When economic, political and religious freedom is preserved, prosperity ensues, and wars diminish.

[Mastermind]

In this century or the last century!^^So true!

[Telmar]

The whole idea behind the League of Nations and the United Nations, that independent nations cause wars and that peace can come through artificial political unity, is wrong. Wars are not caused by differences between nations, but by the desire of some men to tyrannize their fellow men.
No two democracies have gone to war against each other in this century. Obviously, the way to bring about world peace is to promote democracy around the world. Democratic states don't wage wars of aggression (although they can and do wage wars to free oppressed peoples). When economic, political and religious freedom is preserved, prosperity ensues, and wars diminish.

You should ask yourself why.

Democratic nations do not go to war against each other because they try to settle disputes, which are unavoidable even between democracies. Organizations such as the League of Nations, the UN or the EU (completely different of course...) provide that space for talking before things get sour.

The first nations who left the League of Nations before WWII were Japan and Germany. Not the democracies. The US did not join for isolationist reasons.

The recent ugly issues with the UN are more with the exploding number of members of the UN...including some members who have no real representativity of their people, and who have way too much power compared to democracies.

[Mastermind]

^ Then the nations that do not come up to fair democratic representation standards for their people should not be allowed in until they meet the minimum requirements. Are there any nations on earth who are not members of the UN?

So, really, if you get represenative recognition by any member nation, you're in. Any rogue nation can get status that way...it's absurd.

I despise the UN because it is a totaly hypocrite organization allowing the like of North Korea, Iran and even Miramar (sp?) Totolitarian regimes are given equal status as viable, democratic nations. Totally absurd. It drags the democracies down.

[Bongopete]

The idea behind the formation of the UN and the UN in its early days was one thing and the UN of the last 30 years another.

[Telmar]

^ Then the nations that do not come up to fair democratic representation standards for their people should not be allowed in until they meet the minimum requirements. Are there any nations on earth who are not members of the UN?

So, really, if you get represenative recognition by any member nation, you're in. Any rogue nation can get status that way...it's absurd.

I despise the UN because it is a totaly hypocrite organization allowing the like of North Korea, Iran and even Miramar (sp?) Totolitarian regimes are given equal status as viable, democratic nations. Totally absurd. It drags the democracies down.

You hit the nail on the head Mastermind. That is the problem. I don't dispise the UN though. Because it works in the cases that Ordie explained for example. But for conflict brokering or peacekeeping, everyone fearing that the UN might come to their country one day slams the brakes and asks their local superpower for support in the SC. Thus ROE's that are so bad that it drives military nuts.

There was on the Bosnian conflict a great movie called "Warriors" about UK troops. How mad these guys must have been to witness all they could have done but could not because of political compromise.

I mentioned non democratic states. But all countries have had their fair share in bad faith. The only thing is that I do not see what some self appointed leader talks for when he is there and votes one-to-one with countries such as the US.

[Dasein]

At the time the UN was formed, th USSR was both one of the most powerful nations and one of the most repressive. Further, the UN is founded on the realist principle of sovereign equality - that is, all sovereign states, by virtue of being sovereign, are equal. What goes on within each state is the business of only that state.

To create an international system where membership is determined by the internal composition of the state, or specific practices such as elections is, in effect, an admission that states are no longer considered sovereign. I doubt any state, especially the United States, would agree to such a system.

[eskachig]

There is some sheer lunacy in this thread. UN is not a world government, nor was it meant to. A system that most of you seem to want to replace is is one that many of the major powers in the world will simply refuse to join.