Is the UN's Control and Influence Equitably Distributed Among Nations?

[Adam]

Is the UN a forum through which countries may meet and discuss matters on equal terms, and all have a fair say? Is it a means by which the nations of the Security Council may exert diplomatic influence over the rest of the world? Does one nation currently rule through economic influence?

 

[russ_watters]

Is the UN a forum through which countries may meet and discuss matters on equal terms, and all have a fair say? Is it a means by which the nations of the Security Council may exert diplomatic influence over the rest of the world? Does one nation currently rule through economic influence? [emphasis added]

IMO, the UN is a forum for discussion and little more, and as such "control" is largely irrelevant - there is little action taken, so little to control. I think that control of a conversation that doesn't lead to action is/would be largely pointless.

If you're talking about US influence over the resolutions passed (or not passed), a lot of countries including the US, stay out of a great number of the votes for political reasons. As such, majority "rules." We don't generally veto or vote against anti-Israel resolutions, for example. It seems the US is also starting to test the waters for possible action in the Sudan - action opposed by two security council members. But no-one wants to be direct because no one wants to lose anything or appear to be bullying anything. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out. Politics, politics, politics.

 

[Adam]

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membship/veto/vetosubj.htm
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions.html

 

[member 5645]

cool...

December 15 USSR 10-1-0 S/PV. 706
para 116 S/3510 Application for Membership (Japan)
December 14 USSR 10-1-0 S/PV. 705
para 28 S/3510 Application for Membership (Japan)
December 13 USSR 9-1-1 S/PV. 704
para 72 S/3502 Application for Membership (Spain)
December 13 USSR 10-1-0 S/PV. 704
para 71 S/3502 Application for Membership (Laos)
December 13 USSR 10-1-0 S/PV. 704
para 70 S/3502 Application for Membership (Japan)
December 13 USSR 10-1-0 S/PV. 704
para 69 S/3502 Application for Membership (Cambodia)
December 13 USSR 10-1-0 S/PV. 704
para 68 S/3502 Application for Membership (Libya)
December 13 USSR 10-1-0 S/PV. 704
para 67 S/3502 Application for Membership (Nepal)
December 13 USSR 10-1-0 S/PV. 704
para 66 S/3502 Application for Membership (Ceylon)
December 13 USSR 10-1-0 S/PV. 704
para 65 S/3502 Application for Membership (Finland)
December 13 USSR 10-1-0 S/PV. 704
para 62 S/3502 Application for Membership (Austria)
December 13 USSR 10-1-0 S/PV. 704
para 61 S/3502 Application for Membership (Italy)
December 13 USSR 10-1-0 S/PV. 704
para 59 S/3502 Application for Membership (Portugal)
December 13 USSR 10-1-0 S/PV. 704
para 58 S/3502 Application for Membership (Ireland)
December 13 USSR 10-1-0 S/PV. 704
para 57 S/3502 Application for Membership (Jordan)
December 13 China 8-1-2 S/PV. 704
para 54 S/3502 Application for Membership (Mongolia)
December 13 USSR 9-1-1 S/PV. 704
para 52 S/3502 Application for Membership (South Viet-nam)
December 13 USSR 9-1-1 S/PV. 704
para 51 S/3502 Application for Membership (Republic of Korea)

 

[Adam]

I recommend actually reading the material I supply. In the past two decades, the USA has blocked 22 UN resolutions against Israel.

 

[studentx]

God, not this again.

 

[kat]

I recommend actually reading the material I supply. In the past two decades, the USA has blocked 22 UN resolutions against Israel.

ooohhh ahhhh ewwww how many has it blocked against the Palestinians?

OOooooHH wait, that's right Israel can't get resolutions through against the Palestinians...I guess we know who controls the UN!

 

[Adam]

While it may pass for a cheap comedy act around time for last call, it doesn't do so well in what might otherwise have been rational discussion. If you wish to see who has been the target of UN resolutions, and who has blocked them, please view the material I have provided.

