Is the UN irrelevant?

Well, the UN has always been irrelevant since his inception. The myth that the UN is relevant was created in 1990 with the gulf crisis. But since then it has returned to its cold war inefectiveness. I say disband it.

 

More fringe opinions.


E_S

 

Emperor Palpatine

I don´t think you have really considered what it would be like if there was no UN.
There would be no international authority whatsoever. Poorer and weaker countries would basically be at the mercy of the rich and powerfull ones. Without the UN it would be downright imposible to impose a trade imbargo on a country and it would be far more difficult to solve international conflicts through diplomacy, without a forum like the UN. And what about the UN´s other functions, like international humanitarian aid,international protection of children´s rights, economic and social developement,international law and human rights.
Not even a country like the US can exist completely without the support of other nations.
We all need each other and that´s why we band together in such organisations.
Just look at how many times the UN has worked in favour of the US, none of you have called the UN irrelevant then.

The UN isn´t perfect, how could it be. I mean even individual government have trouble reaching decisions. Now here is an organisation that has 191 member states with different government sytems, different religious beliefs, different agendas and views . Of course they are going to have a hard time arriving at a common course of action.

Dispanding the Un is not the solution, however I think it´s in definite need of some reforms. For example if they got rid of the veto rights of the five permanent members the UN would be far more effective and a lot truer to it´s basic purpose of being an equal forum for all the member nations, no matter how influencial or powerful.

 

How can a 32-year old father of three change the UN? The answer is...I cannot. I can't offer a utopia for the world, I can't offer much. I'm one man. I offer my opinion on the UN to respark this discussion, and it looks like it has somewhat.

A "fringe" opinion is an opinion nonetheless.

 

I don´t think you have really considered what it would be like if there was no UN.
There would be no international authority whatsoever. Poorer and weaker countries would basically be at the mercy of the rich and powerfull ones.

Weak countries are still at the mercy of powerful ones, aninonymous. In fact, weak countries are even at the mercy of other, slightly-less, weak ones as the situation in the Congo has shown. The only time the UN ever really did anything besides cleaning up afterwards (South Korea, Kuwait) was when the US led the effort and did 80-90% of the fighting. Maybe the UN needs its' own army.

Dispanding the Un is not the solution, however I think it´s in definite need of some reforms. For example if they got rid of the veto rights of the five permanent members the UN would be far more effective and a lot truer to it´s basic purpose of being an equal forum for all the member nations, no matter how influencial or powerful.

Oh yeah, take away the veto power of the five permanent members. That's the way to get on the good side of the US, not to mention the other P5 countries! On the other hand, you might have something with the idea of making all voting equal in the UN. But to make it fair let's also divide the UN budget 191 ways and move the headquarters to a city more representative of the world at large. How about Moscow, Berlin, or Paris? Then at least that nest of spies in New York will be removed!

 

". That's the way to get on the good side of the US, not to mention the other P5 countries"

The purpose of the UN is not to get on the good side of the US or any other nation. It´s meant to be a forum for all 191 members.
The US is no more or less important than the other nations.
And if you take away the veto they would truly be equal.

"But to make it fair let's also divide the UN budget 191 ways and move the headquarters to a city more representative of the world at large. "

Actually each of the member nations contributes the same percentage of support to the UN, relative to the GDP and population I think. Of course a wealthy and large country like the US pays more and contributes more millitary but that´s because they have more. It´s like paying taxes. Not everybody pays a set amount, it´s based on your income. You pay less taxes than someone richer than you, does that mean you should have less rights than that person. There´s an article in the UN charter, I´d have to look up which one it is, that clearly states how it works.

As for moving the headquaters. I don´t really think it would matter where they are. As long as it´s some place relativley stable and save.

"Weak countries are still at the mercy of powerful ones,²

But at least now they have a place where they can be heard, and the UN is not just about armed conflict.
But like I said it´s by no means perfect, I mean what is. But that doesn´t mean we give up on the idea behind it and go crawling back into our caves. The world is a small place, that we all have to find a way to share. Cause you can´t move out.

ANd it´s sort of curious, because I can´t really rember hearing the US complain about the inaffectivness of the UN, before it had had the nerve not to support one of your governments moves.

 

"Without the UN it would be downright imposible to impose a trade imbargo on a country"

Almost all the world GDP is on USA, EU and japan. Besides those powers, other countries would be hard pressed to comply with any embargo against a rogue nation. The UN isnt indispendable on this front.

"and it would be far more difficult to solve international conflicts through diplomacy"

Lol. The UN has been pretty inefficent in international conflits. it only achieve results when world powers apply pressure. The UN has no standing on its own.

