NationStates Jolt Archive

The UN – Bless or Curse ?

The United Nations Organization has become a huge bureaucracy swamp while being extremely undemocratic since it was founded.

The UN still is a static image of the squeezed world situation as it was seen in 1945 immediately after the end of World War II.

How else could you explain that dirty regimes and unholy nations are holding seats in its most powerful institution and enjoy the special privilege suppression – err. “veto”.

You would have never seen this crazy situation in the world at any other random time frame than just after the mortal frights of the Second World War.

This for the historical situation…

Today we see the same obsolete institution with its crazy member nations. Let’s take a closer look of that the UN is calling their “daily business”…

Size:
We have a huge alliance of more than 190 states and countries in the world. Can an alliance work if nearly all existing parties are a member of it ? I doubt.
Did the UN prevent any violent, military conflict ? Not that I know of.
I think, it’s based in the natural logic of an alliance, that it can only work if its not too large and if it’s a link of parties that share a specific goal or thoughts.

Lack of Democracy:
The UN itself is extremely undemocratic as stated above. We have around 190 member nations. 5 of these members have got an eternal seat in the so-called “security council”.
These are 9.5 % of the members.
I don’t even mention what I think of (most) of the member nations represented in that council.
This means that the decisions, taken in democratic polls of 190 members (including the 5 that are seating in the security council) can be blocked by one single member of the security council.
These are 1.9 % that can block and cancel a democratic decision made by 98.1 %.
The democratic voice of 189 member nations or 99.5 % counts nothing if it is against the will of one single member out of 5 or 1.9 % of the members.

Duty & Compulsion:
Sovereign nations are forced to accept and follow the decision demanded by 1.9 % of the organization’s members in the most extreme case.
There is no option of allowing the specific member nation to keep the last word over an issue it directly touches and that may even be of pure domestic responsibility. Not to mention the completely unrealistic dream of holding a democratic poll in that nation to legitimate a political decision that may judge over war and peace – life or death.

Costs:
The highly doubtful and usually inefficient activities of this giant bureaucracy elephant cost its member nations a two or three digit million value USD per year.
And what’s the benefit for the simple citizen of a nation ? The benefit for the “common man” ?

I am against any supra-national organization that is based on the basic idea of compulsion. I think no (foreign) authority should stand above souverin nations, whose people have fought for freedom and self-determination – sometimes for centuries. The last word over any issues that concern a nation must be up to that nation.

Another fact of interest is, that the UN usually tries to establish very basic constitutional laws that are implemented in all more or less civilized countries since over a century, such as the prohibition of child work, torture (incl. [enforced] impairing of genitals) and arranged marriages of minor aged children.
This means most of the proposals and resolutions is simply unnecessary to the developed (western) countries and simply ignored by bloody dictators and wild civilizations.

My basic postulation addressed to the UN, based on these arguments is:

- Create true democratic structures, which in fact might mean to repeal the security council.
- Remove any compulsion enforcements from its member nations, allow the countries to keep the final word over an issue by parliament or direct polls
- Dramatically reduce costs and size of that organization by giving up strange activities that usually have no effect whatsoever and by closing ‘phreaky’ sub-organizations such as the UNESCO which serve only a small minority of special interests.

Official statement from the office of the president of the Republic of Ashlavar:

We the people of Ashlavar are opposed to any and all involvement in world affairs (with the exception of the communist party, which has about 200 or so members.) Therefore, the UN, to us, is nothing short of a curse and we shall never join, so long as out constitution remains the first priority.

Well, I think mostly alike about the UN (Especially IRL), although for certain delegational issues it sure is necessary...

The world would be much better without it.

Curse, since its been in we have had never ending conflict.

Curse, since its been in we have had never ending conflict.
As opposed to what other point in history?

Curse, since its been in we have had never ending conflict.
you seriously think we had less conflict before the UN was around? riiiight....

the UN is a mixed blessing, as with most things. its overly beurocratic and has limited powers, but thats no reason to turn one's back on it as a failure - just because its not as good as it could be now doesn't mean it can never be with a little reform. besides, the good aspect of it is that it sure beats the alternative - i'd rather have a half-assed diplomatic forum for international affairs than none at all, especially in today's increasingly globalised and interdependent international society

so i say: the UN is better than nothing - cut it some slack. i mean some people really seem to hate it for some reason :confused:
and its a lot better than the league of nations ever was

Good idea with poor execution.