 

[russ_watters]

I recommend actually reading the material I supply. In the past two decades, the USA has blocked 22 UN resolutions against Israel.

I didn't mean to change the subject of the thread (unless this was where you wanted it to go all along). That's 22 out of what - 100+? Not a large percentage, but regardless, not something I really care about arguing about.

In any case, Adam, what do you think about my first in that first post? What is your answer to the question you posed?

 

[Adam]

Actually I would rather get back on track. I'll restate the questions.

Is the UN a forum through which countries may meet and discuss matters on equal terms, and all have a fair say? Is it a means by which the nations of the Security Council may exert diplomatic influence over the rest of the world? Does one nation currently rule through economic influence?

 

[Adam]

As for my answer...

Nothing happens without money or something else changing hands somewhere. Whether in the UN chambers, an embassy lunch room, the Prime Minister's country house during a visit from another head of state, or whatever, there's money or influence or the promise of such changing hands. Overall, I think the UN is the circus part of "bread and circuses".

 

[russ_watters]

Actually I would rather get back on track.

Perhaps we can deal with Israel, the US, and the UN in another thread...?

As for my answer...

Are you talking about outright bribery or just economically motivated decision-making (or even economic imperialism)?

From the original question, clearly the US has the most economic power due to the size of our economy: the EU was created for the purpose of countering that. Certainly, much of what happens in the UN often reflects these facts. But clearly we can't 'buy votes' or bully the council into passing our resolutions (at least not with any regularity). The bit resolution on Iraq before last year's war (I can't remember which one) was a notable exception where we put the full weight of our diplomatic power into getting it passed. Veto power, while we choose to use it more than others only stops other resolutions, it doesn't push our adjenda through.

 

[member 5645]

While it may pass for a cheap comedy act around time for last call, it doesn't do so well in what might otherwise have been rational discussion. If you wish to see who has been the target of UN resolutions, and who has blocked them, please view the material I have provided.

That's what I did, and somehow you gave a reply with READING in italics.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Is the UN a forum through which countries may meet and discuss matters on equal terms, and all have a fair say? Is it a means by which the nations of the Security Council may exert diplomatic influence over the rest of the world? Does one nation currently rule through economic influence?

If you are saying that the UN is the US' puppet, you will then need to explain why (1) the Left calls for the UN to take the lead in Iraq, and (2) why the UN didn't support the US' invasion.

You can't have it both ways.

The United Nations is a group of nations that form policies. The US happens to be a very influential member, like China and Russia. Why not just leave it at that?

 

[Adam]

Perhaps we can deal with Israel, the US, and the UN in another thread...? Are you talking about outright bribery or just economically motivated decision-making (or even economic imperialism)?

Well, one is the commonplace practice of the other. Either way, it's people being bought.

From the original question, clearly the US has the most economic power due to the size of our economy: the EU was created for the purpose of countering that. Certainly, much of what happens in the UN often reflects these facts. But clearly we can't 'buy votes' or bully the council into passing our resolutions (at least not with any regularity). The bit resolution on Iraq before last year's war (I can't remember which one) was a notable exception where we put the full weight of our diplomatic power into getting it passed. Veto power, while we choose to use it more than others only stops other resolutions, it doesn't push our adjenda through.

No, the veto doesn't push, money pushes.

 

[Adam]

If you are saying that the UN is the US' puppet, you will then need to explain why (1) the Left calls for the UN to take the lead in Iraq, and (2) why the UN didn't support the US' invasion.

No, I'm saying that people with money have influence over people who want money.

You can't have it both ways.

Why not? Some nations were bought, some weren't. Remember the thing about Turkey? The USA offered something like 32 billion dollars. The EU (France and Germany, mostly) offered EU membership.

The United Nations is a group of nations that form policies. The US happens to be a very influential member, like China and Russia. Why not just leave it at that?

As has been stated, veto stops resolutions, it doesn't create them. Diplomacy/money outside the veto vote makes things happen.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Adam, what is your point? You obviously are driving at something here. Is it the United Nations sactions against Iraq? Care to fill us in?