"And what about the UN´s other functions, like international humanitarian aid,international protection of children´s rights, economic and social developement,international law and human rights"

Many organizations make that. theres no need for a burocratic monster like the UN for that.

"For example if they got rid of the veto rights of the five permanent members the UN would be far more effective and a lot truer to it´s basic purpose of being an equal forum for all the member nations, no matter how influencial or powerful."

First, the 5p powers who CREATED the UN, and basically are its core power in all aspects, would never agree to that. Secondly, if that was implemented, the powers would start negociate, buying and bullying for votes in the council. They would fight among each other, and create world instability. can you imagine the council ordering russia to stop its war on chechenia, and even leave its territory ?? That would be very bad to the world. bottom line: the UN is to be controlled by the powers, never to loose around and "rock the boat".

"The US is no more or less important than the other nations.
And if you take away the veto they would truly be equal."

the US has 25% of world GDP and 31% of world military budget. im not buying what you saying. Get real. As for the veto, it wouldnt change the numbers i have mentioned.

"I can´t really rember hearing the US complain about the inaffectivness of the UN,"

It has failed on kosovo, and in many more times.

 

There are three things I have a problem with:

1. The arogance that lies in the assumption that the world would be unable to function without US leadership.
In my opinion it is exactally that kind of sentiment that has cost your country so much of the support that had rallied behind it after 9/11.

2.That you would so summarily dismiss an admittedly flawed but basically sound idea, simply because it did not work in your favour.WHat would have happened if we had given up on democracy only because we incountered difficulties in it´s ablication. I´m quite sure a dictatorship is less of a burocratic monster than a democracy. And especially considering that the US is part of the problem, or don´t you think that the disregard for international law and the UN , that the US government has shown has seriously undermined the status of the UN.
The UN becomes irrelevant if respectable countries like the US choose to ignore its decission.
And your country must have seen some advantage in the idea of a global institution like the UN or you wouldn´t have joined in the first place.

3. Your argument that the US contributes more, so it should have more power.
Each member country contributes 10 % of it´s GDP.It´s as I argued before like paying taxes. You wouldn´t want someone with a higher income to have more rights than you, would you?

 

The arogance that lies in the assumption that the world would be unable to function without US leadership.

I don't call this arrogance; I call it living in the real world. My last post named two episodes where aggression was halted only with US leadership (South Korea, Kuwait), and for kicks I'll add Bosnia and Kosovo which are more recent to the list. Now, aninonymous, tell me how the World/UN could have effectively responded to any these events without the US. Believe me, I'm anxious to find out! Like you, I want the US to abdicate this world leadership responsibility immediately and withdraw most of our troops, especially from Europe and South Korea. Then we'll all see what happens next.

And your country must have seen some advantage in the idea of a global institution like the UN or you wouldn´t have joined in the first place.

The League of Nations seemed like a good idea too, until it proved itself unable to respond to aggression. Sound familiar?

The UN becomes irrelevant if respectable countries like the US choose to ignore its decission.

What decision are you referring to? If the US didn't like some "decision" of the UN why couldn't they just veto it?

Each member country contributes 10 % of it´s GDP.

I don't think this is right. Did you misplace a decimal point somewhere? ?

 

"I don't think this is right. Did you misplace a decimal point somewhere?

You are right it´s under 10 %, I don´t have the exact figure, I´d have to look it up, but my point was that everybody contributes the same percentage.

What decision are you referring to? If the US didn't like some "decision" of the UN why couldn't they just veto it?
All right they ignored UN authority, they avoided having to ignore a direct decission, by not putting a new resolution on the table, that would legitimize the current actions.

The League of Nations seemed like a good idea too, until it proved itself unable to respond to aggression. Sound familiar?

And after that there was the UN. Same basic idea. Which is kinda my point. There is a valid and good idea behind such an organisation or we wouldn´t keep trying.
That´s why I think we need to find a way to make it work and not just go home and forget about it.

As for the arrogance comment, I guess it didn´t get me where I wanted to go.

I´ll try again.
First , on purely millitary terms, you are right the US is a force to be reconed with, and all the conflicts you named would have been longer and substantially harder (I´m not saying impossible) to resolve. As for the leadership point. I don´t think they would have been any less succesful under british or french leadership. But the US, because of it´s size was able to commit more troops, so you were leading the whole thing.
On a diplomatic level I don´t thing US leadership is necesarry or even, at the moment at least,preferable.

We need you, there is no doubt about it, but there is also no doubt that you need us. Just look at the current conflict, the US would be unable to fight Iraq without the help of other nations, be it troops, overflight rights, the use of bases or maybe intelligence. Or the war against terrorism, which would be impossible without international cooperation.
So why not have a place where we can all come together and solve our problems, first through diplomacy and if all else fails through force.
Where not 1 or 2 or 3 countries, but the majority decides what is best for the rest of the world.

