Is the UN irrelevant?

The UN doesn't enforce it's resolutions, nor does it have the authority to back them up.

Is the UN going to go the way of the League of Nations?

 

The U.N. is the only place on earth where dictators and tyrants get to participate in a democratic vote.

 

I think the anti-UN case is overstated at the moment. It's not going anywhere, it will still retain an important role in the world, and it will still weild influence. However, that said, I do think that the situation in Iraq is a crises or crossroads for the institution, and bears watching.


US attitude toward UN could rescue it

excerpt:

...Not least important, a Security Council mandate for decisive action in Iraq would breathe new life into the New World Order. The genius of Bush's U.N. speech was to confront the General Assembly with the bald fact that the U.N.'s credibility, far more than the U.S.', is at stake.

It was the United Nations that Saddam went to war against in 1991, the United Nations whose eye he has been spitting in ever since, and the United Nations that must now decide whether it means what it says... and says... and says. Iraq is only a potential threat to America, but it is a proven threat to the U.N. Imagine the ruins in which the U.N.'s reputation would lie if Iraq, by alternating between outright defiance of the Security Council and sham compliance, managed to acquire a weapon of mass destruction and therefore emerge as a major regional power. Saddam is out to prove that the way to deal with the U.N. is to outlast it, out-bluff it, and finally humiliate it. He knows that the world is watching and that dictators everywhere will take note.

George W. Bush may not share his father's instinctive sympathy with the United Nations and other international bodies. But he seems to realize, as his father did in 1990, that international bodies charged with defending the peace (the League of Nations, the United Nations) become positive threats to peace if their hollow pronouncements become the skirts for ambitious dictators to hide behind. So the younger Bush has, in effect, offered to put American power at the U.N.'s service, not just for America's sake, but to save the U.N. from a dangerous impotence.

The Kyoto global-warming agreement, the International Criminal Court agreement, and all the other multilateral agreements by which the self-styled "international community" sets such store would, even taken together, do much less to strengthen enlightened internationalism than would concerted action to make the U.N.'s Iraq resolutions stick. The United Nations and its friends had better think hard before snubbing the lifeline Bush has just thrown them, because they may not get another.

 

The UN is overrated. They see wrong, yet they do nothing. It has the chance to do what is right, and do it as a world body with one voice, saying we will not tolerate. But it seems that nations that are dictatorships have more say so, aka China.

 

I think we should always have a place where different countries can talk, albeit if it is meaningless. I don't like the way they try to make laws because it violates my constitution.

 

Well Bush doesn't seem to think the UN is to important. Of course Bush is a moron.

 

Of course Bush is a moron.

Now that's a well thought out and intelligent statement.

 

"Well Bush doesn't seem to think the UN is to important. Of course Bush is a moron."

Uh, that should be "too," not "to." Now, what was that about morons?

 

I'm sorry but I have to laugh at that as well, even if it's just a typo. Couldn't be a worse typo though, especially considering the above statement.

 

The UN is about a lot more than waging war. Look through their web site and you'll see that they have a lot of humanitarian programs. I doubt the beneficiaries of those programs would consider the UN to be irrelevant.

 

Bush is still a moron. Typos won't change that. At this point they may help him. Say if someone forgot a "W".

Edit: The UN is very useful as a means of communication. That communication quite possibly saved the world in 1962. And in terms of waging war, the UN's function is more of a speed bump for aggressive nations. Like a guy stepping into a bar fight about to explode. So if a nation attacks then the chances are the UN, and therefore the rest of the world including the Security Council, will be compelled to intervene either in self-defense or in preventative strikes.

This US vs. Iraq debate in the UN goes back to the League of Nations with Italy and Ethiopia in 1934. Who knows if the UN can maintain a presence in the world and still act on somewhat vague accusations in what seems to many, a witch hunt by the minority's elected president.

 

The UN is a good idea, but it has way too many participants with entirely different agendas to make any real difference to the state of the world.

It's fine for humanitarian reasons, but as a world cop it's doomed. I think the end is nigh for the UN in that respect.

