NationStates Jolt Archive

Having recently looked at the failures of the League of Nations and how members tended to bend, break, or simply blatantly ignore rules, I have to wonder if the same thing is happening with the United Nations:

For those who don't know (or don't remember), the League was founded in the aftermath of World War II. Its goals were disarmament, settling disputes through diplomacy, and improving international welfare. At the outset of WWII, the League had failed and eventually disbanded. Looking back now though, we see that the League had weaknesses that caused it to fail.

First of all, the League had no armed force of its own and depended upon members to provide troops. Members such as the United Kingdom and France were reluctant to use sanctions, and other members were not commited to the League but rather used it in an attempt to expand their own power.

The biggest problem however, was that some members egregiously broke rules without regard. A prime example of this is Ruhr. Under the Treaty of Versailles, Germany had to pay reparations. They could pay in money or in goods at a set value; however, in 1922 Germany was not able to make its payment. The next year, France and Belgium chose to act upon this, and invaded the industrial heartland of Germany, the Ruhr, despite this being in direct contravention of the League's rules. With France being a major League member, and the United Kingdom hesitant to oppose its close ally, nothing was done in the League despite the clear breach of League rules. This set a significant precedent – the League rarely acted against major powers, and occasionally broke its own rules.

What I find disturbring is how similar to the current day situation this is. Now in the 21st century, the United Nations still has no armed forces of its own. The solidarity of the west that was caused by the Cold War has dissipated, and we are left with Europe and the United States growing farther apart as Islamic fundamentalism becomes prevalent in the Middle East.

Consider for a moment the situation that took place before the invasion of Iraq. All the same players are present. The pacifists reluctant to use sanctions (ie France, Germany), those who are in blatant disregard of the wishes of the rest (United States and Britain), and other members such as Sudan who are probably not the most positive influence.Added to this is the failure to prevent the Rwandan genocide, the Battle of Mogadishu, the recent Oil For Food scandal, among others.

This poses the question: If another war breaks out in North Korea, if war breaks out in Iran, if any war breaks out requiring international attention, can the UN continue? Is an international organization like the UN even feasible over a long-term period?

The real question is:

Will the UN ever become a success?

I'm not holding my breath.

Here's the way I figure it: the UN definitely has a chance of simply becoming irrelevant. It won't actually collapse, however, because everyone likes it around simply to add an air of legitamacy. No nation is really opposed to the idea, even persistent rulebreakers like the US.

All of the sudden a ton of UN thread just popped up. What's with that??? :confused:

I heard a guy on the radio today who said that the US should just pull out of the UN and create a league of democratic nation. This was in response to UN "human rights" council which has dictators in it.

I think he may actually have something there.

I heard a guy on the radio today who said that the US should just pull out of the UN and create a league of democratic nation.
That's called "NATO". And I think it should play a bigger role, but together with the UN, not at the expense of it.

This was in response to UN "human rights" council which has dictators in it.
I don't think the council has even been decided upon yet. And besides, there can be dictatorships which respect human rights, and democracies that don't (cough, cough).

The problem with the UN is that it allows 3rd world nations too much say. They should have little influence on policy, especially on things like human rights. Like it or not, they have a lot to learn from the West and the UN should reflect that.

At first glance, the situation seems similar, but if you take a closer look at what brought the League to fail, you'll see that this is not so.

The harshest blow to the League was Germany and Japan leaving to go on with their conquests. Remember, the US and Russia weren't in the League of Nations, which also doomed it from beginning on.

Also, a war in Iran or North Korea is not really comparable to World War 2. If it came to World War 3, then the UN would have slim chances of survival.

The problem with the UN is that it allows 3rd world nations too much say. They should have little influence on policy, especially on things like human rights. Like it or not, they have a lot to learn from the West and the UN should reflect that.
The League of Nations reflected that. It failed.

The League of Nations reflected that. It failed.

I was under the impression that the league failed because many of the important nations in the world didn't take part.

If the US had been a strong advocate of the league, and Germany hadn't been royally shafted by reparations and other ridiculous measures among other diplomatic solutions, I believe there could've been some degree of success.