Mind you I´m not a political, legal, or historical expert. I´m just someone who would like to see the UN work, because I think in the long run we would all be better of if it did.

 

he UN has been pretty inefficent in international conflits

Impossible to measure. Besides, it kept the USA and USSR from war with each other.

Many organizations make that

Such as? Who is going to regulate international law? States?

There is a reason we have things like the ICJ and UN. To make international law. And it's getting more powerful, it's only reactionary nationalism that's slowing it down. Modernity is eroding the state and now only the virulent conservatives are opposing it.

Thus far, nobody has actually made anything resembling a compelling arguement as to what would be a better alternative to the UN. I've made reformist ideas, and the only ideas of an alternative came courtesy of farraday. This thread is just going to be some people saying "The UN is useless disband it" ad nauseum. Nobody has actually made any progress in outlining the replacements yet, nor will they. For their gripe with the UN almost seesm to be rehashed and weak arguements heard from a pundit and adopted as one's own.

E_S

 

All right they ignored UN authority, they avoided having to ignore a direct decission, by not putting a new resolution on the table, that would legitimize the current actions.

Here's our point of contention. I don't the UN has any such authority.

As for the leadership point. I don´t think they would have been any less succesful under british or french leadership.

I don't agree. The Bosnia mission started out under British and French (or at least non-US NATO/UN) leadership, at least until Srebrenica in 1995. Then the US had to come in and clean up. The near-panic stirred up because of the ICC last July (when the US threatened to pull out of the Balkans) should give us an indication of how vital the US contingent still is eight years later. In Kosovo, the Gulf and South Korea the US supplied probably 80% of the effective forces involved. I think all four of these wars are UN/Allied losses without the US.

On a diplomatic level I don´t thing US leadership is necesarry or even, at the moment at least,preferable.

I agree. Tell you what, why doesn't the EU start by handling the Balkans? Then the US can pull out of South Korea and let North Korea deal with China, Russia, Japan, and of course South Korea.

Just look at the current conflict, the US would be unable to fight Iraq without the help of other nations, be it troops, overflight rights, the use of bases or maybe intelligence.

I think you just described Bush's "Coalition of the Willing."

So why not have a place where we can all come together and solve our problems, first through diplomacy and if all else fails through force.

The diplomacy part is fine with me. The trouble is that no one has effective force-projection ability but the US, but many other countries seem to think they should have a say in how that force will be used. That's probably not going to be acceptable either with this administration or the American people. If you want to be part of the process, you have to supply the resources for your military.

Impossible to measure. Besides, it kept the USA and USSR from war with each other.

The UN has been around for 58 years. When, pray tell, will it ever be possible to "measure" its' success in security matters? And how exactly did the UN keep the peace between the US and USSR? I'm really waiting to find out!

There is a reason we have things like the ICJ and UN. To make international law. And it's getting more powerful, it's only reactionary nationalism that's slowing it down. Modernity is eroding the state and now only the virulent conservatives are opposing it.

This is a nice dream, Ender_Sai. Unfortunately, I don't think it will ever happen. I guess I must be one of those reactionary nationalists!

 

The UN has been around for 58 years. When, pray tell, will it ever be possible to "measure" its' success in security matters? And how exactly did the UN keep the peace between the US and USSR? I'm really waiting to find out!

By limiting the amount of conflict the two could be involved in. With the exception of the Korean War the SC, during the Cold War, opposed every multilateral initiave brought before it. Sure, it OK'd the Brits going in here under UN auspices to keep the peace in such-and-such a place (as an example), but it otherwise never had the kind of action seen in Korea and the Gulf. This was due largely to the veto right exercised by the USSR and USA. By virtue of their vetoing, conflicts of interest never had the chance to become world wars. I don't think I explained that well though...


This is a nice dream, Ender_Sai. Unfortunately, I don't think it will ever happen. I guess I must be one of those reactionary nationalists!

Oh come on, like you haven't noticed that international law is growing and has done since WWII. And like many things that enter modernity, there is often a "fundamentalist" backlash. The state is being eroded by this buzzword, "globalisation". Although I'm inclined to keep the idea of the EU as a one-off, I'm not going to totally discount the possibility that there may indeed be another regional bloc that trades some sovereignty for collective benefit. And I think this is the difference with conservatives and neo-conservatives. What was the New World Order about?

E_S

 

By limiting the amount of conflict the two could be involved in...

I think I understand, but relying on the UN to keep the peace is dangerous in my view. And what about episodes that never came to a vote in the UNSC but could have started a nuclear war, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis or Berlin?

