News Is the UN an Effective Mediator in International Conflicts?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Adam
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion critiques the effectiveness of the UN as a mediation tool, particularly in conflicts like Israel and Kashmir, arguing that it has failed to take meaningful action against aggressors. Participants express skepticism about the UN's ability to enforce sanctions, suggesting they primarily harm civilians rather than deter dictators. There are calls for a reformation or replacement of the UN with an organization that only includes democratic nations, as its current structure is seen as hypocritical. The conversation also touches on the impact of major powers, especially the US and China, on the UN's credibility and functionality. Ultimately, the sentiment leans towards the need for a more effective international body that can genuinely uphold peace and human rights.
Physics news on Phys.org
In a word, no. What has the UN ever done in the two big mediation cockpits, Israel and Kashmir? Everybody and his brother has mediated in those, sometimes with hopeful results (in the short term). But the UN?

When the UN wants to punish a nation it has one big weapon, sanctions. But sanctions, which were the one big weapon of the League of Nations back in the 1930's, never work against an entrenched, determined dictator. They make his people suffer, but what's that to him? Mussolini wasn't stopped by sanctions, and neither was Saddam.
 
I agree, the answer is no. They are completely worthless as an international anything because they make all those rules but won't ever punish those who break them. Many are upset because the US broke the rules in order to punish Saddam for breaking the rules, but the UN did nothing to Saddam and never will do anything to the US, they are only annoying.
 
Do you think it would be fair to suggest that the UN's lack of action in both policing member states and in protecting member states from the USA will prompt various member states to eventually form other organisations? Maybe a league of all the developing nations and the EU?

Let's face it, the UN's credibility suffered a huge blow when the USA simply ignored the whole thing and went to war. It does not serve to protect member states. It seems the only way nations can protect themselves from the USA is to form a new organisation which will act, or develop their own nukes in secret before they are invaded.
 
I think we shouldn't abandon the UN but expand it to include more countries. Let's face it, the UN is the first step towards unity. It is USA that needs fixing. They should start realising war is not the answer, use violence to stop violent simply does not work.
 
Originally posted by Adam
Let's face it, the UN's credibility suffered a huge blow when the USA simply ignored the whole thing and went to war. It does not serve to protect member states.
An organization that accepts states like Iraq used to be
and gives them equal rights is a pathetic and useless
organization anyway. It can never, by default of its
structure, approve any military action against most
of its member countries - even if the local rulers were
gunning people down in the streets or puting them
in gas chambers. Get rid of it, I say. It should be
replaced by an international organization only accepting
democratic countries and act to non-violently, unless forced
to, oppose those that are not.

Live long and prosper.
 
Originally posted by drag
An organization that accepts states like Iraq used to be
and gives them equal rights is a pathetic and useless
organization anyway. It can never, by default of its
structure, approve any military action against most
of its member countries - even if the local rulers were
gunning people down in the streets or puting them
in gas chambers. Get rid of it, I say. It should be
replaced by an international organization only accepting
democratic countries and act to non-violently, unless forced
to, oppose those that are not.

Live long and prosper.
I'm afraid that the U.S. wouldn't make the cut of an organization based on international law and protection of freedom and human rights.
 
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
In a word, no.
I agree as well, however, try it from this end: Is the UN worse than the alternative (nothing)? IMO, no.
 
Originally posted by drag
It can never, by default of its structure, approve any military action against most of its member countries - even if the local rulers were gunning people down in the streets or puting them in gas chambers.
Incorrect. Please feel free to read the UN Charter here: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
Originally posted by Adam
Incorrect. Please feel free to read the UN Charter here: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
I believe you misunderstood his point. Certainly the UN CAN take action in such a situation, but the issue is would it. I believe he is right - on its own, the UN would not take action. Kosovo is evidence of the UN's inability to act.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
I agree 100%. The UN should be used, and should be a forumf or international co-operation. But it isn't. It didn't act in Rwanda. It didn't act in Kosovo. It didn't protect Iraq from the USA. It's basically run by spineless gits. And the whole Security Council veto thing totally emasculates the General Assembly.
 
  • #12
Many features of the UN are praiseworthy; UNESCO and UNICEF for two. But it has failed its main purpose: keeping peace among its members. And that failure is not the fault of the UN itself, but of its members, both the predjudiced General Assembly and the self interested permanent members of the Security Council, including but by no means limited to, the US.
 
  • #13
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Many features of the UN are praiseworthy; UNESCO and UNICEF for two. But it has failed its main purpose: keeping peace among its members.
I'm not sure that's completely true. In the first half of this century we had two world wars. Since then, no major nations (top 10 or so in size/military strength) have conducted war against each other (with the arguable exceptions of the US and China in Korea or the coalition vs Iraq in 91/03).

