UN's Usefulness

[Anileve]

http://www.milnet.com/opinion/UN-useless.html

 

What do you think about UN's role? Is it useless or useful? Has it been successful? I was wondering if the ultimate goal of the organization is to establish itself as an international governing body. What I didn't know was that it was founded by Communists and CFR members. Do you think that it's practical or benefitial to have this organization active?

[shiner]

I don't know all the details, but my gut feeling is that it's pretty much useless.

[Harut]

while un may not be directly useful to certain situations, which i believe it has and has not been at different times, it gives an opportunity, especially to smaller countries to bring their concerns to the international attention. while not all situations might get immediate attention from un itself or the attention/actions they get prove to be useful, other countries get involve with the situation outside of un ranks, while they would stay indifferent otherwise.

it also helps countries to present their cases in the international arena, which may counteract to existing propagandas.

 

i'm sure there are other benefits, but because i'm not an expert and my knowledge is minimal, i won't go any further.

 

with that said, i also think that may times un is used to legitimize "criminal" intents and actions of individual countires, such as immperialism.

[armjan]

although there have been some setbacks for the U.N in recent years, I am in strong favor of establishing communication channels between wealthier/not so nations not only for purposes of globilization, but rather to always continue to have a dialogue between all nations. it's when the dialogue stops when wars generally tend to occur. sort of like the idea between 2 ppl, if approperiate channels of communication are set up, and both parties are honest about thier intentions, there is generally less misunderstanding. whether less misunderstanding yields agreement or not, history has/will continue to unfold.

[sev-mard]

Like many things I'm sure it began with noble intentions and could be worth more than it is, but I feel like many times it's simply posturing and a popularity contest on a global scale. But I do have a lot of love for the UN attempts at helping nations that definately need it.

[Anonymouse]

although there have been some setbacks for the U.N in recent years, I am in strong favor of establishing communication channels between wealthier/not so nations not only for purposes of globilization, but rather to always continue to have a dialogue between all nations.  it's when the dialogue stops when wars generally tend to occur. sort of like the idea between 2 ppl, if approperiate channels of communication are set up, and both parties are honest about thier intentions, there is generally less misunderstanding. whether less misunderstanding yields agreement or not, history has/will continue to unfold.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

There is no need for a global organization for establishing communication channels. That hardly justifies the existence of a pretensious organization such as the UN which is nothing more than a polished version of the League of Nations and we know how horrible that was. The only difference was that the previous one was realized to be a joke and was scrapped, as this should as well.

[Stormig]

Necessary but not sufficient. (Read "not adequate.")

[DominO123]

Necessary but not sufficient. (Read "not adequate.")

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

I entirly agree.

 

The problem with the UN is that it doesn't have its real army... it is dependent from other infrastructures.

 

The UN should have its own tanks, its own airplanes, its own helicopters, its own ships etc... and its bases should be moved to Canada.

 

Countries should have a UN military schools, the same as a typical Military schools. In those schools, people are asked to have an allegiance to the UN, before their own country to graduate etc...

 

There should be a university department in the majority of major universities, to form UNers. And after graduating in those programs you get your UN citizenship.

 

If a war happens, and that the UN must act, there could be referundums voted by UNers(those having UN citizenship), voting their UN president each 4 years etc. The military units will be formed by those that were formed in the UN military schools(those studying in those schools, after finishing their formations would have their UN citizenships).

 

Well... this is my propositions, feel free to add.

[armjan]

There is no need for a global organization for establishing communication channels. That hardly justifies the existence of a pretensious organization such as the UN which is nothing more than a polished version of the League of Nations and we know how horrible that was. The only difference was that the previous one was realized to be a joke and was scrapped, as this should as well.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

ok, so u may not think so but it turns out that 191 countries(& it's ppl) have seen a need for it.

 

"The United Nations, or UN, is an international organization made up of 191 states established in 1945. Almost all countries are members. UN membership is open to all "peace-loving states" that accept the obligations of the UN Charter and, in the judgment of the organization, are able and willing to fulfil these obligations. The General Assembly determines admission upon recommendation of the Security Council. As of January 2005 there have been 191 members; see United Nations member states. The organization's headquarters is in New York City, USA; see United Nations headquarters."

