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

United Nations, ?

  1. Dec 4, 2003 #1
    United Nations, ???

    Hey all, been a while, but im back... Anyways...

    What about it? does the United States belong in the U.N.? Is the U.N. a failure in any terms? What will the future hold for the U.N.? How do you feel about Kofi Aman?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 5, 2003 #2

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The US created the UN and the UN could not exist without US participation.

    The League of Nations was created by the US and failed because the US didn't join.
     
  4. Dec 5, 2003 #3

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    True, but it evades the question. Is the UN working the way it should? Should the US continue to support the UN as it is now?

    There's a big billboard in my neighborhood. "The UN is anti-US! Get the US out of the UN!" How do we respond to this? Or do we agree with it?
     
  5. Dec 5, 2003 #4
    Its a small world, after all...too small for any nation to put itself ahead of all others. The UN is a vitally needed organization, and the fact that some in America are against it is simply proof of how important it is.
     
  6. Dec 5, 2003 #5

    jcsd

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The United Ntions was created in the US (San Fransisco), but there were 44 other nations involved. The US President Woodrow Wilson was the driving force behind the creation of the League of Nations, the reasons for the League of Nations failures are more complicated than the US not joining, but it was certainly one of the factors that led to it's failure.
     
  7. Dec 5, 2003 #6

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    Well, these people seem to have a flawed perception of the UN to begin with. The UN isn't meant to be pro-US. It isn't meant to be anti, or anything. It is meant to be an internationalist organisation that emphasises the will of the majority of the world. In essence, that sort of isolationist thinking is saying that the world is anti-US, and the best solution is you close up our eyes and stop trying to deal with the real issues. Which is stupid.
     
  8. Dec 5, 2003 #7

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Wherefor isolationism? Humble superpower - oxymoron?

    A troubling question, SelfAdjoint.

    What did the kings and emperors of old do, those who wielded very considerably more power than their contemporaries? Some liked to hear only good news, and quickly became surrounded by syncophants (because 'brown-nose' wasn't invented then). They forgot the inter-connectedness of the world.

    Clearly everyone, sooner or later, would be worse off if the US were to leave the UN, but how to explain why? and how?

    Likely within a generation the US will no longer be the largest economy on Earth, maybe not even #2 - how best to address the changing political balances that will follow from this, other than by being an active participant in the UN? Where are the alternative fora?
     
  9. Dec 5, 2003 #8
    Re: Wherefor isolationism? Humble superpower - oxymoron?

    Instead of rolling with teh changes, America seems likely to be on a course to prevent this ever happening, by military means if necessary.
     
  10. Dec 6, 2003 #9

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    alpha nation on the prairie of the world?

    The Dutch pre-eminence in the world's economy, the British empire, and before them - in their more limited spheres of influence - the Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Inca, ... reigns as #1 - all passed. While I'm sure there was some wailing and gnashing of teeth among the then 'military-industrial complex', the loss of alpha status didn't happen overnight, and was pretty much 'inevitable'. Of course, there were exceptions.

    I somehow can't see the nextgen Bushes/Rumsfelds/Chaneys as modern day Canutes*.

    *He's seriously misunderstood; he did his tide thing to show that he *wasn't* all-powerful :wink:
     
  11. Dec 7, 2003 #10
    No Brainers

    Posted by: selfAdjoint;
    “True, but it evades the question. Is the UN working the way it should?”

    Geez, these are no brainers.
    Of course the UN IS NOT working the way it should. Sure, its working the way that it was designed (as a preliminary vehicle for the victors of World War II to control and manipulate international politics and economics).

    selfAdjoint;
    “Should the US continue to support the UN as it is now? There’s a big billboard in my neighborhood. “The UN is anti-US! Get the US out of the UN!” How do we respond to this? Or do we agree with it?”

    If you consider that the US is only nation in the world that doesn’t pay the money that it owes to the UN, why not continue to support this freebie? After all, the US is one of five nations with the ALMIGHTY POWER OF VETO.
    For those who don’t know; Having VETO in the UN is akin to being God. Even if the entire rest of the world votes against your illegal, immoral war policy (eg. US unilateral action in Iraq), you may VETO the action, and therefore do WHATEVER YOU WANT.
    http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/07/icc070102.htm
    So should the US continue to support an organisation that they coerce and control? Should they make use of an organisation, whose rules they only have to heed when it suits them? The US would be fools not to manipulate such a useful vehicle.

