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

UN today ?

  1. Yes

    8 vote(s)
    57.1%
  2. No

    6 vote(s)
    42.9%
  1. Jun 18, 2003 #1

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Greetings !

    My question is - Do you think that the UN today is
    as capable and highly usefull organization as it's supposed
    to be ?

    My personal opinion is no. My reasons are:
    1. The UN is an organization that attempts to
    control the world democraticly and this means there are
    two great problems:
    1.1 Many of the member countries are not democratic and
    thus do not really make discisions for their peoples.
    1.2 While democratic representatives in a single country,
    even if they come from different areas, still work for
    and respect the country as whole, the same doesn't happen in
    the UN. The UN member countries care very little about the
    world as a whole. As a result, this supposedly democratic
    organization turns into a corrupt organization which is hardly
    capable of making any viable descisions or offering any
    real solutions based upon basic constitutional laws accepted
    by most democaratic societies and respected often in even
    non-democratic ones. Any descision is thus influenced directly
    by the primary - local/national intrests of each country
    while ignoring completely things like the better good and/or
    basicly accepted moral principles.

    (Examples of that are middle eastern issues. The oil flowing
    from the arab countries greatly influences all UN discisions.
    After all, what should a European country, for example, care
    about anything or anyone in that region ? The relevant issue
    for them is to get their oil as cheap and as much of it as
    possible. Because eventually, why should they actually consider
    basic laws and human principles outside their borders and make
    sacrifices to that effect, it's rediculous.)

    2. The UN is an organization that wishes to represent mankind.
    And yet, non-democratic countries don't do that. Further more,
    by providing equal "weight" to countries with hugely differing
    amounts of population (and the occasionaly relevant - territory)
    that, again, doesn't happen.

    3. The UN allows some countries to veto descisions and be the
    supreme countries in the organization thus ignoring its own
    supposedly democratic basis as well as preventing its own
    ability of being usefull when these countries are in some
    type of conflict and could use an arbitrary and basic
    principle based descision.

    4. The UN is basicly funded by all countries but the funding
    and hence influence are not adequatly regulated and distributed,
    resulting in yet more corruption and self-intrest based descisions
    this time influenced by the organization itself.

    Feel free to add more negative points...:wink:
    And don't forget the positive ones if and when you find'em.

    Live long and prosper.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 18, 2003 #2

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    The number 1 postive one:

    It's better than nothing.

    Hence, the UN is really useful and capable, because there isn't actually anything more useful and capable to compare it to.

    <Insert model UN here, and I'll tell you why it wouldn't work. Probably.>
     
  4. Jun 18, 2003 #3

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I answered yes for that reason and one other.

    The UN useful and capable as long as you understand why it exists. It is a forum for discussion and little else. It has failed to help the middle-east situation (for example), but thats not a situation it is equipped to really fix.
     
  5. Jun 19, 2003 #4
    I put No because i dont think it is! I think that as far as capable and useful goes, how capable and useful is it when the US (and its allies) decides to do what ever it wants? As we saw with the war in Iraq the UN had no power to stop the US from doing what it wanted. so i think that its only useful if the US agree with the other member nations.
     
  6. Jun 19, 2003 #5

    jb

    User Avatar

    think of the UN as a teacher, and countries as students. the students come in all shapes and sizes, some are friends, some are enemies, some are bullies, some get picked on. the teacher only has authority when the students all her (or him) to have control. if a fight breaks out, the teacher really has no ability to stop the fight on her (or his) own. sometimes if a bully goes after a weaker student, other kids will stick up for him and help him out. but usually the students see the need for order and allow the teacher to control their behavior.

    if a member of UN wants to start a war, nothing really will stop them. most peacekeeping forces are really just troops allied with the victim country. the UN merely assembles these troops in a reasonable fashion.

    as for democracy, all the UN provides is a democratic vote from leaders. the hope is that the leaders/representatives will represent their people, but that isn't guaranteed.
     
  7. Jun 20, 2003 #6

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Greetings !
    No, it's not.
    Any problem can be nagotiated by the intrested parties
    in an internationally agreed manner of adequate laws.
    It is simply foolish to impose somekind of a worldwide
    control through such a corrupt discion making proccess as
    the one that takes place in the UN. No country half way
    around the world should tell another country what it should
    or should not do as part of its internal politics and
    relations with nearby countries, based on its own intrests
    rather than anything else.