My dad once described them as a 'toothless tiger' and I couldn't agree more.
What good is the U.N. when it's member nations have to power to simply crap on their legislations and do whatever they want anyway? Then the U.N. has to fold to their wishes just to save face.
Not to mention the fact that, like most other things in life, the U.N. is influenced by it's personal agenda rather than what it should be focusing on, the overall welfare of the nations of the world.

A curse - however, the UN curse can be broken, by the withdrawl of monetary support by member nations.
We've survived thousands of years without the UN; what makes it so hard to undo the past 50 years?

A curse - however, the UN curse can be broken, by the withdrawl of monetary support by member nations.
We've survived thousands of years without the UN; what makes it so hard to undo the past 50 years?
yeah but throughout those thousands of years we didn't have nuclear weapons, or, in fact, any of the advanced & modern weapons, carefully honed into precise and efficient killing machines, that we have today

and we barely survived those 1000 years what with the constant warfare and all. today, thanks in part to the actions of the UN and other international actors like the EU, warfare is isolated to certain trouble hot-spots round the globe and no longer between the "western" countries - thank god (or someone)


the world has changed in the last millennium - i do hope you've noticed :rolleyes:

A curse.

It has never lived up to its charter thanks to the undemocratic leaders they have running the UN.

So much for the principles that I actually agree with.

I never liked the UN!! It uses Irish troops for almost every mission and my son is in the army! In africa

[QUOTE=Pure Metal]you seriously think we had less conflict before the UN was around? riiiight....

World wide with the exception of WW2 which was why the UN got started we did.
The 19th C was almost warfree, between Water loo and the Boer war. there werent that many wars at all, Europe was virtually war free, with the exception of Crimea and Alsase Lorraine, overseas was the American Civil war, lasting five years involving only one country.
Now theres conflict or tension nearly everywhere.

As opposed to what other point in history?
Probably compared to the bloodthirsty dangerous 20 th C and early 21st, every point.
The UN and equally useless League of Nations have fallen far below what they could have accomplished.

overseas was the American Civil war, lasting five years involving only one country.

1861-1865 is 4 years. The war lasted a little over 4 years.

1861-1865 is 4 years. The war lasted a little over 4 years.
How does that affect Gessler's supposition about 19th century geopolitics? A few months here or there? Hmm?

1861-1865 is 4 years. The war lasted a little over 4 years.

http://www.civilwar.com/timehome.php

1861 April 12 - 1865 May is 5 years.
Interesting to note in this that Lincon was shot just after Lee surrendered his army.

http://www.civilwar.com/timehome.php

1861 April 12 - 1865 May is 5 years.
Interesting to note in this that Lincon was shot just after Lee surrendered his army.

...That's four years, man. You don't count the starting date as a year in itself.

1861-62=#1
62-63=#2
63-64=#3
64-65=#4
4 years. 4 years of warfare in one of the worst possible times with outdated medicine(apparently, amputation with rusty saws cures everything) and with the advencements in weaponry(metal ships, gatling guns, manned torpedoes/submarines, landmines, trench warfare, air warfare(with balloons), etc. Plus, old fassioned weapons, like cannons, did lots of damage. You should see what a cannonball does to one's abdomen. :eek: Days rivaled by few wars, like both WW's.

Weren't there two Opium Wars between China and Britain.

-snip-
Similar stuff was happening in Europe as well though, like in 1870, or later in the Balcans.

...

How else could you explain that dirty regimes and unholy nations are holding seats in its most powerful institution and enjoy the special privilege suppression – err. “veto”.
The 'dirtiness' of regime is in the eye of beholder.

This means that the decisions, taken in democratic polls of 190 members (including the 5 that are seating in the security council) can be blocked by one single member of the security council.
These are 1.9 % that can block and cancel a democratic decision made by 98.1 %.
The democratic voice of 189 member nations or 99.5 % counts nothing if it is against the will of one single member out of 5 or 1.9 % of the members.
Utterly wrong, no one has the power of veto when the whole General Assembly votes upon a resolution.

