Can we trust the UN?

Well after that I don't know how I can save the anti-UN club.

you seem to be treating the UN as a governing body. It's not. It's not really meant to be. It is a body to facilitate communication, open to all recognized countries. If the members of the forum want to take united action, the members meet and discuss it in the forum.

Exactly, and that is why it isn't reliable to solve the world's problems. For now the US has been doing what it wants, but our power is going down, and the current situation in Iran only highlights the fact that in any possible war in a multipolar world there is going to be factions that have interests in doing nothing. Our only hope as a world is to come together to the point where we share enough values that we can agree on some global initiatives. I just don't think we should be deluding ourselves that the UN can solve world peace or world hunger. It keeps the big countries from killing each other and sometimes the least important from killing each other, but that's about it. A country like Iran has too much influence on too many of the big countries for it to be smitten by international accord.

 

Well after that I don't know how I can save the anti-UN club.

What do you mean?

Our only hope as a world is to come together to the point where we share enough values that we can agree on some global initiatives.
Which is why the UN can't be trusted. The members don't share the same values.

 

That means I agreed with E_S. The UN has a lot of problems, but socialism is the least of them.

 

Out of all the posts I've made in the last page, that's all you'll comment on?

 

I think the inanity of it gave it staying power.

E_S

 

John Bolton calls for UN to shape-up.

"Is good management and lack of corruption too much to ask for?" he asked, calling the United Nations "severely challenged from a management and accountability point of view."

I think that's the funniest line considering the administration that appointed him.

 

Actually, FIDo, you'd find anyone from the former Australian ambassador, John Dauth AO, to Kofi Annan agreeing with Mr Bolton - who has, I will admit, been a damned good US ambassador to the UN.

E_S

 

Yes, he has a point, but he has to know how silly that comment sounds given who he serves.

 

Compared to whom most of them serve?

E_S

 

Granted, they're all scummy, but they don't try to act holliar-than-thou.

 

Yes they do, and they don't apologise for jumping on anti-American bandwagons for no reason*, or using the GA to extol the virtues of their governments over their neighbors with the sole intent of scoring votes at home.

E_S

* I will grant Cuba and Venezeula the "right" to be anti-American, but not Egypt, for example...

 

I am shocked, shocked! To find out hypocracy is going on in here!


So E_S, have you come aroudn to admitting the UN is a farce?

United? Hardly. Nations? Not even.

It is amusing, if sad, that in it's very name they acknowledge the need for popular support and yet all the manage to do is form a cabal of states. I know I don't have to rant on the difference between a nation and a state to you E_S, so I'll leave it to this...

Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

 

The issue is, the UN has no accountability, generally. Its just people voted on by people that were appointed by gov'ts. Many of which are not exactly the best of governments.

 

That's not strictly true, Lowie; it's more that the UN lacks in any overriding sense of purpose or political will.

farrie - I don't think it's a farce; for example, I work in conjunction with a UN department often (UNHCR). I think it's severely flawed in execution and in dire, dire need of reform or a reset/restart.

You'll get no concession from me, young man!

E_S

 

No offense to you E_S but that is very much akin to saying "I'm getting my food stamps so the Government is doing good work."

If I recall correctly*, UNHCR's works with less than a billion dollars, roughly half the budget of Albania.

No wonder I can't get any concessions from you, you're broke!

*Okay, I totally looked it up.

 

Yes, but the point is if parts of the UN are working, and the UN is the sum of it's parts, absolute statements like that cannot be made, you PvE Carebear you!

E_S

 

No, the UN is less then the sum of it's parts.

Your mistake is seeing these things and saying "The UN is doing good works!".

The reality is there are people who are working for the UN who are making bricks without straw while the UN debates over the neccesity of mud.

The point isn't that the UN is doing this that and the other, it's if those could be accomplished as well if not better without the UN.

I humbly submit that yes, they could.

 

However, I would think that those would both be more present if there was some motivating factor; enter accountability

 

The UN remains accountable to internal review and it's member states, Lowbacca.

farrie; I don't doubt these could be accomplished by a more effective multinational body, but for the moment I'm not saying the UN works or doesn't work. In fact, I'm saying that one cannot make judgements of this nature given that it's such a broad ranging institution.

E_S

 

Ok, I shall revise that many of the member states are not exactly states that have standards. It is way too many levels of beurocracy as far as I see it to do anything.

 

Ahh but you see the issue isn't just that it provides token support, but by it's existence hampers actual support. By funding these under the aegis of the UN, you've automatically got cought up in whatever idiocy the UN is currently amusing itself with.

It's like having the Mel Gibson Cancer Foundation. Okay sure you're still getting donations from the KKK but really do you think you're helping the cause?

And on top of that simply because these token organizations exist, a non UN based multinational organization is automatically hampered from starting up!

There is no doubt good works are being done E_S, but it's despite having 'UN' on the front of your acronym, not because of it.

 

Again, I'm not so sure.

Who else will determine refugee status - IOM? Individual states?

E_S

 

IMHO, the UN isn't nearly as powerful and influential in our daily lives as global corporations, the World Bank, and the WTO.

I don't hear much squawking about their lack of accountability.

They're the secretive, anti-democratic bastards, not the UN. The UN is what it is: a weak and imperfect amalgamation of nations,including some democracies and some non.

 

The UN is what it is: a weak and imperfect amalgamation of nations,including some democracies and some non.

But with oh so fashionable baby blue hats, so it's all ok...

 

Who decided on that color? Were they trying to pick the least intimidating color they possibly could?

They suckceeded.