Effectiveness of the United Nations

[AbsoluteZer0]

Hello,

I was given a prompt to write about in my History class a number of months back during our study of the Rwandan Genocide, the prompt being "Is the UN an effective body for preventing genocide?" After the Genocide came to a close, the UN was subject to (and still is subject to) much scrutiny from the media and the world as their competence was brought into question.

I stand by the belief that one cannot blame the United Nations for the logical fallacies of its component nations. The United Nations is, after all, not a single entity. It is as the name implies a composition of nations. The UN charter states that should the possibility of a Genocide arise, the component nations have an obligation to take action in preventing and stopping the Genocide. One might argue that should the component nations fail to take necessary action, the UN should use their Peacekeeping Force to establish order. The Peacekeeping force, however, does not have a permanent placement in the United Nations as it is entirely founded on the volunteering of the soldiers in armies of the component nations of the UN who, if they choose to do so, can fight to pull out all of their soldiers from a given operation.

What is your opinion?

 

[nobahar]

You might find this recent article interesting. It discusses the Cholera epidemic in Haiti and a UN commissioned report on it. It also mentions the Srebrenica massacre, and the UN's failure to respond.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...demic-thats-killed-7500-in-haiti-8373765.html

 

[wuliheron]

The US dollar is the basis of most of the world's economy and our military is equal to the next six largest combined and spends twice as much as any of them. We pay half the bills for the UN and NATO. It's empire baby and this train ain't stopping until it derails. To discuss the limitations and role of the UN without mentioning it exists only at the behest of the American empire is to miss the point.

 

[lisab]

[humor sidebar]

I laughed when I saw the title and the name of the OP:

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/7547/unzero.jpg

[/humor sidebar]

 

[nanosiborg]

Hello,

I was given a prompt to write about in my History class a number of months back during our study of the Rwandan Genocide, the prompt being "Is the UN an effective body for preventing genocide?" After the Genocide came to a close, the UN was subject to (and still is subject to) much scrutiny from the media and the world as their competence was brought into question.

I stand by the belief that one cannot blame the United Nations for the logical fallacies of its component nations. The United Nations is, after all, not a single entity. It is as the name implies a composition of nations. The UN charter states that should the possibility of a Genocide arise, the component nations have an obligation to take action in preventing and stopping the Genocide. One might argue that should the component nations fail to take necessary action, the UN should use their Peacekeeping Force to establish order. The Peacekeeping force, however, does not have a permanent placement in the United Nations as it is entirely founded on the volunteering of the soldiers in armies of the component nations of the UN who, if they choose to do so, can fight to pull out all of their soldiers from a given operation.

What is your opinion?

Basically what wuliheron said. I'll just add that the UN has no power other than that of its constituent nations. The US being currently the most powerful, by far. As far as the US is concerned, imo, the UN is either a diplomatic and propaganda tool (when it agrees with US policy), or simply ignored (when it disagrees with US policy). UN charters and resolutions are meaningless without the military power to back them up. The UN (ie., the US) will move to stop genocidal actions when it's in its interest (ie., in some way profitable) for it to do so.

In my opinion, the UN is not, and can never be, what it was ideally intended to be. What it is, imo, unfortunately, is just another corrupt political entity.

 

[nobahar]

I didn't make any comment on the US and it's relationship with the UN because I thought I might get an infraction, and it didn't seem worth it; it seems like other's have already brought up this point.
This speech from George Bush prior to the invasion of Iraq is 'funny' (or would be if the consequences weren't so serious): http://www.un.org/webcast/ga/57/statements/020912usaE.htm
He claims intervention is necessary to stop Iraq because it violates resolutions and human rights. He also mentions Palestine in the same speech but doesn't raise Israel's UN resolution violations or its abuse of human rights! In fact, the US actively supports Israel, with aid, UN vetoes, and so on. Strange how Iraq had to be stopped.
Very selective, and agrees with the points others have made.

