The United Nations
ekent
Join Date: 2002-11-08 Member: 7801Members
Join Date: 2002-11-08 Member: 7801Members
<div class="IPBDescription">or what</div> There's a lot of people who seem to feel that the UN, in "this day and age," is irrelevant. Reasons primarily cite problems with the Security Council in recent years:
<!--QuoteBegin-Crespo+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Crespo)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In 1999, President Clinton, to avoid a Russian veto, ignored the Security Council altogether and instead dragged NATO into a devastating, offensive war against Serbia over Kosovo. The French have rarely asked the United Nations for permission to repeatedly intervene in thier former African colonies. There are now 3,000 troops in the Ivory Coast.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They also frequently complain about the slow, laborious bureaucracy involved with any policy-making:
<!--QuoteBegin-globalpolicy+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (globalpolicy)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The inability of the Security Council to craft a workable UN resolution on how to rid Iraq of its alleged weapons of mass destruction in the months leading up to the essentially unilateral American invasion of that country is but one among many instances of the perceived failure of the UN to work effectively.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Regardless, I think no one can dispute the necessity of international law. Further, without an international organization to compel and enforce even when a state disagrees, laws would be pointless. One can see this failure in the impotence of international treaties like ABM and Kyoto after the US withdraws from them.
Democracy is the most effective government because it turns a human weakness, self-interest, into its primary driving force. However, even democracy - to be effective - needs the consent of its populace. It needs to be able to enforce laws - don't harm his person, don't harm her belongings - to ensure that self-interest is aimed in the right direction.
Is it possible to extend that democracy to the world level? If an individual commits a crime, we can punish them. If you commit a murder, you can be killed or imprisoned. How do we extend that to a government? In Sudan the government is supplying militias with weapons and support and presumably a simple direction to go and shoot. Do we convict them of a murder-equivelent crime? How do we punish them? In most states the government is intimately tied with the most important infrastructure to its citizens, in terms of funding and most importantly knowledge and manpower. If we determine a "decapitation" is necessary (such as was apparently the case in Iraq), how do we avoid "throwing the baby out with the bathwater?"
<!--QuoteBegin-nationalreview+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (nationalreview)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How about a simple law to preserve a once hallowed institution: To join the U.N.'s democratic assembly, a country must first be democratic? Why should a U.N. diplomat be allowed to demand from foreigners the very privileges that his government denies to its own people?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How about it? Would a limited institution of that sort be necessary in the first place? I think yes, as shown by Kyoto, ABM, and many other examples of even democratic countries attempting to subvert international law (Japan's continual maneuvering to legalize whale-hunting, for example). But would that reduce the effectiveness? Isn't the point of the UN to institute a truly <i>international</i> law?
<!--QuoteBegin-30days+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (30days)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The saying “if the UN did not exist, one would have to invent it” is not just a turn of phrase of inititiates, convinced proponents of multilateralism. It is shown by the fact that even President Bush, despite giving signs of wanting to go his own way – look at American policy on the Kyoto Protocol, the International Court of Justice, disarmament, the Iraqi question – is not hiding the need to obtain the imprimatur and a certain collaboration from the United Nations in the job of the democratic reconstruction of Iraq.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.dailygamecock.com/news/2003/03/31/Viewpoints/Its-Time.To.Replace.The.U.n-403515.shtml' target='_blank'>It's time to replace the UN</a>
<a href='http://www.paulcrespo.com/showArticle.php?id=9' target='_blank'>Crespo</a>
<a href='http://www.globalpolicy.org/reform/index.htm' target='_blank'>Global Policy Institute</a>
<a href='http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=2864' target='_blank'>30 days (Catholic viewpoint)</a>
<a href='http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson021403.asp' target='_blank'>National Review</a>
<a href='http://www.google.com/search?q=replace+the+UN' target='_blank'>You dig up a lot of nutjobs when you search Google for "UN"</a>
<!--QuoteBegin-Crespo+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Crespo)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In 1999, President Clinton, to avoid a Russian veto, ignored the Security Council altogether and instead dragged NATO into a devastating, offensive war against Serbia over Kosovo. The French have rarely asked the United Nations for permission to repeatedly intervene in thier former African colonies. There are now 3,000 troops in the Ivory Coast.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They also frequently complain about the slow, laborious bureaucracy involved with any policy-making:
<!--QuoteBegin-globalpolicy+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (globalpolicy)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The inability of the Security Council to craft a workable UN resolution on how to rid Iraq of its alleged weapons of mass destruction in the months leading up to the essentially unilateral American invasion of that country is but one among many instances of the perceived failure of the UN to work effectively.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Regardless, I think no one can dispute the necessity of international law. Further, without an international organization to compel and enforce even when a state disagrees, laws would be pointless. One can see this failure in the impotence of international treaties like ABM and Kyoto after the US withdraws from them.
