welsh
Junkmaster
Recent discussions on the UN have led people to take different positions about whether the UN has any utility, whether it should be dissolved or whether it still has a central role to play. What do you think?
THE UN- What Future?
- Thread starter welsh
- Start date
John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
Either reformed (kick China/France out, bring in Japan/Germany/India) or dissolve(I voted dissolve). It just gets in the way of saving lives for military operations.
Though I think besides that it IS a fiarly competent organization, military is what matters.
Though I think besides that it IS a fiarly competent organization, military is what matters.
SkynetV4
Mildly Dipped
The UN is bullshit. No nation that has enough power to wipeout 70% of the rest of the UN can be expected to play fairly with the other nations. The UN is also selective on who do they punish: WHY THE HOLY FUCK HAVEN'T THEY DONE SOMETHING ABOUT THE DAMN ARAB-ISRAELI PROBLEM!? Iraq attacks Israel, everybody cries and Iraq gets sanctioned and invaded. Israel gets their choppers and tanks into a village and kills a bunch of civies and no one even points a finger at them. They build a wall around the city, fucking up a bunch of Israeli-palestinians and no one gives a fuck. Damn, I feel better after getting that out of the system. Get your flamers ready.
The UN is simple, it's an organisation created for the (ultimate) purpose of peace. It's a very good organisation, but it's strength is also it's weakness. It's strength is that it has the most power officialy in the entire world, the weakness being it all comes from the USA. The USA can therefore do whatever they want(As shown in Iraq) without having to worry.
I think the entire system of the security council needs to be revisited, it's wrong, the VETO right is a bit weird in a democratic organisation, and it's rotation should be changed to envolve every country, or at least a majority of the countries at any time.
I think the entire system of the security council needs to be revisited, it's wrong, the VETO right is a bit weird in a democratic organisation, and it's rotation should be changed to envolve every country, or at least a majority of the countries at any time.
Too much Coffee Welsh ?, I woke up to alot of polls in here.. hehe..
You all know my opinion of UN. They couldn't break up a fight in a kindergarden, much less stop a war. Dissolve them, I say!
welsh
Junkmaster
Yes, Odin, I discovered the Poll option and decided to have some fun.
While a lot of you are critical of the UN for not being much on the warfighting side of international relations, and that it is biased, I think we need to remember that it is a creature of major powers which did not want a super organization to tell them what to do. The UN system is more a confederacy than a federated system.
That said, consider some of the things it does do well.
THE UN High COmmissioner for Refugees has been responsible for taking care of over 6 million refugees.
UNICEF and World Health Organization is leading in the immunization of children in war torn areas.
THe UN has behind much of the election monitoring that assures free and fair elections in war-torn areas.
THE UNEP is behing much of the international agreements responding to challenges to the global environment.
The UN has provided a forum in which developing countries seek a fairer global economic system, which partially led to consessions on a variety of quotas and special preferences.
THE UN allows a regular forum for countries to meet and discuss, and few would act without the UN approval- even the US tried to get a new UN approval before the invasion of Iraq and rested the legitimacy of it invasion on prior Security Council Resolutions.
Not everything in international relations is about war. Doesn't this matter?
While a lot of you are critical of the UN for not being much on the warfighting side of international relations, and that it is biased, I think we need to remember that it is a creature of major powers which did not want a super organization to tell them what to do. The UN system is more a confederacy than a federated system.
That said, consider some of the things it does do well.
THE UN High COmmissioner for Refugees has been responsible for taking care of over 6 million refugees.
UNICEF and World Health Organization is leading in the immunization of children in war torn areas.
THe UN has behind much of the election monitoring that assures free and fair elections in war-torn areas.
THE UNEP is behing much of the international agreements responding to challenges to the global environment.
The UN has provided a forum in which developing countries seek a fairer global economic system, which partially led to consessions on a variety of quotas and special preferences.
THE UN allows a regular forum for countries to meet and discuss, and few would act without the UN approval- even the US tried to get a new UN approval before the invasion of Iraq and rested the legitimacy of it invasion on prior Security Council Resolutions.
Not everything in international relations is about war. Doesn't this matter?
You really need a worlwide organization to help maintain a semblance of order and dialogue. It really becomes more necessary as we become more globally connected. Maybe it needs to be overhauled and given less of a military presence. Economic power is more important than military power over smaller nations.