 

[wuliheron]

I didn't make any comment on the US and it's relationship with the UN because I thought I might get an infraction, and it didn't seem worth it; it seems like other's have already brought up this point.
This speech from George Bush prior to the invasion of Iraq is 'funny' (or would be if the consequences weren't so serious): http://www.un.org/webcast/ga/57/statements/020912usaE.htm
He claims intervention is necessary to stop Iraq because it violates resolutions and human rights. He also mentions Palestine in the same speech but doesn't raise Israel's UN resolution violations or its abuse of human rights! In fact, the US actively supports Israel, with aid, UN vetoes, and so on. Strange how Iraq had to be stopped.
Very selective, and agrees with the points others have made.

Sad to say I know exactly how you feel. I've been accused of promoting conspiracy theories simply by stating verifiable facts that don't agree with mainstream political views and propaganda. Sad to say some of education is nothing more than regurgitating propaganda just to prove you're willing to toe the party line. Sucks to be you.

 

[russ_watters]

Calling the US an "empire" is a tired, old, obsolete put-down intended to draw comparisons betweeen the current US and the behavior of countries in the long-ago ended ages of empires and nationalism. Strictly speaking, the US holds occuiped territory gained via conquest, making it an empire in exactly the same way as a great many other major world powers. I wonder if people ever try to insult the UK by calling it an "empire"?

This has nothing to do with the OP's question about the UN. The very existence of the UN contradicts the implied assertion of a similarity between the US and, for example, the British Empire during its heyday. The British did not ask permission or seek to build an international coalition to do anything, it just did what it wanted on its own. The idea of a multi-national UN liberation or peacekeeping action being an empirical quest is practically a face-value oxymoron.

Closer to the point of the thread: Do not confuse the US being the largest contributor to the UN -- even often being a leader in UN actions -- with being in control. The UN is a democracy and a forum for diplomacy and UN actions are very much the product of negotiation and voting. Indeed, that's one of its biggest flaws, IMO. Save for the security council, much of what the UN does is based on equal standing for all nations. IMO, most nations are not worthy of equal standing with the likes of the major Western powers. Evidence of this comes from sick jokes such as Iran being on the human rights council. Allowing unworthy nations to have standing is a lot of what causes the UN to fail to act in cases where it should.

What I would like to see replace the UN is an organization of similar structure to the EU or NATO, where member states are required to be of like-minded policy (economic in the case of the EU, political in the case of a UN successor). The UN would not need to disband as it would still provide a building with conference rooms where any nation could go to have a conversation, but the international decision-making role should only be afforded to nations worthy of such a role.

Don't think the US is worthy? You don't have to: If we start the club, we get to decide the rules and if people don't want to belong, they won't have to. (Again, see: EU) NATO already sort of works this way, but I'm not sure it is structured in a way that it could be expanded globally.

 

[russ_watters]

More direct response to the OP: I think you are on the right track, but I don't see it as logical to say the failures of the UN are not the failures of the UN. The only way to begin to separate the individual and collective failures is to see who tried to do what. If a certain country tried and failed to build a coalition to act, they might feel better about themselves, but they still share in the failure. If you hit a home run in the World Series but your team loses, you don't get a ring.

 

[wuliheron]

LOL, and in Gengis Khan's day they gave the cities a choice of either the ruling class surrendering themselves for immediate execution or they would kill everyone in the city. What empire refers to is political control and in many cases that control is exerted by something as simple as one country controlling the distribution of essentials such as food, water, and oil. Hence, the term today is even applied to companies like Standard Oil that monopolize a distribution system. Even die hard capitalists recognize you don't need guns to kill people and create an empire, but the US has both control over the distribution of countless resources and enough guns to counter any organized resistance.

 

[Alfi]

If you hit a home run in the World Series but your team loses, you don't get a ring.

That's an interesting phrase Russ.

And it tells allot about concepts like the U.N. as seen by the USA
It's a world wide idea, but like the baseball game it only involves a single country.
There is no World Series. Only the U.S thinks like that.
Get rid of the USA, the USSR and China as controlling interests, and the U.N. could be a good institution.

Get rid of the 'veto' power of these countries and let the World ( united ) decide the decisions.
I wonder what would happen then.