Democracy is the most effective government because it turns a human weakness, self-interest, into its primary driving force. However, even democracy - to be effective - needs the consent of its populace. It needs to be able to enforce laws - don't harm his person, don't harm her belongings - to ensure that self-interest is aimed in the right direction.
Is it possible to extend that democracy to the world level? If an individual commits a crime, we can punish them. If you commit a murder, you can be killed or imprisoned. How do we extend that to a government? In Sudan the government is supplying militias with weapons and support and presumably a simple direction to go and shoot. Do we convict them of a murder-equivelent crime? How do we punish them? In most states the government is intimately tied with the most important infrastructure to its citizens, in terms of funding and most importantly knowledge and manpower. If we determine a "decapitation" is necessary (such as was apparently the case in Iraq), how do we avoid "throwing the baby out with the bathwater?"
<!--QuoteBegin-nationalreview+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (nationalreview)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How about a simple law to preserve a once hallowed institution: To join the U.N.'s democratic assembly, a country must first be democratic? Why should a U.N. diplomat be allowed to demand from foreigners the very privileges that his government denies to its own people?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How about it? Would a limited institution of that sort be necessary in the first place? I think yes, as shown by Kyoto, ABM, and many other examples of even democratic countries attempting to subvert international law (Japan's continual maneuvering to legalize whale-hunting, for example). But would that reduce the effectiveness? Isn't the point of the UN to institute a truly <i>international</i> law?
<!--QuoteBegin-30days+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (30days)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The saying “if the UN did not exist, one would have to invent it” is not just a turn of phrase of inititiates, convinced proponents of multilateralism. It is shown by the fact that even President Bush, despite giving signs of wanting to go his own way – look at American policy on the Kyoto Protocol, the International Court of Justice, disarmament, the Iraqi question – is not hiding the need to obtain the imprimatur and a certain collaboration from the United Nations in the job of the democratic reconstruction of Iraq.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.dailygamecock.com/news/2003/03/31/Viewpoints/Its-Time.To.Replace.The.U.n-403515.shtml' target='_blank'>It's time to replace the UN</a>
<a href='http://www.paulcrespo.com/showArticle.php?id=9' target='_blank'>Crespo</a>
<a href='http://www.globalpolicy.org/reform/index.htm' target='_blank'>Global Policy Institute</a>
<a href='http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=2864' target='_blank'>30 days (Catholic viewpoint)</a>
<a href='http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson021403.asp' target='_blank'>National Review</a>
<a href='http://www.google.com/search?q=replace+the+UN' target='_blank'>You dig up a lot of nutjobs when you search Google for "UN"</a>
Comments
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How about it? Would a limited institution of that sort be necessary in the first place? I think yes, as shown by Kyoto, ABM, and many other examples of even democratic countries attempting to subvert international law (Japan's continual maneuvering to legalize whale-hunting, for example). But would that reduce the effectiveness? Isn't the point of the UN to institute a truly international law?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Law needs to be backed up with something. If you want justice, you are going to have to enforce it, no criminal is going to show up at the jailhouse and turn himself in. The UN, which refuses to enforce any laws itself, is inherently flawed. But you already know that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Democracy is the most effective government because it turns a human weakness, self-interest, into its primary driving force. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not true. That is true of capitalism, but not of democracy. Democracy is the most effective government simply because it allows political change without bloodshed. Selfishness and associated immorality are mortal enemies of real democracies. The UN is comprised of a whole stack of nations all desperately trying to get whatever they can for themselves, and are willing to break any rule willy nilly if they can get away with it. You cannot, EVER, get a democracy running with nations like that.