 

more over "The founders of the UN had high hopes that it would act to prevent conflicts between nations and make future wars impossible, by fostering an ideal of collective security." why do u think it was established after hitler raised hell in 30's/40's.

 

principle objectives...

-Arms control and disarmament(UN Security Council )

-Peace-keeping(UN General Assembly )

-Human rights(International Court of Justice )

-International conferences(UN General Assembly )

-Financing(UN Economic and Social Council )

-Communications(UN General Assembly )

 

so not only is communication explicitly stated as one of the priciple objectives, but every single issue above requires "communication" between members.

 

" That hardly justifies the existence of a pretensious organization such as the UN... "

plz refer to U.N. charter, b/c it's clearly an opinion and not a fact. opinions are fine, as long u make it clear that it's an opinion.

 

***************************************

PREAMBLE

 

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

- to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

- to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

 

-to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

 

- to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

 

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

[DominO123]

ArmJan, it is useless to justify the existance of the UN to Mouse, since he is against the existance of governments to start with.

[Stormig]

The vision and mission of the UN is swell, but 191 member countries don't mean much to me. For many of those 191, it's like joining a club - a matter of prestige or something.

[armjan]

The vision and mission of the UN is swell, but 191 member countries don't mean much to me. For many of those 191, it's like joining a club - a matter of prestige or something.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

storming:

agreed. I had referred to U.N's shortcomings above, but there is a difference between the need of such an organization, and what actually occurs after it's been established. for example, any system is vulnerable to abuse/corruption if misused, but this doesn't necessarily mean that there is no need for system.

 

sev-mard:

so the black guy is gone, will be missed, but now we have to learn chinesse or japanese to figure out what the new avtar reads.

[Sasun]

I believe UN is an absolute necessity for the world. True, it is mostly ineffective as it stands currently, but it doesn't have to be that way always.

 

Ever wished that there was a world authority with real power that would prevent our genocide, or other genocides? There is a need for such a power to prevent and sanction wanton countries, and the UN could potentially be that power. It definitely is not, but I think it is possible that at some point the UN would become this type of a world power to actually enforce international laws.

[Azat]

In the last few years it has been a complete miserable failure. With its inability to mobilize anything. It being most evident in the inability to get real aid for the earthquake/tsunami victims they year. Not being able to stop the Genocide in Sudan. All the fiasco's related on oil for food programs with Iraq(including Saddam and Sevan making over a billion in the deals). Inability to stop any of the aggression against Iraq from the US... Need I list more?

 

Is there a need to keep the UN. I guess I can see a need for a body that organizes all the nations of the world and has powers to assist poorer nations, stop wars from starting and such, but I really dont see anyone having that ability and certainly the poorly managed UN will not be able to do that.

[DominO123]

In the last few years it has been a complete miserable failure.  With its inability to mobilize anything.  It being most evident in the inability to get real aid for the earthquake/tsunami victims they year.  Not being able to stop the Genocide in Sudan.  All the fiasco's related on oil for food programs with Iraq(including Saddam and Sevan making over a billion in the deals).  Inability to stop any of the aggression against Iraq from the US...  Need I list more?

 

Is there a need to keep the UN.  I guess I can see a need for a body that organizes all the nations of the world and has powers to assist poorer nations, stop wars from starting and such, but I really dont see anyone having that ability and certainly the poorly managed UN will not be able to do that.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

We need a UN similar to what I have proposed.

[Anonymouse]

ok, so u may not think so but it turns out that 191 countries(& it's ppl) have seen a need for it.

 

People? Just what is this holistic entity known as "the people"? "The people" is a fiction. No such thing exists as "the people". The "people" never make a decision or a choice. The "people" is just a hodgepodge of the many in which the individual is coerced.

 

Your argument might be that these nations have "democracy" and "voted" for the governments who in turn voted for the UN. The arguments against the UN goes in two forms. One one side of the coin it is nothing more than a tool of leftists for more government, global government, theft, property confiscation. The preamble reads, "…the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,…" . Surely no one believes it is possible to guarantee freedom from want. Every such attempt has produced only want and loss of freedom. And fear will reign where the government sets out to prevent want.