Sovereign nations are forced to accept and follow the decision demanded by 1.9 % of the organization’s members in the most extreme case.
There is no option of allowing the specific member nation to keep the last word over an issue it directly touches and that may even be of pure domestic responsibility. Not to mention the completely unrealistic dream of holding a democratic poll in that nation to legitimate a political decision that may judge over war and peace – life or death.
No one forces a country to accept a UN resolution--look at Israel, for example.

This means most of the proposals and resolutions is simply unnecessary to the developed (western) countries and simply ignored by bloody dictators and wild civilizations.
Chauvinism? Racism? Or else?

...
- Create true democratic structures, which in fact might mean to repeal the security council.
The US won't be pleased with that.
- Remove any compulsion enforcements from its member nations, allow the countries to keep the final word over an issue by parliament or direct polls
No compulsion in enforcement, thus that's meaningless.
- Dramatically reduce costs and size of that organization by giving up strange activities that usually have no effect whatsoever and by closing ‘phreaky’ sub-organizations such as the UNESCO which serve only a small minority of special interests.
That's more to the point, although I've got nothing against the WHO, the UNESCO, etc.

[QUOTE]

World wide with the exception of WW2 which was why the UN got started we did.
The 19th C was almost warfree, between Water loo and the Boer war. there werent that many wars at all, Europe was virtually war free, with the exception of Crimea and Alsase Lorraine, overseas was the American Civil war, lasting five years involving only one country.
Now theres conflict or tension nearly everywhere.
Let's look closer. I've got some European wars to add.
1817-1864--Russia, First Caucasian war (i.e., the Empire tries hard to subdue a rebellion.)
1820-1823--Spanish Civil War
1821-1829--Greek War of Independence
1828-1829--Fifth Russo-Turkish War.
1830-1831--Russia has another problem, a rebellion in Poland
1848-1849--Austro-Sardinian War
1848-1850--First War of Schleswig
1853-1856--Crimean War
1859--Austro-Italo-French War
1964--Second War of Schleswig
1866--Austro-Prusso-Italian War
1877-1878--Sixth Russo-Turkish War
1897--First Greco-Turkish War
1898--Spanish-American War.

That is 'war free'?

The UN is a tumor on the skin of the world and must be chemo'd into submission. Figuratively, of course.
It has outlived its usefullness. It should at least relocate its headquarters to somewhere other than the US, a nation that, for the most part (at least what I know of) dislikes it.

The UN is a tumor on the skin of the world and must be chemo'd into submission. Figuratively, of course.
More like a wig that a tumour, IMHO. :)

It has outlived its usefullness. It should at least relocate its headquarters to somewhere other than the US, a nation that, for the most part (at least what I know of) dislikes it.
I think the UN is a useful discussion club.

As for relocation, why not? But this proposal is nothing new.

imho, the un isn't powerful enough yet...
today, it's still way to dependent on the goodwill of member nations, who just ignore anything the un says when they don't like it...
it's the only (wannabe) power that's about world peace, really...

btw: i'd rather have them 'policing' the world instead of US...

Size:
We have a huge alliance of more than 190 states and countries in the world. Can an alliance work if nearly all existing parties are a member of it ? I doubt.
Did the UN prevent any violent, military conflict ? Not that I know of.
I think, it’s based in the natural logic of an alliance, that it can only work if its not too large and if it’s a link of parties that share a specific goal or thoughts.Ever heard of the Dutch-Indonesian War? Probably not. It never happened. The UN played an important role in decolonization and helped prevent conflicts between former colonial powers and their colonies. Cyprus is another good example of where peacekeeping actually works. There hasn't been any conflict in the only European country to still be divided.
Funny how you never hear about conflicts that don't happen, huh?
Lack of Democracy:
The UN itself is extremely undemocratic as stated above. We have around 190 member nations. 5 of these members have got an eternal seat in the so-called “security council”.
These are 9.5 % of the members.
I don’t even mention what I think of (most) of the member nations represented in that council.
This means that the decisions, taken in democratic polls of 190 members (including the 5 that are seating in the security council) can be blocked by one single member of the security council.
These are 1.9 % that can block and cancel a democratic decision made by 98.1 %.
The democratic voice of 189 member nations or 99.5 % counts nothing if it is against the will of one single member out of 5 or 1.9 % of the members.
That's not how the UN works. You clearly have no idea. The General Assembly consists of those 190 members and doesn't really have that much to do with the Security Council. The SC has 15 seats and deals with serious business while the GA deals with daily matters, in which every nation has equal say. Should the SC come into a deadlock, there's actually a mechanism for the GA to get things done. With a 2/3rds majority, the GA can over rule the SC in a motion called "Uniting for Peace". This happened during the Suez Canal crisis when the UK, France, and Israel attempted to prevent the nationalization of the Suez Canal with military force. The US one one side and France and the UK on the other vetoed the SC into a deadlock and the GA finally took action. Admitted, it had less members then, but the statement that 1 of the P5 can overrule all other 189 members is utter bullshit.

