NationStates Jolt Archive


The UN strikes again.

Celtlund
24-03-2007, 16:04
As if the oil for food program and the sex scandal in Africa wern't enough, we now have this going on in North Korea.

"But the U.N. officials were even more worried that failing to act would leave them and the U.N. deeply damaged by a continued pattern of unauthorized payments, in cash and in hard international currency, to the dictatorial North Korean government. And personally, they were worried that a future U.N. audit might cast a harsh spotlight on the highly irregular ways that their agencies, led by UNDP, were acting in North Korea, and might accuse all of them of acting illegally.

Every day, for example, agents from the regime's General Bureau for Diplomatic Services — a section of the North Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs that deals with, and spies on, foreign diplomats — would arrive at the U.N. compound and collect envelopes of cash, handed over by the U.N. to pay local salaries, utilities and maintenance fees. No receipts were ever given.

The same applied to money ostensibly used for U.N. agency projects around the country — projects that the staff were not free to visit at will, if ever. (The Munsudong compound is a highly restricted area, with armed patrols at its perimeter. The U.N. officials could only live in designated quarters located a few hundred yards from their office.)

There were mild differences between the agencies, but the overall pattern of hard currency cash payments remained the same.

The mysteriously appointed local staff, who included critically important finance managers and communications specialists, were another matter of urgent concern. Many had received expensive U.N. training — only to be pulled out of U.N. employment after a few months on the job and assigned to other, unknown Korean government offices.

The U.N. operations officials were also uneasily aware that locally-appointed North Korean staff had access to sensitive U.N. files and communications, without supervisors' knowledge.

Even U.N.-designated cars and their North Korean drivers were operating outside U.N. control. Sometimes they were available and sometimes not; the officials were not even aware of what happened to their cars in the evening.

But the most disturbing fact under discussion in the Munsudong meeting was the absence of normal legal agreements with the North Korean government that would either justify or rein in the chaotic and mysterious operations of the agencies, which in the officials' experience did not conform with the U.N.'s operations anywhere else."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,260223,00.html

Can anyone, anyone please tell me what good is the UN? Why do people continue to support this corrupt and inept organization? Why?
Wagdog
24-03-2007, 16:22
Simple, it provides a diplomatic workshop for the major powers/Security Council; and one where their essential privileges are enshrined by (supposed) international law despite whatever grumbling the Third World/General Assembly may feel like at any moment. Plus, it provides a scapegoat for when national policies fail, or a forum for ways to politely kill international action a major state doesn't disagree with by simply talking it to death.
The arguments you use to argue "Nationes Unitas delenda est!" are essentially the objections used before about the embassy system. Is it a haven for legal spying on your own country by its not-so-veiled enemies? Absolutely. BUT, the same also applies for your embassy in their country. Are ambassadors arguably corrupt and venal? Sure; but that's how you win friends and influence people among the modern oligarchs of the petrostates that power the current world economy.
Just remember, every bit as much as Third World hellholes or Axis of Evil members use the UN as a club against us, so can we against them so long as we get the Russians/French/Chinese on our side. In that case, we need all the corruption we can get our hands on; because that's simply how business is done in those countries, and effective diplomacy (as in Machiavelli, Bismarck, Kissinger et al) uses what works. Especially if doing so turns the enemy's own vices, their own "Tao" in Master Sun Tzu's terms, against themselves and for our objectives instead.
Nodinia
24-03-2007, 16:36
Can anyone, anyone please tell me what good is the UN? Why do people continue to support this corrupt and inept organization? Why?

The alternative at the moment is even more 'America Uber Alles' which contains and breeds corruption that renders this kind of thing laughable by comparison.
Malarse
24-03-2007, 17:30
When it comes to hope for international disputes to be resolved peacefully, it is all we have. I suppose that's my reason for supporting it.
Nationalian
24-03-2007, 18:11
If we took away the veto power, the UN would be great. But as it is right now, the UN: s "goodness" is proportional to the goodness of the US. So when the US sucks(as it does now), the UN will suck to.

Just had a three day long UN role play in the school were I represented Cuba in the general assembly. It was really fun.
Celtlund
24-03-2007, 20:54
When it comes to hope for international disputes to be resolved peacefully, it is all we have. I suppose that's my reason for supporting it.

So, just what "international disputes" have they solved lately?
Greater Trostia
24-03-2007, 20:58
If we took away the veto power, the UN would be great. But as it is right now, the UN: s "goodness" is proportional to the goodness of the US. So when the US sucks(as it does now), the UN will suck to.

Just had a three day long UN role play in the school were I represented Cuba in the general assembly. It was really fun.

I agree.

Did you succeed at anything as Cuba in the UN?
Malarse
24-03-2007, 21:13
So, just what "international disputes" have they solved lately?They probably never have, but that's what they're there to do. The idea of genuine international diplomacy is something I'd like to hold on to. If countries didn't undermine its authority, e.g. the US and the UK invading Iraq regardless of the UN's approval, it could work.
Congo--Kinshasa
24-03-2007, 21:16
So, just what "international disputes" have they solved lately?

Or ever?
Dododecapod
24-03-2007, 21:16
If we took away the veto power, the UN would be great. But as it is right now, the UN: s "goodness" is proportional to the goodness of the US. So when the US sucks(as it does now), the UN will suck to.

Just had a three day long UN role play in the school were I represented Cuba in the general assembly. It was really fun.

No, if we took away the Veto power then the entire edifice would collapse.

Consider what the General assembly has turned into. The major powers can't do anything there - it's all but completely controlled by third-world blocs. So, largely all we get is "non-binding" resolutions complaining about this and that, and the occasional human rights bill.

Remove the Veto and the very next thing would be to either "improve" the numbers (and therefore "representativeness") of the Security Council, until the Permanent Members are a minority. Then the SC could make rulings none of the PM agree with at all.

But who would be expected to enforce them?

The major powers would then quit the UN as a bad deal. Maybe a rump UN would survive, amybe not, but it's days of relevance would be over

I support the UN. It does some good, and provides a forum for the airing of grievances at least. And, some of it's sections - the WHO, UNESCO - have been an undeniable force for good in the world.

The UN isn't perfect by any means, but it'll do until we can get something better.
Dirkistaniden
24-03-2007, 22:24
How could anyone even consider taking away the UN. Without it human rights would be exploited. A vital international common ground would be lost and many rebellious countries would go unpoliced. Just because a couple of negative issues are highlighted by Fox News (which is entirely laughable) doesn't mean this whole edifice should be collapsed. The international community would fall into disrepair. The UN deals with thousands of other things every day not just the issues highlighted above.
Cookesland
24-03-2007, 22:25
yeah the UN is far from perfect but what are the alternatives, throwing poo at one another?
Congo--Kinshasa
24-03-2007, 22:30
yeah the UN is far from perfect but what are the alternatives, throwing poo at one another?

Works for me. :D
Cookesland
24-03-2007, 22:33
Works for me. :D

lol :rolleyes:
Congo--Kinshasa
24-03-2007, 22:35
lol :rolleyes:

Throwing poo is more exciting than diplomacy. ;)

*throws poo at Cookesland to demonstrate*
Proggresica
24-03-2007, 22:36
Bring back the mighty League of Nations!

http://www.worldstatesmen.org/league.gif
Woodrow Wilson for President!
Blotting
24-03-2007, 23:00
The Leagues of Nations wasn't more effective than the UN. It had neither American nor Soviet support and wasn't able to protect the world from WWII. Why bother bringing it back?