 

Basically its useless and pointless since it threatens to absolve national sovereignty, and its useless because it doesn't work anyway even when it tries, as the U.S. has demonstrated.

[armjan]

"Just what is this holistic entity known as "the people? "

-well generally, a country is composed of ppl. i didn't mention any thing above the ppl being free/voting/democracy or anything else you started to argue against. those words came out of you...

 

"useless and pointless "

-well this seems to be what we are all saying. but regardless, the need for a functional entity is necessary.

 

" threatens to absolve national sovereignty"

-not sure how Peace-keeping, monitoring Human rights, International conferences,battling poverty threaten national security. i mean these are all acts where the victims are too weak to defend themselves, so how can weak/poor ppl threaten national security.

 

as far as Arms control/disarmament & national security, 2 things...

-national security programs are created/carried in secracy anyway, classified material is for CLASSIFIED no matter who requests to see it, me,you, papa john, it doesn't matter!

-things have changed, this issue these days only pertains to chemical/biological/nuclear weapons. i mean what's the pt if russia & U.S. each have 3000 nukes when all they need is a dozen to bring an end to civilization. so this matter is rendered meaningless not b/c of threats to national security, but due to the nature of warfare...

 

i am not trying to argue government, just want to bring attention to the need for world unity through establishing communication channels to reduce misunderstanding. whether that can be done or not, that's a property of its participants

 

"Surely no one believes it is possible to guarantee freedom from want. "

-Inorder to want&get, one must be free. think about it, dictators must be free to do as they wish inorder to get what they want. so u are re-affirming the need to be free. the characteristic of greed to want more requires a degree of freedom, whether what % of population enjoys freedom is an instance not a type definition, so yes, your example requires the need to be free.

Edited February 12, 2005 by armjan

[skhara]

Completely useless, and very annoying.

[Anonymouse]

"Just what is this holistic entity known as "the people? "

-well generally, a country is composed of ppl.  i didn't mention any thing above the ppl being free/voting/democracy or anything else you started to argue against. those words came out of you...

 

"useless and pointless "

-well this seems to be what we are all saying. but regardless, the need for a functional entity is necessary.

 

" threatens to absolve national sovereignty"

-not sure how Peace-keeping, monitoring Human rights, International conferences,battling poverty threaten national security. i mean these are all acts where the victims are too weak to defend themselves, so how can weak/poor ppl threaten national security.

 

as far as Arms control/disarmament & national security, 2 things...

-national security programs are created/carried in secracy anyway, classified material is for CLASSIFIED no matter who requests to see it, me,you, papa john, it doesn't matter!

-things have changed, this issue these days only pertains to chemical/biological/nuclear weapons.  i mean what's the pt if russia & U.S. each have 3000 nukes when all they need is a dozen to bring an end to civilization. so this matter is rendered meaningless not b/c of threats to national security, but due to the nature of warfare...

 

i am not trying to argue government, just want to bring attention to the need for world unity through establishing communication channels to reduce misunderstanding. whether that can be done or not, that's a property of its participants

 

"Surely no one believes it is possible to guarantee freedom from want. "

-Inorder to want&get, one must be free. think about it, dictators must be free to do as they wish inorder to get what they want. so u are re-affirming the need to be free. the characteristic of greed to want more requires a degree of freedom, whether what % of population enjoys freedom is an instance not a type definition, so yes, your example requires the need to be free.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

And my point was that there is no need for the farce that is the U.N. to establish "communication channels".

 

Article 4 of the UN reads: "No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms." Sudan has a seat on the UN Commission on Human Rights and it permits an active and brutal slave trade, not to mention genocide.

 

Article 23 (3): "Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection." One might swallow the excuse that the UN didn’t know in 1948, when this document was written, that totalitarian socialism doesn’t work, but this document was celebrated on its 50th anniversary in 1998. Didn’t the UN know by then?

[Boghos]

The UN is a big bureaucracy with well paid self-important employees that either are used as the politically correct way of interfering in sovereign nations or that squander money with well intended but ineffcient programs.