That said, I think part of the problem is the UN was created as a forum for major nations to prevent major wars, but has been largely dominated by smaller ones.
 
  • #14
So long as the UN has someone like China, one of the world's largest (as far as incidents and population) violators of human rights,as a perm. member, then the UN will stand as a hypocrisy to itself.
It is the blind leading the blind.
 
  • #15
Phatmonky, do you think the UN should exclude all nations which have deliberately harmed civilians?
 
  • #16
Originally posted by phatmonky
So long as the UN has someone like China, one of the world's largest (as far as incidents and population) violators of human rights,as a perm. member, then the UN will stand as a hypocrisy to itself.
It is the blind leading the blind.
The US doesn't have any claim on the moral high ground(you should do a search on the thread with that title)...and just because you don't like China's politics, does that mean that 20% of the world's population should go without representation?
 
  • #17
Originally posted by Zero
and just because you don't like China's politics

Zero, please don't put words in my mouth.
 
  • #18
Originally posted by Adam
Phatmonky, do you think the UN should exclude all nations which have deliberately harmed civilians?

Not by anymeans, but China's domestic policy is about as far opposite to the UN's goals as can be.
I don't have a problem with such countries being members, but to have them as a perm. member that has such veto power? No thanks.
As it stands, China is a country that stifles the democratic process the UN holds so true to be the tool for world peace.
China is only a perm. member because they have nukes and enough people in their borders.

Hell, part of me supports the removal of any perm. members at all. China resounds particular more because of their special trade status with us, in the face of such humanitarian distasters.
 
  • #19
As it stands, China is a country that stifles the democratic process the UN holds so true to be the tool for world peace.
China is only a perm. member because they have nukes and enough people in their borders.
Reminds me of another country.
 
  • #20
Originally posted by Adam
Reminds me of another country.

I know that in your mind communism and a represenative democracy looks the same. I know that in your mind the patriot act is the equivalent of shooting democratic protestors in tianamin square.
I can't change your mind, nor will I try :) I hope you have a great day, Adam!
 
  • #21
Originally posted by Adam
Reminds me of another country.
oh really? Do tell. Which country might that be?
 
  • #22
phatmonky

I know that in your mind communism and a represenative democracy looks the same.
Actually, they don't. See, I have an "education". I know what the words actually mean.

I know that in your mind the patriot act is the equivalent of shooting democratic protestors in tianamin square.
Actually, I don't have that view at all.

Wow, two out of two completely wrong so far. You're on a roll. How about you avoid trying to read peoples' minds, since you're so bad at it?
 
  • #23
Originally posted by kat
oh really? Do tell. Which country might that be?

Obviously I meant the USA.

As it stands, China is a country that stifles the democratic process the UN holds so true to be the tool for world peace.
1) Bush.
2) Ignoring that whole "due process" thing under laws they signed up for (ie. the UN Charter).

China is only a perm. member because they have nukes and enough people in their borders.
Same applies to the USA. Without their nuclear arsenal, do you really think the rest of the world would put up with their invasions and such?
 
  • #24
Originally posted by phatmonky
Zero, please don't put words in my mouth.
Why not? I figured pretty much NOBODY likes China's politics, you know?
 
  • #25
Originally posted by Adam
1> Ignoring that whole "due process" thing under laws they signed up for (ie. the UN Charter).


2>Same applies to the USA. Without their nuclear arsenal, do you really think the rest of the world would put up with their invasions and such? [/B]

1>Many policy experts would debate you on whether the UN charter was ignored or not with Iraq :) I certainly would.


2>If they had our restraint they would. If N Korea invaded S Korea and did not use nukes or biological weapons, neither would we.
Unlike China, who had a general threatened a nuclear strike on L.A. if we interfered with Taiwan in 1995, we won't be using nukes anytime soon because we don't want to!
 
  • #26
Originally posted by Zero
Why not? I figured pretty much NOBODY likes China's politics, you know?

haha, Well I'll be the first to admit I don't like much of it, but it's far from the reasoning of my previous statements.


Adam, zero, Have a great New Year's - I'm off for the night.
 
  • #27
Originally posted by phatmonky
1>Many policy experts would debate you on whether the UN charter was ignored or not with Iraq :) I certainly would.


2>If they had our restraint they would. If N Korea invaded S Korea and did not use nukes or biological weapons, neither would we.
Unlike China, who had a general threatened a nuclear strike on L.A. if we interfered with Taiwan in 1995, we won't be using nukes anytime soon because we don't want to!
You may want to check up on Bush, since he seems pretty eager to use nukes.
 
  • #28
phatmonky

Many policy experts would debate you on whether the UN charter was ignored or not with Iraq :) I certainly would.
1) A logical fallacy, once again: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

2) Who are these mysterious, unnamed authorities, out of curiousity?