Duty & Compulsion:
Sovereign nations are forced to accept and follow the decision demanded by 1.9 % of the organization’s members in the most extreme case.
There is no option of allowing the specific member nation to keep the last word over an issue it directly touches and that may even be of pure domestic responsibility. Not to mention the completely unrealistic dream of holding a democratic poll in that nation to legitimate a political decision that may judge over war and peace – life or death.Even if all 5 of the P5 nations were in favor of a resolution, they'd still need another three votes in favor of it. The P5 can block resolutions but not force them on others. They're equal to the other SC members in that respect. Nations that are directly affected by the decision are called on to attend the meetings and provide their view.

Costs:
The highly doubtful and usually inefficient activities of this giant bureaucracy elephant cost its member nations a two or three digit million value USD per year.
And what’s the benefit for the simple citizen of a nation ? The benefit for the “common man” ?
True enough. But there's worse organizations that do even less for the common man, even though it's their purpose. Take the World Bank or the IMF for example. They ARE undemocratic, but I don't hear nearly as much criticism of them as I do of the UN.

I am against any supra-national organization that is based on the basic idea of compulsion. I think no (foreign) authority should stand above souverin nations, whose people have fought for freedom and self-determination – sometimes for centuries. The last word over any issues that concern a nation must be up to that nation.

Another fact of interest is, that the UN usually tries to establish very basic constitutional laws that are implemented in all more or less civilized countries since over a century, such as the prohibition of child work, torture (incl. [enforced] impairing of genitals) and arranged marriages of minor aged children.
This means most of the proposals and resolutions is simply unnecessary to the developed (western) countries and simply ignored by bloody dictators and wild civilizations.

My basic postulation addressed to the UN, based on these arguments is:

- Create true democratic structures, which in fact might mean to repeal the security council.
- Remove any compulsion enforcements from its member nations, allow the countries to keep the final word over an issue by parliament or direct polls
- Dramatically reduce costs and size of that organization by giving up strange activities that usually have no effect whatsoever and by closing ‘phreaky’ sub-organizations such as the UNESCO which serve only a small minority of special interests.I seriously suggest that you read the UN charter. The basis for the UN is the sovereignity and equality of each state. The SC is there because you CAN'T get bloody dictators to accept resolutions condemning their actions, and in your scenario, that would be the case. Don't criticize the UN's ineffectiveness on one hand and propose to make it even more ineffective on the other.
You seriously don't know how the UN works, so I suggest you do some research the next time, perhaps here (http://www.un.org).

World wide with the exception of WW2 which was why the UN got started we did.
The 19th C was almost warfree, between Water loo and the Boer war. there werent that many wars at all, Europe was virtually war free, with the exception of Crimea and Alsase Lorraine, overseas was the American Civil war, lasting five years involving only one country.
Now theres conflict or tension nearly everywhere.
BULLshit. Until WW2 was over, there probably weren't 5 years of consecutive peace in all of Europe.

a blessing, do you really think the cold war would have stayed at simmer point without the UN? no, without the chamber for debate between nations situations like the cuban missile crisis would almost certainly have resulted in global war. Before the UN the world had torn itself apart twice in the previous 30 years. The UN by no means has put a stop to war and suffering but it has put a stop to the possibility of the end of the world.