 

[nobahar]

...most nations are not worthy of equal standing with the likes of the major Western powers. Evidence of this comes from sick jokes such as Iran being on the human rights council.

Why is Iran being on the human rights council a sick joke, but not the US?

 

[Travis_King]

Not to derail the conversation, but the World Series has been so called since 1903, even as far back as the mid 1880's. You had the National League and the American League, so it wouldn't do to call them "American Champ's" or "National Champs", plus the sporting reporters at the time were given to a bit of hyperbole. They were trying to get people to attend these games, so instead of calling the winner the Champion of the United States (Toronto wasn't involved back then) they tried to draw people in by saying that the bout was for the "World's Championship Series"
It's a bit unfair to base your judgement of american international politics on a sports event that is over a century old...

Get rid of the USA, the USSR and China as controlling interests, and the U.N. could be a good institution.

Get rid of the 'veto' power of these countries and let the World ( united ) decide the decisions.
I wonder what would happen then.

Ignoring the fact that the Russian Federation is no longer called the USSR...I'm not sure of the reasoning behind removing the significant interest of three of the world's largest and most influential nations, composing over 25% of the world's population, from the world international forum...

Not to mention the UK has issued more vetoes in recent years than both China and Russia combined.

The simple fact of the matter is that the shortcomings of the UN all stem from it being bureaucracy on a global scale...

 

[Drakkith]

LOL, and in Gengis Khan's day they gave the cities a choice of either the ruling class surrendering themselves for immediate execution or they would kill everyone in the city. What empire refers to is political control and in many cases that control is exerted by something as simple as one country controlling the distribution of essentials such as food, water, and oil. Hence, the term today is even applied to companies like Standard Oil that monopolize a distribution system. Even die hard capitalists recognize you don't need guns to kill people and create an empire, but the US has both control over the distribution of countless resources and enough guns to counter any organized resistance.

Let's not get bogged down in arguing over a label. The fact is that the US is a huge player in the UN with responsibilities and power that come with it. Whether or not the US is an Empire or not doesn't matter, it doesn't change anything we've done in the past or what we will do in the future.

Get rid of the USA, the USSR and China as controlling interests, and the U.N. could be a good institution.

I think that depends on whose definition of "good" you are using.

 

[Drakkith]

The simple fact of the matter is that the shortcomings of the UN all stem from it being bureaucracy on a global scale...

Perhaps, but I think it really boils down to different people having different cultures, economies, goals, and other related things along with wildly varying opinions on how a situation should be handled. I mean, the UN has members from almost every kind of society in the world, how easy does anyone expect it to be to get anything done? Politics on a LOCAL scale is difficult enough with people from the same town...I can't imagine how crazy the UN must be.

 

[AlephZero]

I wonder if people ever try to insult the UK by calling it an "empire"?

Of course they do. There are plenty of groups of people who don't need much excuse to make another complaint about how their ancestors were mistreated (which of course was often true).

Some of them are doing more than just "call". Ask yourself why incidents like this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20671528 or this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-foyle-west-20662722 are happening pretty much every day.

Or if you want a different example, ask yourself why George Galloway was elected MP for Bradford South last March...

 

[wuliheron]

Let's not get bogged down in arguing over a label. The fact is that the US is a huge player in the UN with responsibilities and power that come with it. Whether or not the US is an Empire or not doesn't matter, it doesn't change anything we've done in the past or what we will do in the future.

No, but it certainly paints the op in a different light if the US can dissolve the UN merely by withdrawing from it. The US has kept them on a tight leash limiting their potential not necessarily because it is in the best interest of the world, but because it benefits the US. The US commands the lead in just about every respect including it's rather subtle propaganda. It's said the US isn't famous for quality products at low prices, but marketing or a line of crap a mile long. Hollywood and all the rest would have horrified a Socrates committed to encouraging people to think for themselves.