We do need a world stage where nations can be heard, though.

 

"Do you children want to be like the real UN, or do you want to squabble and waste time?" -Seymour Skinner

 

Well, if the US paid it's $500 billion debt it'd probably be able to be that little bit more efficient.


The problem is not that the UN isn't relevant - and Bush's claims were totally ignorant and, when you know how the UN works, ironically funny - it's that the UN is dominated by the 5 powers on the Security Council. THAT is the problem.
I'll explain what I mean about Bush - he says if the UN doesn't act on Iraq, it's irrelevant. What he actually says is that if the UN doesn't capitulate to the US' will it's no longer relevant, when in actuallity it's doing what it's supposed to do; being a forum for world opinion. And the world, by and large, thinks preemptive strikes is a real bad idea. If nothing else, it becomes jus cogens and that means it's accepted state practise. Which means, events like 9/11 can be justified under international law as preemptive strikes against US targets that pose a threat, under A51 of the UN Charter, to the security of another Member. So Iran can nuke Washington using Article 51 and the preemptive strike practise, and it's legal, so long as they don't violate any other jus cogens principles. So, to recap - the UN is irrelevant because it no longer capitualtes to the whims of the United States of America. Riiiight. Sounds like someone's having a tantrum!
If you want the UN to work, the best thing you can do is remove the power of Veto from the Permant Members of the Security Council - the US, UK, China, France and Russia - and then remove permanent membership altogether. It will then stop being the vehicle for certain world power's agendas.

And yes, JediTre you're right. It's not a world cop. Never was meant to be. Under it's charter each nation is to be treated as equals ((and when you have superpowers who are borderline narcisstic it's not gonna happen). Which means, to sterling's dismay, that dictators and tyrants do get a vote as equals. Cuba and America are considered equal members of equal importance under the United Nations charter. But sterling, you realise that for disaffected people starving in the third world so we can have access to their resources, that successive regimes in the West are also tyrannical. It's all, to quote Obi-Wan, depended on your point of view.

This is a great text on the need for UN reform: A Better United Nations for the New Millennium, by Kamil Idris and Michael Bartolo.

And that link about the US attitude to the UN from Red7? Reaffirms, albeit accidently, what I was saying - it's the power of veto that's the biggest impediment to the Security Council, and indeed the whole United Nations functioning.
E_S

And yes, I study International Relations at a Masters level. And America cannot withdraw from the UN - even if they want to, they're bound by law to stay as a member.

 

Jedi_Xen - learn about the UN first mate before making those calls, ok? No nation has more say that the United States.


CoolGuy, you said "I don't like the way they try to make laws because it violates my constitution." That's a myth, and I'll tell you why. If the US enters into an international treaty/convention/etc, it is usually allowed to enter "reservations." Take a look at the United Nations website and find a few Conventions; they all have reservations. What the reservation does it allows for nations to be a party to a treaty and only accept certain conditions; and the US could sign for example a Convention on Arms Trade, with a formal Reservation on Article 6(b) restricting small arms trade, and article 15, restricting military hardware. In effect, the UN cannot violate the US' constitution - the US has to first approve, then sign, then ratify, then implement a treaty. If any of this violates your consitution, it's the government in Washington, not the UN. I don't know tha much about US Constitutional Law, but I know that here, in Australia, under our inhereted principles of British constitutional law no provisions of a treaty may override the clear terms of a domestic statute, whether it was exiting before or after the treaty was signed.

I hope that makes sense dude - you were right first off that the UN is a forum first and foremost. However, I would say you're wrong about the UN's role in US domestic politics.

E_S

 

And America cannot withdraw from the UN - even if they want to, they're bound by law to stay as a member.

Laws can easily change.

I agree with the individual who posted that the UN is the only democratic-style organization that tyrants and dictators get a vote (see China).

I tend to think, not only b/c of this situation in Iraq but others around the world, that the UN is indeed become a beaurocratic monster and totally ineffective.