EraserMark
First time out of the vault
I could write a book on this... hopefully I won't...
I personally think the UN and several post-WW2/cold war IGO's (most importantly NATO) are on their way out.
The scar that Bush's inept diplomacy has put on these already crippled organizations is going to set a trend through out the world, 'if you can get away with it, who needs the UN"
The UN is sitting on 3 legged chair. It has a strong economic policy coordination, the development programs have been successful, and a strong sense of international law has been established.
The missing leg is enforcement of law.
UN peacekeeping forces are usually sent in too late (if at all) and when they are sent in they have to full respect a violating states sovreignty.
If the leadership of a nation has done something so hideous that it warrants a security council resolution asking for peacekeeping forces, there is a serious probelm.
Before WW2, the league of nations suffered the same fate. Hitler said to Neville Chamberlin "everything is cool I'll stop invading countries" (in so many words
)... Hitler lied and invaded Poland shortly after, and because there was no allied military existence, ran right through into France. The League of Nations had no enforcement procedure.
At any rate, the point is without enforcement of international law, what good is having the law?
Another thing the next incarnation of the UN or Un itself needs is the ability to control permenent veto-power members. I feel if the Security Council simply stated that a veto could be overriden by 100% of the remaining members saying the veto is invalid, and not in the best interest of the international community. One of the biggest changes in the international community is the fact the US is a sole superpower, and with veto power, it can stand firm against anything that comes through the UN Securtiy Council and still act completely unilaterally. It is an incredible amount of power & responibily for somebody to wield... and puts even more importance on American's to vote...
The UN was a system that was great for two superpowers, but the world has change and the UN needs to adapt to the current world order if it is going to ever become a effective organization...
Opinions are like pancakes at Denny's for me...there is a shiteload of them and they can be hard to swallow....
I personally think the UN and several post-WW2/cold war IGO's (most importantly NATO) are on their way out.
The scar that Bush's inept diplomacy has put on these already crippled organizations is going to set a trend through out the world, 'if you can get away with it, who needs the UN"
The UN is sitting on 3 legged chair. It has a strong economic policy coordination, the development programs have been successful, and a strong sense of international law has been established.
The missing leg is enforcement of law.
UN peacekeeping forces are usually sent in too late (if at all) and when they are sent in they have to full respect a violating states sovreignty.
If the leadership of a nation has done something so hideous that it warrants a security council resolution asking for peacekeeping forces, there is a serious probelm.
Before WW2, the league of nations suffered the same fate. Hitler said to Neville Chamberlin "everything is cool I'll stop invading countries" (in so many words
)... Hitler lied and invaded Poland shortly after, and because there was no allied military existence, ran right through into France. The League of Nations had no enforcement procedure. At any rate, the point is without enforcement of international law, what good is having the law?
Another thing the next incarnation of the UN or Un itself needs is the ability to control permenent veto-power members. I feel if the Security Council simply stated that a veto could be overriden by 100% of the remaining members saying the veto is invalid, and not in the best interest of the international community. One of the biggest changes in the international community is the fact the US is a sole superpower, and with veto power, it can stand firm against anything that comes through the UN Securtiy Council and still act completely unilaterally. It is an incredible amount of power & responibily for somebody to wield... and puts even more importance on American's to vote...
The UN was a system that was great for two superpowers, but the world has change and the UN needs to adapt to the current world order if it is going to ever become a effective organization...
Opinions are like pancakes at Denny's for me...there is a shiteload of them and they can be hard to swallow....
SkynetV4
Mildly Dipped
EraserMark, that was excellent! Exactly how I feel. Can one really expect fair play from someone who holds the most guns and the biggest wallet?
The essence of my beef with the UN == It won't work with such the gargantuan power that is the US.
Also I feel that not only war torn areas should be taken into account. There are many examples of countries not being torn in a civil war because there are innately passive but that require some guidance, help or however you name it.
The essence of my beef with the UN == It won't work with such the gargantuan power that is the US.
Also I feel that not only war torn areas should be taken into account. There are many examples of countries not being torn in a civil war because there are innately passive but that require some guidance, help or however you name it.
welsh
Junkmaster
Ok, but then it seems that you are saying that the problem is that international law is weak and that the organization primarily responsible for it is weak vis-a-vis the constitutent members.
Again, it looks like a confederacy in that the member states can do what they pretty much want and join the organization only when it really fits their needs.