 

[Drakkith]

No, but it certainly paints the op in a different light if the US can dissolve the UN merely by withdrawing from it. The US has kept them on a tight leash limiting their potential not necessarily because it is in the best interest of the world, but because it benefits the US. The US commands the lead in just about every respect including it's rather subtle propaganda. It's said the US isn't famous for quality products at low prices, but marketing or a line of crap a mile long. Hollywood and all the rest would have horrified a Socrates committed to encouraging people to think for themselves.

I'd say that it's vital to understand what the US does and why it does it if you want to know how the UN functions. But it's the same way with every country that's part of the UN if you really want to get an understanding. We may have the most influence, but we don't make up the UN by ourselves. And let's leave Hollywood out of this, it's already dangerously close to becoming a US bashing thread and its really irrelevant to whether the UN is effective or not. I'd like to see some actual talk on the UN itself and how it functions, not more on how the US bullies everyone around and does what it wants. (Which is a blatant exaggeration and ignores pretty much all major politics that take place in the UN) Politics is politics, and we aren't any different from anyone else in that regard.

 

[russ_watters]

LOL, and in Gengis Khan's day they gave the cities a choice of either the ruling class surrendering themselves for immediate execution or they would kill everyone in the city. What empire refers to is political control and in many cases that control is exerted by something as simple as one country controlling the distribution of essentials such as food, water, and oil. Hence, the term today is even applied to companies like Standard Oil that monopolize a distribution system. Even die hard capitalists recognize you don't need guns to kill people and create an empire, but the US has both control over the distribution of countless resources and enough guns to counter any organized resistance.

Absurdity of a comparison between the US and Genghis Khan's Mongolia (!) aside, you do realize that you just listed the archetypal "empire", then gave a definition to fit the US that bears no resemblance whatsoever to that example, right? Ghengis Khan conquered via military force. Indeed, up until about 1990, that's pretty much what all "empires" did. So basically you are saying that when the US emerged as the world's sole superpower, it utterly re-defined the concept of "empire"*. Fair enough. I don't want to quibble about whether the definition of a word can so radically change, so let's just agree on this: If the US has such global hegemony as you imply, then the consequences of that must also be ours alone. So: As the sole superpower for 30 years and the world's first and only [oxymoronic] peaceful empire, the US has presided over (given to the world) the most peaceful period in human history. Agreed?

Get rid of the USA, the USSR and China as controlling interests, and the U.N. could be a good institution.

Get rid of the 'veto' power of these countries and let the World ( united ) decide the decisions.
I wonder what would happen then.

I think the UN would probably collapse into anarchy due to the 3rd world countries running the show and we'd leave.

Why is Iran being on the human rights council a sick joke, but not the US?

I'm not sure what to make of that question. I don't consider there to be any valid comparison between the overall human rights record (especially, modern) of Iran and the US and asking the question implies there would be.

*I picked 1990 because up until the collapse of the USSR, the US behaved much more like a traditional "empire", obtaining territorial holdings in WWII and waging proxy wars (defensive or not) against the USSR. When the USSR fell, the US role changed, hence the re-defining of the word "empire".

 

[russ_watters]

Of course they do.

Point taken about Northern Ireland. I was thinking of Canada and Australia which AFAIK are both still under the crown and forgot briefly that there is still a semi-active autonomy movement in Ireland.

My point in any case was that most first world nations still have territorial holdings, left-over from when the traditionally defined "empires" existed.

 

[russ_watters]

No, but it certainly paints the op in a different light if the US can dissolve the UN merely by withdrawing from it.

The US cannot dissolve the UN simply by withdrawing from it. The UN does not require our permission to exist. Please stop allowing your quite obvious disdain for the US define your posts.

 

[wuliheron]

The US cannot dissolve the UN simply by withdrawing from it. The UN does not require our permission to exist. Please stop allowing your quite obvious disdain for the US define your posts.

The US can leave a pale shadow of a UN behind if it withdraws. Seriously, people just don't seem to appreciate the US is the third most populated country in the world with more natural resources than you can shake a stick at and has been the wealthiest and largest exporter for a century. Our military budgets alone tend to eclipse those of most countries. Seriously, the UN would have to be renamed the "Third World United Nations".