So therefore, I agree that only democratic nations should get a vote, and the rest of them can damn well either get democratic or accept our justice.
In the end the question must be asked, is it worth the blown up cost for the relitively simplisic function it serves?
----no comment----
the one and important flaw in the very concept of the UN is the VETO right of its founding nations.
Cut that, and the deciding processes would fasten up drastically. At the moment, any of the veto-states may, without any reasoning, cancel any descision against a majority.
Then, the UN is trying to find a workaround which pleases all parties and is acceptable for everybody. Hence, time is lost and the result is inadequate in most of cases.
Eliminate the veto, and the UN would defintely be more descisive and less "bureocratic".
The point you all miss is, that its not bureocracy which hinders the UN to be effective as an entity, but the fact that a single nation can decide against the whole rest of the world, and nobody can do anything about that.
It comes down to belief systems (Im not takling about religeon, though it plays a part). For instance, Democrats in the US believe that the wealthy should take care of the poor - and as a result, they support higher taxes on the upper/middle classes. Republicans believe that the poor have plenty of opportunites as it is, and the way to increase those opportunites is to tax the job providing upper/middle classes less.
Extrapolate this to the UN, and now you have belief systems in constant conflict - communism/capitolism - Islamic ideals / western though - Conservatism / socialism. Factor in what appears to be a "benefit" for one country or another, or one people group or another, and you will constantly be at an impass.
There are additional problems - the UN has no morality. Sanctions are impossed against countries who have weapons (nuclear or otherwise) - yet it will completly gloss over countries who wage ethnic cleansing wars using standard arms.
It amazes me that anyone would care what this "governing body" thinks at all - much less support it. As long as there is no absolute morality, no black and white, wrong and right - as long as there are a million shades of grey and every crazed dictator gets his say... The UN will continue to fail... and I will laugh at it.
No. A functional political entity has not somethign as a Veto system for single members.
Eliminate the veto, and no country can block a descision all alone. Take the EU for example. Every descision must be veryfied by<i> every</i> member...that is political insanity and results in minorities dictating the course of action and enforcing demands for their approcal to nessesary decisions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There are additional problems - the UN has no morality. Sanctions are impossed against countries who have weapons (nuclear or otherwise) - yet it will completly gloss over countries who wage ethnic cleansing wars using standard arms<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
that is absolutely nonsense. The reason why some countries are sanctioned and some not is dependent on the morality of certain UN members, not the on the UN itself. See statement above .
Take the Ruanda incident. The UN mandate was cancelled, because the US did fear another Somalia desaster.
They declared the organized mass murder of 300000 thousand civilians in one week, and even more subsequently, as "sporadic acts of genozide" as an actual genozide would have required an UN intervention, as stated in the Charta.
The few UN soldiers that remained in Ruanda and documented the incident were canadian volunteers, which acted agaisnt direct order from UN high command and remained there without support or resupplys.
Or take the International Court for war crimes. It was delayed for years by the US officials and now, as they finally approved, the US have singed treaties with the majority of the third wolrd countries to prevent extradition of US personnel to the International court.
Or take Israels actions in Palstina...
Without a US veto, we possibly already had UN troops patroling Gaza...
No. A functional political entity has not somethign as a Veto system for single members.
Eliminate the veto, and no country can block a descision all alone. Take the EU for example. Every descision must be veryfied by<i> every</i> member...that is political insanity and results in minorities dictating the course of action and enforcing demands for their approcal to nessesary decisions.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Eliminate the veto and what would stop a group of nations grouping up to vote to annex their neighbors?
Sorry, but how do you expect that to happen?
You can't just vote for taking over a country in the UN you know? I can imagine some degree of cynical misuse of such an installation, but there are limits to how the UN can be abused.