 

It is amazing how people distrust government but think that there is any hope for the UN.

 

Just look at its trackrecord on conflict prevention, it would be enough for thinking about more useful things.

Edited February 13, 2005 by Boghos

[skhara]

The UN is a big bureaucracy with well paid self-important employees that either are used as the politically correct way of interfering in sovereign nations

 

Agree 100% with that!

[Anonymouse]

It is amazing how people distrust government but think that there is any hope for the UN.

 

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Yes, you echo my sentiments exactly. That's the funniest irony.

[Med]

The UN has been a plaything of the US since its inception. Just to give an example of a gross injustice: The People's Republic of China was denied entry for nearly 25 years and represented instead by a defunct statelet on Taiwan. One-fifth of the world's population without any voice whatsoever in all international bodies. But then it's time for China to exact revenge on Taiwan and rightly so.

[armjan]

Yes, you echo my sentiments exactly. That's the funniest irony.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

as far as i can recall from READING the previous posts, Anonymouse expressed distrust in government and I explicitely wrote "i don't want to argue gov" & "i didn't mention any thing above the ppl being free/voting/democracy". But this has translated into me having a distrust in government. on the contrary, read the posts. i make it a point to read others threads in entirity & try to address all of their arguments rather than pick those i can attack. furthermore, don't make up an argument you can attack & then do so, like my physics instructor said, "solve the problem that's infront of you & not the you make up b/c you know how to solve."

 

Moreover..."Inorder to want&get, one must be free. think about it, dictators must be free to do as they wish inorder to get what they want. so u are re-affirming the need to be free. " this is in support of my optimisim that such an institution is possible.

 

 

"useless and pointless " => I claim that this is a property of it's participants, they have rendered it as such. Anonymouse implies that any form of gov established to address the issues U.N. is suppossed to undertake is inherently flawed from the beginning no matter who the participants are. i disagree.

 

what i think is quite unreasonable/unrealistic is this expression of frustration of not reaching/finding a perfect form of government. the truth is that we are all humans and interests tend to differ at times. so who cares if we can't establish a pefect world-wide institution, all we need is one that is good enough. like i said earlier, any system is vulnerable to abuse/corruption, it's the fact that there is common agreement between the participants to conform to a set of conditions/axioms/laws/whatever that should give a sense of optimism. history has shown & will continue to show man's constant progress while suffering great failures.

Edited February 13, 2005 by armjan

[Anonymouse]

as far as i can recall from READING the previous posts, Anonymouse expressed distrust in government and I explicitely wrote "i don't want to argue gov" & "i didn't mention any thing above the ppl being free/voting/democracy". But this has translated into me having a distrust in government. on the contrary, read the posts. i make it a point to read others threads in entirity & try to address all of their arguments rather than pick those i can attack. furthermore, don't make up an argument you can attack & then do so, like my physics instructor said, "solve the problem that's infront of you & not the you make up b/c you know how to solve."

 

I don't know why you are trying to assign greater importance to yourself than already exists, but I wasn't referring to you when I spoke of the irony. I am not making anything up.

 

Moreover..."Inorder to want&get, one must be free. think about it, dictators must be free to do as they wish inorder to get what they want. so u are re-affirming the need to be free. " this is in support of my optimisim that such an institution is possible.

"useless and pointless " => I claim that this is a property of it's participants, they have rendered it as such. Anonymouse implies that any form of gov established to address the issues U.N. is suppossed to undertake is inherently flawed from the beginning no matter who the participants are. i disagree.

 

Precisely, as we have a "tragedy of the commons" with this 'democracy' which you defend.

 

what i think is quite unreasonable/unrealistic is this expression of frustration of not reaching/finding a perfect form of government. the truth is that we are all humans and interests tend to differ at times. so who cares if we can't establish a pefect world-wide institution, all we need is one that is good enough.  like i said earlier, any system is vulnerable to abuse/corruption, it's the fact that there is common agreement between the participants to conform to a set of conditions/axioms/laws/whatever that should give a sense of optimism. history has shown & will continue to show man's constant progress while suffering great failures.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

This is just some romanticist hodgepodge.

Edited February 14, 2005 by Anonymouse