If the US has such global hegemony as you imply, then the consequences of that must also be ours alone. So: As the sole superpower for 30 years and the world's first and only [oxymoronic] peaceful empire, the US has presided over (given to the world) the most peaceful period in human history. Agreed?

The US has definitely created a relatively peaceful world and it's often said America is an enemy you can trust. People have a pretty darn good idea how far we'll go and just how dire the circumstances might be and they felt the same way about the ancient Roman empire when money could buy trust. Not intellectuals in disputes, but hardened working class frontier justice. Yes, we dropped two atomic bombs, but that was one of those moments of desperation where saving lives after possibly 22 million dead and ending the war was no longer an option.

The secret is out that democracy works, capitalist markets work, but some socialism and even fascism I suppose works as well. Big surprise. Like the Roman empire before us the US has figured out how to work capitalist markets which is a tremendous achievement, but now we need to perfect the process and leave a lot of medieval ideas about small government and Victorian values behind us. The younger generation agrees with me.

 

[Travis_King]

Seriously, the UN would have to be renamed the "Third World United Nations".

I respect that this is probably an exaggeration, but I'm sure Germany, France, Switzerland, United Kingdom, etc could run things. The US couldn't pull out of the world economy we would just lose our say as to what happens, politically, around the globe. True enough, the UN would lose it's big wagging-stick, our army, but the French have a pretty large force, as do the Russians and the Chinese. But if any nation tried to do something that would screw things up, the US wouldn't have to be in the UN to become a force they'd have to answer to. If only to protect our interests.

The younger generation agrees with me.

Don't speak for everyone...

 

[Monsterboy]

As the sole superpower for 30 years and the world's first and only [oxymoronic] peaceful empire, the US has presided over (given to the world) the most peaceful period in human history. Agreed?

Is this because of the US or because it is a fact that a uni-polar world is relatively more peaceful than a multipolar world ?

 

[wuliheron]

I respect that this is probably an exaggeration, but I'm sure Germany, France, Switzerland, United Kingdom, etc could run things. The US couldn't pull out of the world economy we would just lose our say as to what happens, politically, around the globe. True enough, the UN would lose it's big wagging-stick, our army, but the French have a pretty large force, as do the Russians and the Chinese. But if any nation tried to do something that would screw things up, the US wouldn't have to be in the UN to become a force they'd have to answer to. If only to protect our interests.

Don't speak for everyone...

Europe has way too many business ties to the US to support any third world UN that might oppose the US. It's money and resources and the first world sucks them up from the third world like a sponge making opposition inevitable. Hence the reason the UN has largely been relegated to performing disaster relief and emergency peace keeping. It is anything but an exaggeration to say the UN would be reduced to a third world organization at best if the US were to abandon them.

 

[nobahar]

...it's already dangerously close to becoming a US bashing thread and its really irrelevant to whether the UN is effective or not. I'd like to see some actual talk on the UN itself and how it functions, not more on how the US bullies everyone around and does what it wants...

As soon as someone criticises the US, it all of a sudden becomes a "US bashing thread". The question is about the effectiveness of the UN. My post referred to the US invoking the UN, International law and human right's when it suits it, and ignoring it when it doesn't. The UN can only work if countries work together, abide by law and show respect for basic human rights. The US is an important part of the UN. Also, I love the US.

Please stop allowing your quite obvious disdain for the US define your posts.

I know this wasn’t addressed to me, and the following is honestly intended to be as polite as possible, but perhaps you should stop allowing your quite obvious love for the US from defining your posts, otherwise you sound like a hypocrite, IN MY OPINION.

I wanted to make a few points: i) The US needs to be treated like any other country; it isn’t ‘special’. ii) the UN could be effective: International co-operation and International law protects all human beings, not just citizens of a particular country. Amnesty International, quoted above, seems to agree. iii) The US often acts outside of International law and the UN, which is detrimental to international co-operation and the protection of people’s rights.

 

[Travis_King]

Did Iran invade and occupy a country (in violation of international law)?