Besides, until this day, the Veto has not been used <i>one single time </i>to actually prevent unjustified UN intervention but rather it has ever been an instrument of the mighty veto nations to ensure the status quo of certain friendly nations.
The only incident when the UN actually voted against such an unjustified intervention is the recent Iraq campaing, which was justified by WMD that never had existed.
The UN disaproved and certain members used their veto.
Did it stop the US from acting? No.
So as it looks you cannot make it any worse don't you think?
that is absolutely nonsense. The reason why some countries are sanctioned and some not is dependent on the morality of certain UN members, not the on the UN itself. See statement above .
Take the Ruanda incident. The UN mandate was cancelled, because the US did fear another Somalia desaster.
They declared the organized mass murder of 300000 thousand civilians in one week, and even more subsequently, as "sporadic acts of genozide" as an actual genozide would have required an UN intervention, as stated in the Charta.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
This sounds like you disagree, yet agree with me...I'm confused.
I said the UN has no morality
You said NO - the UN has no morality - only some of it's members do.
Then you cite the Ruanda incident where the UN <b>did nothing</b> and called genozide "sportadic acts" to avoid doing anything.
Like I said - the UN is not moral. If it were moral, it would have done something.
I will grant you this - removing the Veto power <i>might</i> solve <i>some</i> of the problems. However, it is not THE problem with the UN.
The UN was established to solve conflicts between nations without resorting to war, and if war was necessary, to provide international backing for one of the parties involved.
But the UN can never do what it was intended to do - because the belief systems are different. It can not make a moral decison in conflicts, as proven by the Ruanda example.
Take Iraq for example - There are many countries in the UN that support the war, there are just as many who are against it. Both claim to have morality on thier side - and the UN can not choose between the two. As a result, the UN has 0 power to do anything... It can not say "America is wrong" - neither can it say "Iraq is wrong."
It is because of this lack of morality that you need the Veto power. The hope is that one of the empowered nations will have a sence of morality and veto resolutions that are evil. The assumption is that if all Veto Empowered nations agree on something, then it must be a good thing to do. It is a built in system of checks and balances.
You said NO - the UN has no morality - only some of it's members do.
Then you cite the Ruanda incident where the UN did nothing and called genozide "sportadic acts" to avoid doing anything.
Like I said - the UN is not moral. If it were moral, it would have done something.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, read carefully.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Take the Ruanda incident. The UN mandate was cancelled, because the <span style='color:orange'>US</span> did fear another Somalia desaster.
They declared the organized mass murder of 300000 thousand civilians in one week, and even more subsequently, as "sporadic acts of genozide" as<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Albeit the UN was not very fond in another massacre on UN troops, it was primarily the US veto that prevented a reestablishment of the UN mandate in Ruanda.
After the commanding officer of the canadian voluteers remaining in ruanda did make the situation public and the public interest turned on the incident, the UN was willing to act. It is however true that the UN high command ordered to abandon the area in the first place.
The UN does not have a trait like "morality". the descision of whether someone is disregarding human rights and has to be punished is dependant on the supprters this country might have.
Israel is not acting according to the UN charta. Israel has violated every law about warfare and human rights that ever has existed. Yet it is not sanctioned because of one single veto.
It won't solve all issues of course to simply remove the veto. you are right. It is still possible to "buy" votes for a descision, but that is just natural. It definately will eliminate single members dictate the UNs descisions by blockading them however, which is definately biggest problem of all.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It is because of this lack of morality that you need the Veto power. The hope is that one of the empowered nations will have a sence of morality and veto resolutions that are evil. The assumption is that if all Veto Empowered nations agree on something, then it must be a good thing to do. It is a built in system of checks and balances.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is unjust in the very concept, as few nations have more power than others. why, for example should germany not have a veto right, as it is one of the major finacial contributors to the UN?
Why, on the other hand should a nation, that in complete disregard of a UN descision started a war justified with false accusations of illegal weapons, should have a right to dispatch a majority of nations with a single vote?
