Is the UN an Effective Mediator in International Conflicts?

[Adam]

Somewhat related to my "Global Police" thread here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11314

Is the UN effective as a mediation tool between nations and groups of nations?

 

[selfAdjoint]

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.

 

[Jonathan]

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.

 

[Adam]

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.

 

[Hevene]

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.

 

[drag]

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.

 

[Zero]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[Adam]

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/

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[Adam]

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.

 

[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. 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.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[member 5645]

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.

 

[Adam]

Phatmonky, do you think the UN should exclude all nations which have deliberately harmed civilians?

 

[Zero]

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?

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
and just because you don't like China's politics

Zero, please don't put words in my mouth.

 

[member 5645]

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.

 

[Adam]

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.

 

[member 5645]

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!

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Adam
Reminds me of another country.

oh really? Do tell. Which country might that be?

 

[Adam]

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?

 

[Adam]

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?

 

[Zero]

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?

 

[member 5645]

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!

 

[member 5645]

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.

 

[Zero]

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.

 

[Adam]

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...

 

[member 5645]

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

 

[member 5645]

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'