    When you have VETO, you can also avoid such minor “irritations” as being charged with 58 years worth of War Crimes on Asians.
    http://www.iacenter.org/pyongyang-verdict.htm
     
  12. Dec 8, 2003 #11

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Dogon, What alternatives to the UN exist today? What proposal could you make for a better organisation? How could an alternative be brought into existence? Given that the US is as powerful as you say (I'm not sure it is, but let's assume so for the moment), how effective could an international body be without the appropriate level of representation from the US?
     
  13. Dec 9, 2003 #12
    Alternatives to UN

    Posted by Nereid;
    “Dogon, What alternatives to the UN exist today?”
    In current existence, there are unfortunately no alternatives.

    “What proposal could you make for a better organisation?”
    My proposal would be to establish an organisation where no nations have special VETO privileges. Each nation has one vote, no abstentions. Majority rules.

    “How could an alternative be brought into existence?”
    An alternative could be brought into existence through the dissolution of the UN. The former UN Declaration of Human Rights, the Declaration of the Rights of the Child and the Kyoto Protocol could be combined with the Outer Space Treaty and a new “anti-terrestrial war protocol” to create a new system of international government and tolerance. The problems Earth is facing now (pollution, arms control, over-population etc.) would be seen as global issues and not as isolated incidents within transient border-markings.

    “Given that the US is as powerful as you say (I'm not sure it is, but let's assume so for the moment),…”
    The US is more powerful than most of us like to acknowledge. It is currently unchallenged by any other nation in any serious respect - be it economically, militarily or politically. It is MORE than a global superpower. It is an Earth power embarking on militarising space. Make of that what you will.

    “…how effective could an international body be without the appropriate level of representation from the US?”
    Any international body without the US (or any OTHER nation) would be ineffective in all respects. It is time we acknowledged that we are a global community with common interests and goals.
     
  14. Dec 10, 2003 #13

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The EU > the USA

    er, no. The largest economic block on the planet is the European Union; even the euro-zone within the EU is bigger - by most economic measures - than the US. Come May 2004, when 10 more nations join, it will pull further ahead of the US. When euro-land expands - and the new members don't have a choice about joining the euro, once the tests are met, they're in (much to Adrian's delight, no doubt NOT) - it'll only be a few short years before the euro replaces the dollar as the principal international currency.

    We don't think of the EU as an economic superpower because it's not the engine of the world's economy today, and hasn't been for a few years now. Also, the stupid 'common agricultural policy' (CAP) plays a big part in robbing the EU of economic leadership kudos.

    In another economic metric - contribution to global economic growth - the US lost its position as #1 to China a year or so ago. Of course, the Chinese economy is still much smaller than the US's, but just wait 20 years or so ...

    May I say that there seems to be a certain unreality, shall we say, to your suggestions on how we could get from the UN today to your proposed better organisation? If the US is as powerful as you say, they would have no reason whatsoever to participate in a process as you describe.

    Do you have a *realistic* alternative?
     
  15. Dec 14, 2003 #14
    Unrealistic?

    Posted by Nereid;
    “er, no. The largest economic block on the planet is the European Union…”
    Yeh, that’s not a single nation mate.
    Anyhows, the EU is going to crap itself big time, you guys will never cooperate on that one. In-house squabbling and the limited outlook of elections will make sure that illusion never takes off.

    The US Union or “sphere of influence” (which includes Australia, various Pacific nations, half of Africa, South America, etc. etc.) will create a vanguard to protect ANY proposed EU pact.

    “May I say that there seems to be a certain unreality, shall we say, to your suggestions on how we could get from the UN today to your proposed better organisation?”
    Unreality? Unreality is pretending that a UN with special powers of VETO for certain nations could ever be a viable and fair organisation to determine international justice. The organisation is a joke to anybody who understands how it functions, or anybody who has worked for it’s affiliated organisations.
    Unreality is pretending that the UN is the best the world can do.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?