I'd argue that the UN needs more power, more funding and a large standing army under its direct control. Of course all this must come with increased democratisation, abandoning the security council, and making elections to the general assembly by population with one delegate for every 10 million people or so producing a sort of global pariament. with these sorts of changes the UN can probably stop most war, and stop vilianteism but countries like the US against rouge states, because if a UN army were to have invaded Iraq under the system of reforms I have suggested you would know there would have been a REAL danger, and that the war was voted on by the reprisentatives of the entire world thus making it legal.

http://www.civilwar.com/timehome.php

1861 April 12 - 1865 May is 5 years.
Interesting to note in this that Lincon was shot just after Lee surrendered his army.

Math is off. By that date, it lasted 4 years and 1 month. Not 5 years. And if you want to really get technical, the war technically ended on April 9, 1865. Thus it was technically LESS than 4 years. It was on May 25, that the last of the Confeds actually surrendered but the end date is really April 89, 1865. So it was still less than 5 years. :rolleyes:

a blessing, do you really think the cold war would have stayed at simmer point without the UN? no, without the chamber for debate between nations situations like the cuban missile crisis would almost certainly have resulted in global war.

You actually have a problem with history here. Yea we went to the UN but that was to tell the world what the USSR was doing. The UN never played a part in the Cuban Missile Crisis. The US just threw up its blockade of Cuba without UN authorization and dared the USSR to force the issue. The USSR backed down and the situation was resolved peacefully between the two superpowers only. Both sides basically ignored the UN during this time point. In the end, Kennedy got assassinated and the USSR had a new head of state due to political rivalries within the Communist system.

Before the UN the world had torn itself apart twice in the previous 30 years. The UN by no means has put a stop to war and suffering but it has put a stop to the possibility of the end of the world.

Again. No it hasn't.

I'd argue that the UN needs more power, more funding and a large standing army under its direct control.

Good luck in getting the US to sign on to that. We won't subject our troops to UN Control.

Of course all this must come with increased democratisation, abandoning the security council, and making elections to the general assembly by population with one delegate for every 10 million people or so producing a sort of global pariament.

I might go along with this.

with these sorts of changes the UN can probably stop most war, and stop vilianteism but countries like the US against rouge states, because if a UN army were to have invaded Iraq under the system of reforms I have suggested you would know there would have been a REAL danger, and that the war was voted on by the reprisentatives of the entire world thus making it legal.

And the war was never illegal to begin with but that is a different debate altogether.

How does that affect Gessler's supposition about 19th century geopolitics? A few months here or there? Hmm?

Its history Dobbsworld. It is one of my specialties :D

The UN is a tumor on the skin of the world and must be chemo'd into submission. Figuratively, of course.
It has outlived its usefullness. It should at least relocate its headquarters to somewhere other than the US, a nation that, for the most part (at least what I know of) dislikes it.

People complain about the huge deficit the US government is in right now. Think about it, the UN is possibly the single greatest waste of taxpayer's money immaginable. If we cut all funding to the UN and let other countries do it (if they can or want to), and charge the UN rent for using US soil, Bush will be able to claim that he has cut the deficit in two easy steps.

Math is off. By that date, it lasted 4 years and 1 month. Not 5 years. And if you want to really get technical, the war technically ended on April 9, 1865. Thus it was technically LESS than 4 years. It was on May 25, that the last of the Confeds actually surrendered but the end date is really April 89, 1865. So it was still less than 5 years. :rolleyes:

:p WHOOPS! ;) :)

People complain about the huge deficit the US government is in right now. Think about it, the UN is possibly the single greatest waste of taxpayer's money immaginable. If we cut all funding to the UN and let other countries do it (if they can or want to), and charge the UN rent for using US soil, Bush will be able to claim that he has cut the deficit in two easy steps.
Bush's budget request for fiscal year 2006 amounts to 2,5 trillion. 438,9 million from that budget is earmarked for the UN. The budget deficit for 2005, according to CBO, will be ~ 325 billion. Good luck with reducing your deficit.

Charging the rent for using US soil? They'll move to Geneva in a minute.

...
And the war was never illegal to begin with but that is a different debate altogether.
So long, the notions of 'crimes against peace' and 'war of aggression'...

So long, the notions of 'crimes against peace' and 'war of aggression'...
Meh, those were only ever convenient when you don't have enough "real" Nazi criminals in your custody cuz the Russians got to them first or they killed themselves....