So you think a stronger UN is the answer? One with more power and more authority over the constitutent parts? If so, how should that rule making be made? Should the general assembly be like a parliament and its resolutions be law?
Again, it looks like a confederacy in that the member states can do what they pretty much want and join the organization only when it really fits their needs.
So you think a stronger UN is the answer? One with more power and more authority over the constitutent parts? If so, how should that rule making be made? Should the general assembly be like a parliament and its resolutions be law?
SkynetV4
Mildly Dipped
Yes, after all a chain is only as strong as it weakest link. The UN needs restructuring(sp?) since its organization doesn't work with one country holding extra privileges (privileges that come from having the greatest military) over the rest of them. How can the UN hold any credibility when one of the security council members acts unilaterally? Personally I don't see any simple solution to this problem.
John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
So how are you going to limit the power of the US? It sounds like you are trying to bound Thor with a single string of wool.......I do not think that is doable.
Not only that, but what about Tibet? How could a security council member who gets rid of a totalitarian Dictator be punished when the UN has not FARTED on the subject of Tibet, Manchuko or half a dozen other nations Communist China annexed? These are at least local powers you are dealing with, not city states!
Not only that, but what about Tibet? How could a security council member who gets rid of a totalitarian Dictator be punished when the UN has not FARTED on the subject of Tibet, Manchuko or half a dozen other nations Communist China annexed? These are at least local powers you are dealing with, not city states!
welsh
Junkmaster
I think trying to get China to give up Tibet is a near impossibility. Considering proximity, China's history and the fact that Tibet sits between India and China and had little more that quasi feudal-theocratic government that was virtually medieval- basically they were fucked and I can't see how anyone can do a damn thing about Tibet's freedom.
Sorry, but I know Free Tibet has a great slogan, but I think its wishful thinking. Greater respect for the Tibettans, more religious freedom, ok. But indepedence? Forget it. A power vacume in that neighborhood would probably be worse than Chinese occupation.
I also think that if you tried to tie down governments of the UN with stronger international laws that violate their sovereignty, then you can kiss of the UN as an idea. No major power would probably agree, and most of the lesser powers would problem try to get out.
That's not to say international law doesn't work. Most of the countries follow most of the law most of the time. Now some would say, Yeah but those who break the law? Well in a domestic system- Holland or the US or France or Japan, people break the law on a regular basis and sometimes they get away with it.
What's different is that they go to jail. In international law they are usually up to some sanctions.
It's a bit like corporate liability- A corporations are subject to criminal law, but there is usually no one person you can send to jail for the crimes of a corporation. More you impose a group liability.
However, in international law, those types of sanctions require community effort. If the community is not willing to support them, then there is a problem. Think about economic sanctions- sometimes they work over time, and sometimes they don't. It depends on how far other countries are willing to go to enforce them.
Since the world is full of greedy buggers, you have to take that into consideration.
Sorry, but I know Free Tibet has a great slogan, but I think its wishful thinking. Greater respect for the Tibettans, more religious freedom, ok. But indepedence? Forget it. A power vacume in that neighborhood would probably be worse than Chinese occupation.
I also think that if you tried to tie down governments of the UN with stronger international laws that violate their sovereignty, then you can kiss of the UN as an idea. No major power would probably agree, and most of the lesser powers would problem try to get out.
That's not to say international law doesn't work. Most of the countries follow most of the law most of the time. Now some would say, Yeah but those who break the law? Well in a domestic system- Holland or the US or France or Japan, people break the law on a regular basis and sometimes they get away with it.
What's different is that they go to jail. In international law they are usually up to some sanctions.
It's a bit like corporate liability- A corporations are subject to criminal law, but there is usually no one person you can send to jail for the crimes of a corporation. More you impose a group liability.
However, in international law, those types of sanctions require community effort. If the community is not willing to support them, then there is a problem. Think about economic sanctions- sometimes they work over time, and sometimes they don't. It depends on how far other countries are willing to go to enforce them.
Since the world is full of greedy buggers, you have to take that into consideration.