I mean, could the 2nd World War have happened if Germany hadn't been screwed so bad?

I mean, could the 2nd World War have happened if Germany hadn't been screwed so bad?
Surprisingly, a case could be made to say "Yes".

http://pages.prodigy.net/aesir/wwi.htm

I was under the impression that the league failed because many of the important nations in the world didn't take part.

If the US had been a strong advocate of the league, and Germany hadn't been royally shafted by reparations and other ridiculous measures among other diplomatic solutions, I believe there could've been some degree of success.

I mean, could the 2nd World War have happened if Germany hadn't been screwed so bad?The "3rd world" was busy learning from the West at the time, colonialism and all that.

I personally don't think that we as the West have been/are that great teachers/examples.

The UN does a good job at distributing food and medicine. But then again, so does Walmart.

Well, they did kill off Slobo...

Seriously though, NATO is and will remain primarily a military alliance, not a diplomatic entity though it does serve that role. I think that the UN is doing a crappy job on the diplomatic stage, but a change in leadership and doctrine might sort that. Make no mistake though. I'm 100% behind the various humanitarian aide stuff they do [WHO, WFP, etc]. They are just so goddamned beurocratical!

Has the UN become a failure? To answer this question let’s make one thing perfectly clear. The UN is not some disembodied power that pronounces judgements upon the world. The UN is YOU and ME. The UN is represented by the nations that exist on Earth who we hope have not completely forgotten that it is important to have a place were open dialogue can occur between belligerent nations and where others can gather to try to help nations in crisis. Any failure in the UN is a failure of the nations and their representatives that they send to the UN. I don't think that that point can be stressed enough.

The UN was not intended to be the bitch of the superpowers, although the Security Council would disagree. Before citizens of nations who sit on the Security Council go on about the how the UN has failed they should take a long look at the policies of their government and involvement in creating failure at the UN. When democracies condemn the UN for pursuing human rights agendas the problem isn’t at the UN. A lot of governments out there are in dire need of cleaning up after themselves before they blame the UN for what’s in their own closets.

bump

Has the UN become a failure? To answer this question let’s make one thing perfectly clear. The UN is not some disembodied power that pronounces judgements upon the world. The UN is YOU and ME. The UN is represented by the nations that exist on Earth who we hope have not completely forgotten that it is important to have a place were open dialogue can occur between belligerent nations and where others can gather to try to help nations in crisis. Any failure in the UN is a failure of the nations and their representatives that they send to the UN. I don't think that that point can be stressed enough.

The UN was not intended to be the bitch of the superpowers, although the Security Council would disagree. Before citizens of nations who sit on the Security Council go on about the how the UN has failed they should take a long look at the policies of their government and involvement in creating failure at the UN. When democracies condemn the UN for pursuing human rights agendas the problem isn’t at the UN. A lot of governments out there are in dire need of cleaning up after themselves before they blame the UN for what’s in their own closets.

Yeah, you tell'em!

The real question is:

Will the UN ever become a success?

I'm not holding my breath.
In your eyes I'm sure it never can be. In the eyes of some it already is. To the OP, I think some aspects, like the WHO are a success. But the Security Council is a failure.

I heard a guy on the radio today who said that the US should just pull out of the UN and create a league of democratic nation. This was in response to UN "human rights" council which has dictators in it.

I think he may actually have something there.
In theory it might be a good idea to set up a league of democratic nations. But I would not trust America to do it. Experience shows that America often doesn't accept democratic nations for what they are because they are socialist also.

international law may be irrelivant to national soverignty, but directly pertinent to protecting you and me FROM the soverignty of our own nations, IF we give it the teeth to do the job. neofashists hate international law, and will say anything to attempt to discredit any concept of it. let's face it, no one who wants to tell everyone else what to do wants everyone else to be able to get togather and tell them not to. that is the real reason the u.n. is being opposed.

obviously it can't be expected to babysit soverign nations on the one hand, and straved of any means of doing so on the other.

niether however can we trust the vested intrests of any one nation, or parasoverign force such as corporatocracy, which again is really what this is all about.

=^^=
.../\...