3) You clearly aren't an expert.

If they had our restraint they would. If N Korea invaded S Korea and did not use nukes or biological weapons, neither would we.
Right. Does WW2 ring a bell?

Unlike China, who had a general threatened a nuclear strike on L.A. if we interfered with Taiwan in 1995, we won't be using nukes anytime soon because we don't want to!
Unlike the USA, which actually did nuke two civilian cities...
 
  • #29
Originally posted by Adam
1) A logical fallacy, once again: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

2) Who are these mysterious, unnamed authorities, out of curiousity?

3) You clearly aren't an expert.


Right. Does WW2 ring a bell?


Unlike the USA, which actually did nuke two civilian cities...

1>Adam, is that all you have to say? haha! Come now, I didn't think you needed proof that someone would disagree about something with you, but I guess you need that. I'll br providing links to definitions of words you might not know in the future as well. Just for you, honey.

2>Well for one, David Ackerman, American Law Division, would be slow to say the war is illegal.
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cach...ternational+law+legal+-illegal&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

"Thus, in both theory and practice the preemptive use of force appears to have a homein current international law; but its boundaries are not wholly determinate"
That about sums up my thoughts.

3> Didn't say I was :) But clearly? So much for those ad hominem attacks huh?



That policy was not in existence whent he force of such a weapon WAS NOT KNOWN. Nor was the NPT in place, nor was the UN.


Yep, and for that reason there is that much more public support for NOT using them, but I wouldn't expect you to believe what goes on here. We are the great satan after all :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
oh,and since you are so disbelieving that someone may differ in opinon of you, here is the basis for the American Law Division.

http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/divwork/aldwork.html

American Law Division

The American Law Division (ALD) responds to congressional requests for legal analysis and information involving federal and state statutory
and case law. These inquiries span the range of legal questions that may emerge from the congressional agenda and representational needs
of Members, from constitutional questions of separation of powers and executive-legislative relations to inquiries arising out of federal, state, and/or international law. They may be associated with any phase of the legislative process from the considerations that precede bill drafting and introduction through committee hearings and floor debate to oversight of enacted legislation and agency activities. Analysis of litigation impacting on the work of Congress and the congressional response to judicial developments also form the basis of much of the Division's work.

But alas, you may still think this isn't an 'expert'
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #32
Originally posted by Adam
I note the whopping great lack of response to points.

http://www.lawyersagainstthewar.org/

Fact remains, there are those who are considered experts that would disagree.
I don't care.
 
  • #34
If, as some have suggested, the UN was replaced by an exclusive organisation limited to the ones we find acceptable, then it would be even more useless. The UN's present role is a way for the general opinion of the world to be brought to bear. It's not the UN's fault that the world's opinions are, in some people's view, that of "spineless gits".

If the UN were to say, reject countries like China, then approximately 99% of its members, including the US, will leave. That does not do much for its credibility.
 
  • #35
Originally posted by russ_watters
Wow. A group of people who were against the war were against the war. Profound and shocking.
What are you crowing about russ_waters? I already showed you all the legal stuff in another thread, and proved the case. I'm not going to re-post it all for this guy..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #36
Originally posted by Adam
What are you crowing about russ_waters? I already showed you all the legal stuff in another thread, and proved the case. I'm not going to re-post it all for this guy..
You miss the point: That website exists to make the case for a group of political activists. Lawyers join the group BECAUSE they are against the war, not to be part of an unbiased panel which then together makes a decision that the war was wrong. See the difference?

So its unsurprising that a group of lawyers that are against the war are against the war. And it says nothing at all about whether their opinion is typical (it isn't).
 
  • #37
But russ_waters, the laws they present are not their biased opinions. See the difference?
 
  • #38
Originally posted by Adam
But russ_waters, the laws they present are not their biased opinions. See the difference?
So what is so special about these particular lawyers that makes them unbiased? Other lawyers have the opposite opinion, doe that make THEM biased? Two people can look at the same evidence through different eyes and obtain different conclusions. Thats why they call them INTERPRETATIONS.
 
  • #39
Actually, I think the legal justification given to the war, at least the one from the British attorney general, has been invalidated. We are getting off topic, though.
 
  • #40
Originally posted by russ_watters
So what is so special about these particular lawyers that makes them unbiased? Other lawyers have the opposite opinion, doe that make THEM biased? Two people can look at the same evidence through different eyes and obtain different conclusions. Thats why they call them INTERPRETATIONS.

You missed the point again. The lawyers can be as biased as they want. The LAWS are not biased. The laws are not sentient beings.
 
  • #41
Originally posted by Adam
The lawyers can be as biased as they want.

