Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The United Nations Organisation

  1. Dec 25, 2003 #1
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 25, 2003 #2

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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.
     
  4. Dec 26, 2003 #3
    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.
     
  5. Dec 26, 2003 #4
    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.
     
  6. Dec 27, 2003 #5
    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.
     
  7. Dec 27, 2003 #6

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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.
     
  8. Dec 27, 2003 #7
    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.
     
  9. Dec 27, 2003 #8

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I agree as well, however, try it from this end: Is the UN worse than the alternative (nothing)? IMO, no.
     
  10. Dec 27, 2003 #9
    Incorrect. Please feel free to read the UN Charter here: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
     
  11. Dec 28, 2003 #10

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  12. Dec 28, 2003 #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.
     
  13. Dec 29, 2003 #12

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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.
     
  14. Dec 29, 2003 #13

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I'm not sure thats 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.
     
  15. Dec 30, 2003 #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.
     
  16. Dec 31, 2003 #15
    Phatmonky, do you think the UN should exclude all nations which have deliberately harmed civilians?
     
  17. Dec 31, 2003 #16
    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?
     
  18. Dec 31, 2003 #17
    Zero, please don't put words in my mouth.
     
  19. Dec 31, 2003 #18
    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.
     
  20. Dec 31, 2003 #19
    Reminds me of another country.
     
  21. Dec 31, 2003 #20
    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!
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?