    Live long and prosper.
     
  8. Jun 20, 2003 #7

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    And that's precisely where the UN comes in. You cannot have an internationally agreed manner of laws without an international body to decide these laws.

    As the Iraq conflict showed all too well, it is foolish to say the UN in any ways imposes control. And remember, the UN is simply an union of nations. The corruption comes from the various nations. Leave out the UN, and the corruption remains.

    Must resist making Iraqi war comparison...
     
  9. Jun 20, 2003 #8

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Greetings !
    There are and can be general international laws without
    the UN. Further more, regional organizations or organizations
    dealing with specific aspects - like the red cross, are ussualy
    much more effective.
    No, the corruption comes due to the form of the
    discision making proccesses. Further more, the organization
    itself depends upon uneven economic and political support of
    the member countries which further causes internal corruption.
    Why ? Is that relevant ?
    When dealing with a tyrant military force is most welcome
    since it's the only way to remove one and free the people.
    Aspecialy if you do it in such an ellegant manner.

    In fact, the reason that the UN did not agree with this was
    due to intrest of arab leaders - who don't care about their
    peoples at all as well as France, Germany and Russia who
    had great intrests and investments in Iraq - which means that
    they did not care about anything else. It is another example
    of the UN's failure to make a difference.

    Peace and long life.
     
  10. Jun 20, 2003 #9

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    This may be a topic for another thread, but I read today about European plans to increase the EU into a political union as well as an economic one. The're talking about a "Constitution" and everything. From what it sounds like it would be similar to if slightly stronger than the Articles of Confederation that the US had before our current Constitution. I had no idea they were so close to such a union. Far cry from the nationalism that ruled Europe 55 years ago.
     
  11. Jun 20, 2003 #10
    Drag, don't you see the relationship between what you said and the Iraq War?
     
  12. Jun 21, 2003 #11
    I hope not! dont even think tony would agree to that, if that did happen i think i would emmigrate.
     
  13. Jun 21, 2003 #12
    The UN doesn't matter, because the US has decided that its sovereignty supercedes anyone else's.
     
  14. Jun 21, 2003 #13

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I am making a distinction between democratic and non-democratic
    countries. I think it's justified. Do you ?
     
  15. Jun 21, 2003 #14
    Well, that's not what you said. In the case that a tyrannical government is opressing its people, then I think that it may be justified, depending on the specific circumstances, for another country to step in.

    However, I don't think that it's justified for a country to step in "based on its own intrests rather than anything else." I don't find it justified to say, "We're a democracy, so we can do whatever we want to you, because you're not."
     
  16. Jun 21, 2003 #15
    I think that the confederation of Europe would be a good thing. One of the largest problems in the world of human affairs is tribalism/nationalism. If you can have a bond among a larger group of people, you have less exclusion and bickering, and people will tend to settle their disputes more peacefully.
     
  17. Jun 22, 2003 #16
    I agree in principal with this but there is no common bond between the europeans apart from belonging to the continent of europe, and when the British, French and Germans get together there is always bickering.
     
  18. Jun 23, 2003 #17

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The UK is not (and probably never will be) a part of the EU. I wasn't implying that they would.
     
  19. Jun 23, 2003 #18
    Yeah thats the way most people in the UK feel as well! but we are still technically a member of the EU, we havent changed to the euro yet (and hopefully wont) which is what i think the confusion must be here.
     
  20. Jun 24, 2003 #19

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    It says you are from England, so maybe I shouldn't argue, but you sure about that? The "EU" is the economic alliance/organization of Europe and adopting the currency is one of many requirements of entry. England has chosen NOT to enter that particular organization.

    AFAIK, England is geographically a part of Europe, but that does NOT make them a part of the EU.
     
  21. Jun 24, 2003 #20
    The european union has been about for many years maybe since the late 80's not sure about how long but it has been around alot longer than the European Currency, the Euro has only been in use for a few years if that, i think it was last summer that it started to be used or maybe the summer before that.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: UN today ?
  1. Effectiveness of the UN (Replies: 55)

  2. Control of the UN (Replies: 16)

  3. UN question (Replies: 1)

  4. UN - methods (Replies: 0)

  5. Future of the UN (Replies: 5)

Loading...