Not when giving legal council, at least not in the U.S...unless of course they want to be disbarred, sued...and without clientele.
The LAWS are not biased.
No, but they are open to intepretation and usually based upon prescedence, unless there is none to base it upon.

Protest sites, whether presented by lawyers or others..are far more subject to bias amd personal opinion...
 
  • #43
Originally posted by Adam
It's pretty clear.

I think if it was really as clear as you think it is congress would not have had to pass the "War Powers Resolution". Maybe you need to do a bit more "homework".
 
  • #44
It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President[/color] will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities[/color] or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

... the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth--
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place[/color]; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.[/color]

(d) Nothing in this joint resolution--
(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President[/color], or the provision of existing treaties; or
(2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities[/color] or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution.
Once again, don't throw around names and titles of things which you do not know.
 
  • #45
Originally posted by Adam
Once again, don't throw around names and titles of things which you do not know.

Lol, I was alive and of an age to be aware of the possible ramifications when Nixon vetoed the War Powers Resolution, and I was also alive when his veto was effectively over-ruled. Since you're so wise and knowledgeable, tell me which U.S. court has ruled the War Powers Resolution as legal or illegal? and what those terms precadence, interpretation, and oh, a favored American term..."loophole" might have to do with it all? Oh Oh..and..and what about the failure of a "cease-fire"?
 
  • #46
I have no idea about US court decisions. However, I do know that the War Powers Act does not in any way alter the USA Constitution.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #47
Originally posted by Adam
I have no idea about US court decisions. However, I do know that the War Powers Act does not in any way alter the USA Constitution.
Well then, ignore the War Powers Act and you're right back to where they were during the vietnam war (prior to the passing of the war powers resolution)...a war that was never declared either. And again we are back to court cases, precadence and interpretations! Not at all clear!
 
  • #48
Originally posted by kat
Well then, ignore the War Powers Act and you're right back to where they were during the vietnam war...
Frankly, kat, I think my opinion of the war powers act is different from yours, but stay on target: your main point is a good one.

The US constitution requires interpretation and clarification.

The War Powers Act is a clarification, and the inevitable striking down of the War Powers Act (should Congress ever be so dumb to try and invoke it) would be the interpretation.

Adam, laws themselves are not sentient beings. Obviously. But they are written by humans and therefore are subject to all the usual human imperfections and as a result our Constitution was built with error checks to allow its clarification and interpretation.
 
  • #49
Originally posted by russ_watters
laws themselves are not sentient beings. Obviously. But they are written by humans and therefore are subject to all the usual human imperfections and as a result our Constitution was built with error checks to allow its clarification and interpretation.

Good point
 
  • #50
Originally posted by russ_watters
Frankly, kat, I think my opinion of the war powers act is different from yours, but stay on target: your main point is a good one.

The US constitution requires interpretation and clarification.

The War Powers Act is a clarification, and the inevitable striking down of the War Powers Act (should Congress ever be so dumb to try and invoke it) would be the interpretation.

Adam, laws themselves are not sentient beings. Obviously. But they are written by humans and therefore are subject to all the usual human imperfections and as a result our Constitution was built with error checks to allow its clarification and interpretation.

Actually Russ, I expect that my opinion of the War Powers Resolution is probably very similar to yours. My point being that it's never been proven to be viable or supportable, but that the very fact that congress felt the need to create the War Powers Resolution should at the very least suggest to someone that the claim that the Constitution itself is all the argument they need to claim that a President, specificly this president has no constitutional right to use troops aggressively, even if he's not officially declared "War"...isn't, wasn't and has never been supportable...not even in a court of law. The greatest weapon of congress has never been an exclusive right to declare war...but their right to hold the purse strings and refuse to finance aggression (this is how they ended the vietnam war)...having financed an agression, it's very difficult to suggest they don't support it. I believe that has been at least one of the opinions given in the rulings of the courts in the past. Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

News When will China overtake the U.S, economically? - 2
Replies
6
Views
2K
Hydrogen-fueled Internal Combustion Engine (ICE)
Replies
18
Views
5K
RIP Edwin F Taylor (1931-2025)
Replies
3
Views
577
B Are real theories undiscoverable from effective field theories?
Replies
4
Views
2K
RIP Yvonne Choquet-Bruhat (1923-2025)
Replies
4
Views
313
2021 Summer Olympics (Tokyo): July 23 (Friday) - August 8 (Sunday)
Replies
35
Views
3K
RIP John Stachel (1928-2025)
Replies
1
Views
354
News PM Paul Martin Blasts UN for Sudan Crisis
Replies
2
Views
2K
2014 FIFA World Cup Preview: Group Deathmatches
Replies
13
Views
4K
I Effective Hamiltonian to Rotational Term Values
Replies
0
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top