John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
You have a point on Tibet, but do you really think a nation with a human rights record as clean as Pinochet, Il Duce or V.I. Lenin has a right to make international laws?
welsh
Junkmaster
You can think of that question a couple of ways-
(1) Do I like the fact that countries with crappy records get to vote on human rights-
No, in the sense that I wish all countries had great human rights, but the regretable truth is that one finds high human rights standards only in the countries that do very well economically. While I would like to think that they should have those rights, they don't. Denying them access to international forums which might be able to push them to adopt such standards, seems counterproductive in the long run.
There may be a correlation that, like environmental protection, only those countries with high human rights are those that can afford them. I would hesitate with this- Coasta Rica seems a big exception.
That many of the countries with low quality of life issues as well as human rights standards are also non-democratic and poor raises the question to me which comes first- the democracy or the economy in order to make a country rich.
But that's not your question- SHould they sit at the table. Well, if its like your family, your Mom probably can't yell at your bad brother if he's never at the dinner table.
(2) Do they have the right to sit at the table- Yes.
International law has been around for a long time, and the basis of membership in the international system is recognition of soveriegnty. YOu don't got soveriegnty, you don't get respect. Historically, countries have been sovereign regardless whether the leader was brutal or not. No one is going to say Ivan the Terrible isn't a king of a country just because he has bad table manners.
To force a country to be democratic to sit at the table, or even have high levels of human rights (ignoring the question of who's idea of human rights prevails) would seem to advocate ideology over law.
I would hesitate before making such a leap. Law, as an institution of mechanisms for conflict mediation, should stand above the ideological that might have created the law in the first place (ie- history of judeo-christian traditions in 'natural' human rights law, or the positivism in 'positivist international law.'
(1) Do I like the fact that countries with crappy records get to vote on human rights-
No, in the sense that I wish all countries had great human rights, but the regretable truth is that one finds high human rights standards only in the countries that do very well economically. While I would like to think that they should have those rights, they don't. Denying them access to international forums which might be able to push them to adopt such standards, seems counterproductive in the long run.
There may be a correlation that, like environmental protection, only those countries with high human rights are those that can afford them. I would hesitate with this- Coasta Rica seems a big exception.
That many of the countries with low quality of life issues as well as human rights standards are also non-democratic and poor raises the question to me which comes first- the democracy or the economy in order to make a country rich.
But that's not your question- SHould they sit at the table. Well, if its like your family, your Mom probably can't yell at your bad brother if he's never at the dinner table.
(2) Do they have the right to sit at the table- Yes.
International law has been around for a long time, and the basis of membership in the international system is recognition of soveriegnty. YOu don't got soveriegnty, you don't get respect. Historically, countries have been sovereign regardless whether the leader was brutal or not. No one is going to say Ivan the Terrible isn't a king of a country just because he has bad table manners.
To force a country to be democratic to sit at the table, or even have high levels of human rights (ignoring the question of who's idea of human rights prevails) would seem to advocate ideology over law.
I would hesitate before making such a leap. Law, as an institution of mechanisms for conflict mediation, should stand above the ideological that might have created the law in the first place (ie- history of judeo-christian traditions in 'natural' human rights law, or the positivism in 'positivist international law.'
welsh
Junkmaster
Let me add one other thing, no single country has the ability to make international laws. That's not to say that a powerful country could not force others to adopt standards that become international law.
British policy on slave trading for instance, pushed rules against slavery. But that was in part because of British naval strength as well as its desire to move labor from India out. The US was the major mover behind the UN's creation. Roosevelt brings the idea first to Churchill in the UN Charter and then pushes it. Likewise the Rules governing the Nuremburg Tribunals (and thus sets the standards of crimes against peace, against humanity, war crimes, etc) were pushed by the US after the second world war.
British policy on slave trading for instance, pushed rules against slavery. But that was in part because of British naval strength as well as its desire to move labor from India out. The US was the major mover behind the UN's creation. Roosevelt brings the idea first to Churchill in the UN Charter and then pushes it. Likewise the Rules governing the Nuremburg Tribunals (and thus sets the standards of crimes against peace, against humanity, war crimes, etc) were pushed by the US after the second world war.
John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
No welsh, taxation leads to Democracy. Many countries have phenominally high GDPs (Saudi Arabia), yet only nations that need to taxe for revenue develop Democracy. China is an exception in that it has managed to warp public opinion, and that the wealthy who give all the money have power.
Then we disagree over the purpose of the UN. I want it to be a Neo-Con army of Democracy, you want it to be a forum where Hitler has as much power as Mahandas Ghandi. Both are understandable.