effect of the un
The UN, in it's present state, is absolutely a bloated wasteful worthless body. It is full of corruption, has no teeth, and needs a revamp.
With that said, I do not support a removal the UN. As I have said, it needs a revamp, and I support fixing a problem, rather than running from it.
Firstly, we need a list of problems with the UN, then a way to fix it.
With human rights abuses in China, nuclear weapons proliferation spreading, and the US poised with the only real military backup for the UN, we need to define what the UN really should be (and who should be in it)
I've got ideas, but none I care to get into this late. PErhaps tomorrow :)
as effective as a chocolate teapot.
Isn't the UN only like 60 years old?
I agree that the UN is useless. Nothing ever seems to get done and I see 2 big flaws in the UN.
1. There are something like 5 countries that have the power to veto anything. That has made it impossible to resolve conflicts between countries with veto power. During the cold war, the US would veto anything that had Soviet interest. The Soviets would veto anything with US interest.
France has a huge interest in Iraq because of oil and they have been very friendly to Iraq because of it. France even built a nuclear reactor for Iraq in 1981 (which was later bombed by Israel). If Iraq was found to have weapons of mass destruction and the US went to the UN for permission to attack, France would probably veto any attempt at that. The first Gulf war was UN approved because France was also friendly to Kuwait (another oil rich country).
2. Minor countries hold a large amount of power even though they have little real power such as industry, military, or even just population. Canada (about 30 million people and a strong economy) has as much power as some country in the South Pacific with less than 1 million people and practically no international trade.
The UN is essentially useless.
The UN was founded in 1945.
I do agree though, mostly with the opinion that the UN is ineffective.
The UN is the attempt to do democracy with nations. I think the analogy was false and the evidence is that it doesn't work. It keeps going because so many people want to believe in it, but it's moribund.
The UN can't intervene because it can't call on any effective military force. Thus its attempts to control states are limited to sanctions. Sanctions were also the tool of choice of the old League of Nations. If you read the history of the League, before WWII, you will see that the UN has drifted into almost the same blind alley the League did, making meaningless gestures of democracy while being maniputaled by the cynical powers.
Any failure of the UN is due to the failure of its constituent members. It is ultimately a conference of nations, with the hope of giving all a voice. Its failure to agree and act decisively is a symptom of a divided and fractured world. To make it truely "effective", you need to deal with these divisions first.
Trouble is, of course, the only organisation with an interest in uniting the world is the UN. And so, the self-perpetuating slide begins...
A tad unilateral, but it does highlight some of the successes of the united nations, among them, immunizing 2 billion people in the world for polio, bringing power to a nepalese community, making an attempt to heal war crimes in sierra leone through counseling, and spreading AIDS awareness in mexico.
So I dont like to hear people using the word useless when they describe the United Nations, I mean, can any organizaiton really cure some of the problems the UN is expected to? The goals are unrealistic sometimes, thats all.
And let's not forget the refugees - if you were one of the unfortunate millions (tens of millions? hundreds of millions??), would you say the UN has been useless?
Jonstar, as others have said more eloquently than I could, whatever it is that the UN does, what *realistic* alternative do you have, to put in its place?
I still disagree: The UN was not meant to look over the world - it was meant to be the world, represent the world.
Diplomatic sanctions pretty much limited the League's power (in addition to the absense of U.S) When Japan invaded Manchuria before WWII the most they could do was kick them out of the League of Nations and say "Stop that."
If the UN is tangled in disagreement politically, it still can be effective with widespread humanitarian missions. After all, isn't the UN an idea as well as a philosophy? It is meant to further and unite the world so events like WWII wont happen again.
Effectiveness of the UN...wait what have they effected again? oh, thats right... Nothing.
Put simply, the U.N basically follows this order.
An important topic is brought up. It is debated and discussed and all positive and negative aspects of this topic ( or action) are brought up. Half the U.N is for it, half against it. Then, all the politicians decide that its too dangerous to make any action, because if it is the wrong one, they will lose their nice comfy seat of power.
So, while they may say they discussed things thoroughly, they usually end up at ground zero, with no decision made but to stay out of it.
what do the UN do? They disagree with everything Britain does and slags them off, and then when Britain sort the problem out, they cower in their seats and pretend they said nothing..
The UN is the worst multinational organization dedicated to the promotion of peace and human welfare there is. It is also the best.
It is flawed. It may not be the most effective engine to use the funds it spends in attempt to fulfill its mission, but it does some good. The world would be worse without it. More importantly, the future world would be worse without what the UN has the potential to become.
That's just not true jimmy, and the UK willingly and meaningfully joins many UN initiatives, for which it gets just praise.
One way to look at the UN is that it's only as good as its members deserve (FZ+'s point, in different words) - if the individual members (esp the permanent members of the Security Council) were able to cooperate better, coordinate more effectively, be less anal about control, etc, etc, etc, the UN would surely be given more respect for its good deeds.
Many posters in this thread have expressed a desire for a 'global' organisation which does more to alleviate misery and suffering that result from national policies of greed, brutality, and worse. Don't all our hearts bleed on hearing of yet another massacre? yet another gross travesty of natural justice? But aren't we then condemning the UN for failing to do something it could never do? Aren't our expectations set at unreasonably high levels?
Yeah, the UK joins in with the UN but it is ALWAYS British soldiers sent in first...
not true...often the US goes in first.... of course a lot of times we bring up the issues...but still we are first
The UN is about much more than sending in troops, and the UK and US make notable contributions to the Human Rights, Economic and Social Development, Humanitarian Affairs areas in the UN ... and so do many other countries.
Even in the Peacekeeping area, I would guess few of us have even heard of half the missions; for example, http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/onumoz.htm, with force commanders from Brazil and Bangladesh (and a police commissioner from Egypt); >6,000 troops deployed, >20 killed.
And, measured in terms of fatalities per 100,000 population, surely Fiji has paid much more dearly than the UK or US in support of international security?
True...however Onumoz ended almost 10 years ago, and I cannot speak for everyone but I have been speaking of more recent situations.
However, I am not sure about Fiji...can you provide a link or more complete data?
If the US was there for oil, gas prices in the US would go down, not up.
Separate names with a comma.