If I'm not mistaken, we were well within international law to invade Iraq due to their refusal to allow UN inspectors into many of their facilities. What we caught flak about was that the UN didn't accept our evidence of WMD's and therefore offered no aid or "approval". It wasn't illegal, it was unpopular.

 

[russ_watters]

Is this because of the US or because it is a fact that a uni-polar world is relatively more peaceful than a multipolar world ?

More of the former, I think. For older superpowers, being the only one would would just make its wars of conquest easier to win. The US, on the other hand, has chosen not to wage such wars.

But still, it isn't all about the US. The western world in general has abandoned traditional nationalism/imperialism. Consider how readily the Allies unified and released their conquered parts of Germany. The US would not have anywhere near the clout it has today and the world might be a very different place, had it chosen to keep puppet states the way the USSR did.

 

[Drakkith]

As soon as someone criticises the US, it all of a sudden becomes a "US bashing thread". The question is about the effectiveness of the UN. My post referred to the US invoking the UN, International law and human right's when it suits it, and ignoring it when it doesn't. The UN can only work if countries work together, abide by law and show respect for basic human rights. The US is an important part of the UN. Also, I love the US.

Half the thread is about how the US may or may not be an empire. It has no relevance to how the UN functions. The rest of the thread is "The US is bad and the UN would function better without it". This thread is turning out to be nothing but US bashing.

I know this wasn’t addressed to me, and the following is honestly intended to be as polite as possible, but perhaps you should stop allowing your quite obvious love for the US from defining your posts, otherwise you sound like a hypocrite, IN MY OPINION.

And in my opinion you should learn to analyze the content and context of a post correctly.

I wanted to make a few points: i) The US needs to be treated like any other country; it isn’t ‘special’. ii) the UN could be effective: International co-operation and International law protects all human beings, not just citizens of a particular country. Amnesty International, quoted above, seems to agree. iii) The US often acts outside of International law and the UN, which is detrimental to international co-operation and the protection of people’s rights.

Provide a reference, an actual example, or something else please. Otherwise this thread is meaningless.

And may I say that for a thread supposedly about the effectiveness of the UN, the discussion on what the UN actually does or how it functions is surprisingly...nonexistent.

 

[nobahar]

Half the thread is about how the US may or may not be an empire. It has no relevance to how the UN functions. The rest of the thread is "The US is bad and the UN would function better without it". This thread is turning out to be nothing but US bashing.

Most people here are more familiar with the US, so its going to feature prominently. Also, it exerts a lot of influence, and so again is going to feature prominently.

And in my opinion you should learn to analyze the content and context of a post correctly.

Excellent response. In my opinion, you haven't offered anything to the thread other than get offended.

Provide a reference, an actual example, or something else please. Otherwise this thread is meaningless.

And may I say that for a thread supposedly about the effectiveness of the UN, the discussion on what the UN actually does or how it functions is surprisingly...nonexistent.

I did. A lengthy one. Evo deemed it "off-topic". It gave examples of US breaches of International law and human right's violations in response to Russ Watter's claim that Iran on the Human Rights Council is a sick joke, but not the presence of the US on the human rights council; and it also intended to show that the US is not 'special', it behaves in a similar way to other countries, and therefore there is no reason to assume that it has some special place that means it can function outside of an international body, it needs to be subject to the same controls as other countries, it isn't here to save everyone. Decisions at the international level need to be made by co-operation between everyone.
It also gave a quote from Amnesty on the need for countries to act together. Again it seems you want to focus on other areas of discussion on the effectiveness of the UN that doesn't involve the US. Perhaps discussing how marketable the logo is, might be more suitable? Again, the US is important in the effectiveness of the UN: if countries acted together rather than threatening to withdraw funding when the majority of countries vote in a way not wanted by certain other countries (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-after-it-accepts-Palestinian-membership.html) and claiming negotiations are better pursued outside of the UN and attempting to side-step the application of International law (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20550864) then it might be more EFFECTIVE in reaching a just resolution in conflicts and obtaining justice, since the decisions aren't subject to the opinion or interests of a single country.