Why, on the other hand should a nation, that in complete disregard of a UN descision started a war justified with false accusations of illegal weapons, should have a right to dispatch a majority of nations with a single vote?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's actually a movement right now to add permanent members to the Security Council, which is the only UN body with any actual power. That's why nobody gives a damn about the General Assembly. Germany is one of the candidates up for the seat since Germany is an economic powerhouse. Brazil, Japan and I believe India are also up for the seats. However, any new permanent members probably wouldn't have a veto as a condition of their permanence.
The second part is simple. The US is simply better.
Now before you bite my head off, consider it. The United States is the world's foremost economic, military and social power. We export culture like gangbusters. The US government gives twice the aid of most other nations, with Japan being the only one that even breaks half of what we give (I'm just talking government aid, not private donations, which top $30 billion annually). The United States is a superpower in every sense of the word.
Now why should the U.S. bow to a "majority" of nations that, combined, don't come close to matching the U.S. in any way? I know it sounds elitist, but you can't apply a concept like "all men are created equal" to nations. Burkina Faso isn't equal to the United States.
I don't generally like bringing abstract qualities like "morality" into geo-political discussions, but since it's already here...
Even with it's various problems, the United States still has the authority as one of the most moral nations on the planet. Many of these "majority" nations are rediculous. How many of these nations in your majority allow the oppression of women to continue unhampered? I'm not talking about nuances of pay-scale, either. I mean the direct rape, brutalization and murder of women. How about Syria? Syria was recently on the UN Security Council and they fund terrorism directly.
I agree with Pepe about the use of veto power. It's necessary to keep things in line so that the major players don't start to bash each other over the head. In the grand scheme of things, what happens in America and China matters. What happens in a tiny African nation doesn't even get noticed by the rest of the world.
----no comment---- <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, sorry about that <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> I did try, really really hard, to suspend my judgement, intellect and rationality to the point where I could believe that Justice is a relative concept, and that all nations, be they brutal dictatorships or flowering democracies, are all on the same level - but common sense won out in the end.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Albeit the UN was not very fond in another massacre on UN troops, it was primarily the US veto that prevented a reestablishment of the UN mandate in Ruanda.
After the commanding officer of the canadian voluteers remaining in ruanda did make the situation public and the public interest turned on the incident, the UN was willing to act. It is however true that the UN high command ordered to abandon the area in the first place.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can I have proof of the US veto preventing the UN mandate from coming into effect - its not that I dont believe you, its just that I'd like to look at it myself. To say the UN was willing to act is totally false though, Koffi Annan himself gave the order that there was to be no military intervention. He had more important things to do, like worry about a handful of dead palistinians.
Now why should the U.S. bow to a "majority" of nations that, combined, don't come close to matching the U.S. in any way? I know it sounds elitist, but you can't apply a concept like "all men are created equal" to nations. Burkina Faso isn't equal to the United States.
I don't generally like bringing abstract qualities like "morality" into geo-political discussions, but since it's already here...
Even with it's various problems, the United States still has the authority as one of the most moral nations on the planet. Many of these "majority" nations are rediculous. How many of these nations in your majority allow the oppression of women to continue unhampered? I'm not talking about nuances of pay-scale, either. I mean the direct rape, brutalization and murder of women. How about Syria? Syria was recently on the UN Security Council and they fund terrorism directly. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure how you decide your rank for "most moral nations," but even accepting that statement, there are clear cases of the US torpedoing, subverting or even ignoring international law (read, Guantanamo Bay). How do you rationalize those cases without casting the entire business into a pragmatic shadow? The UN supposedly uses as its central justification a document called the <a href='http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html' target='_blank'>"Universal Declaration of Human Rights."</a> Isn't that a very desirable thing to have? It seems unjust to allow any country to avoid judgement, even if it's the most powerful country in the world.
Kent, law without enforcement is just paper with ink on it. The UN refuses to enforce anything, and if it tried to enforce something on the US the US would just walk out, and that would be the end of the UN. That's why its impotent. It refuses to tackle the superpowers, and it cant deal with banana dictators.