Oh come on, like you haven't noticed that international law is growing and has done since WWII.

The increase in the number of international organizations does not automatically mean to me that we are heading towards a world government through some kind of political evolution. If anything, the world as a whole has become more disorderly since the end of the Cold War in security matters. BTW, I would call the EU a failure in this regard. The EU may someday be an economic superpower but they are now by choice a military nonentity. I don't think this disparity can last indefinitely.

 

Is the UN irrelevant? North Korea thinks so.

North Korea to Ignore U.N. Resolutions on Nuclear Weapons

SEOUL, South Korea ? North Korea warned Saturday it would ignore any U.N. resolution over its suspected nuclear weapons development as the Security Council prepared to discuss the international standoff over the issue.

"The nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula is not something that should be discussed at the United Nations," the state-run KCNA news agency said.

North Korea "would not recognize and pronounce null any resolution or document on the nuclear issue," said KCNA, monitored by South Korea's Yonhap news agency.

The Security Council is due to discuss the nuclear dispute on Wednesday. North Korea rejects U.N. involvement in the standoff, saying the North's dispute is only with the United States. Pyongyang demands direct talks with Washington.

"The U.N. seems to have lost its mandate because of the U.S. invasion of Iraq," KCNA said. "It is ridiculous for the (Security Council) to talk about handling the (North Korean) nuclear issue."

Interesting.

 

That is intresting obhave you would think North Korea would be more than happy to have resolutions passed against it from a body that doesnt do anything about it, save for the US/UK and a few allies.

 

No one has to do what the UN says. One nation can't tell another what to do. But it can force another to do something.

 

What can the UN possibly do about N. Korea? Nothing beyond what it's currently doing.

Perhaps a new paradigm is emerging?

 

I haven't read this whole thread, but:

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

A moron is an adult with the intelligence of an eight to twelve year old.

I know many, many smart people who make simple typos, and by smart, I mean a lot smarter than the intelligence of an eight to twelve year old.

 

ShaneP:

I think the paradigm of the UN has already emerged. Going to the UN is a nice way for the U.S. to say "You can't say we didn't try to work things out" with a straight face as we get ready to deal with future problems.

 

DARTH_CONFEDERATE, in reality that's perhaps true. Enforcement is lacking. Legally, and theoretically, what you said is incorrect.

Remember, the UN Framework was designed to handle 53 nations. By 1989, there were 89. Now, there's 191 nations. It clearly wasn't designed for that. You need to let the framework be re-adjusted to accomodate the modern world. Veto can go, because there are no two power blocs that we need to regulate, the IMF and WTO needs to come under the UN's wing, and the GA, not SC, should be the most powerful arm of the United Nations.

farraday, you don't like the idea of one vote per one Member. If you want a kind of voting system indicative of the needs of a country, are you prepared therefore to allow India and the People's Republic to have more "power" than the USA?

E_S

 

"the IMF and WTO needs to come under the UN's wing, and the GA, not SC, should be the most powerful arm of the United Nations."

Disagree, unless the nature of the SC is dramatically changed. ES, even you have to admit that an intolerable amount of dreck has gone through the GA in its history, and that body seems to be lacking in responsibility, moderation, and sense.

The IMF and WTO are administered multilaterally...why the need for UN oversite?

 

If you want a kind of voting system indicative of the needs of a country, are you prepared therefore to allow India and the People's Republic to have more "power" than the USA?

I personally wouldn't mind if the PRC or India had three or four votes in the GA to one for the US, since the GA has little effective power to do anything. IIRC, the USSR had three votes in the GA during the Cold War. Did it matter much to the US or anyone else? No.

 

farraday, you don't like the idea of one vote per one Member. If you want a kind of voting system indicative of the needs of a country, are you prepared therefore to allow India and the People's Republic to have more "power" than the USA?

I find it incredibly odd that you would adress me since my last post in this thread was over a month ago and that not even on the topic you address.

Since however you did I will reply, but in the future would you notify me? I'd hate to miss your replys to posts I haven't made yet.

The UN treats all governments as equal, in that case multiple votes for a single nation seems to be rather... odd.

In the group I suggest it would also be unneccesary as the point is those nations represented would be able to consider each other peers and a veto or multiple voteswould be distinctly against that principle.

 

Quite frankly, the UN's posturing over a post-war Iraq is getting on my nerves.

After trying to leave this matter to a pointless debate that would have done NOTHING as Saddam continued to violate the UN's own resolutions, we ultimately had to go in and do the work ourselves.

The UN may take part in the rebuilding of Iraq, but their participation will be on AMERICAN terms.