The US may have a debt in UN dues, but we provide much of the military support it requires around the world.

a witch hunt by the minority's elected president.

Im sure you've heard of the electoral college and you know why it's important we have it. You really need to move on and get over it.

Iraq isn't a witch hunt. If Saddam gets nuclear weapons, you think he would hesitate to use them against us or Israel? Or would he not give them to Al Qaeda?

 

Ha ha, no they can't! You can be expelled, but there is no way a majority in the UN General Assembly would approve such a change to the Charter of the United Nations.

As I said, you want the UN to work, get rid of the undue influence of the Permanent Members in the Security Council. All it takes is 1 in 5 to screw a Resolution completely; why not add the dreaded concept of Democracy into the Security Council - that is, a totaly 2/3 majority?

E_S

EDIT: Why shouldn't China have a vote? And why the hell should the world be decided according to Washington's standards? As I said earlier, no nation is discriminated against in the UN. Every nation is equal and has equal right to participate. There are 191 Member States - and THE USA IS ONLY ONE!!!

 

The US or any other nation can leave the UN if it wants due to a litte concept known as national sovereignty.

Think of the ramifications were the US or another major nation withdraws and calls the UN quits!

Many revolutions and changes have occured over time, and many of these things were considered improbable.

It's just an idea, even though I know it will never happen.

 

DM, I'm studying at a postgraduate level International Relations as well as International Law. With all due respect, you have no idea of the binding restraints placed on a nation under customary international law, and thus you should stop posting opinions contrary to the facts and telling me I'm wrong. IF the USA were to leave the UN, it would be expelled. It CANNOT WITHDRAW. FACT. END OF STORY.
And the US owes the UN $500 billion in dues. Military action aside (which, BTW, is determined by accords set in place by US lawmakers when the UN was founded) that is still a debt to the world at large and it's downright hypocritical to demand action, call them irrelevant and inefficient when the US refuses to fulfil its obligations to the world at large, thus contributing to the problem.

E_S

 

IF the USA were to leave the UN, it would be expelled. It CANNOT WITHDRAW. FACT. END OF STORY.

You just made my point.

It can withdraw and not adhere to any tenets of the UN. Now the UN can "expel" us after the fact.

The UN authority and mandate does not exceed national sovereignty.

So what if they were to expel a nation after they up and leave? What difference does that make? The nation already left!

That's just common sense.

On a side note: The US provides more aid to all the nations of the earth than I would say most nations combined. We give billions of dollars to many countries, and all we get is crap anyway. If it were up to me, I wouldn't give a dime of my tax money to any of these quacky nations unless I could see the food and aid delivered to the people firsthand.

 

What, you mean like through UNESCO or WHO or UNHRC or any other UN Mission?

E_S

EDIT: Let's say the US leaves - wouldn't that make the UN more democratic?

 

I'm just saying that it is possible for the UN to go the way of the League of Nations, and it seems like it's getting that way more and more.

 

Right, and the problem both had was that they were insitutions created by the victors of the world wars. The UN needs to reform, and getting rid of the Security Council's permanent membership would do that. From there, you can reform as you like - like merging WTO into the UN, for example, as Idris and Bartolo advocate. The UN learnt from the League - like forcing members to stay members to encourage them to try. it'll last IF it can reform.

E_S

 

Quite aside from US/UN relations, the UN offshoots are quite good, but the General Assembly and the Security Council are worthless.

Why? Well, people have pointed out the veto powers.

But the big problem? Nations in there dont act for the good of the world. They act for themselves and their friends. What is in their own best interest. EVERY country is guilty of it.

The UN is simply about people coming forward and saying "Do whats best for ME", not "Do whats best".

Because of this, the UN SC and GA doesnt do much worthwhile at all. Its all about trying to play politics on the world stage.

To paraphrase TPM:
The UN is full of greedy, squabbling delegates. There is no interest in the common good"

The UN was/is meant to be about the common good. Advancing the world. The GA and SC simply arent.

It is very much irrelevant.

 

My thoughts exactly about the TPM quote.