NationStates Jolt Archive

To Americans (and other members of 'powerful' states citizenry) who oppose the UN, I offer this challenge...

If, in fifty-sixty-seventy however many years it is, when the Pax America has come to an end and instead we see Pax Europa or Pax Siamica etc, suppose they use the kind of influence and power over the international economic system and the kind of hard (millitary) and soft (cultural) power that you now weild in the world to your disadvantage. Will in that situation you call upon the UN in cases where your interests need defending?

Because it is my observation that most of the Americans and others who disaprove of the UN, arguing it wants to control them, only think this because they believe they do not need the protection that the rules of international conduct provide, and that they can protect themselves. It is not an actual contempt for said rules. Thus with the ability to protect themselves from that which, without those abilitiys the conduct of international affairs would provide them protection from, they need not conform to international duties since they can get the protection from other sources. It is, I believe, the convience of not having to obey international duties rather than having a genuine viable objection to the UN that motivates objection to the UN as an institution of international arbitration.

Well, my reasons for being against the U.N. is because I'm an Anarchist. So the answer is pretty obvious: abolish the U.S. government! And the U.N.!

Also, What If arguments don't prove anything.

Also, what if arguments don't prove anything.

Yes they do. Let me explain

- America has a great deal of economic and millitary power (EMPW)
- The UN is the arbitrator of international affairs and regulator of international conduct.
- Part of the UN's function is to protect states from bad international conduct of other states, but in return the states themselves have to obey the international conduct rules
- The USA had the EMPW to protect itself from bad international conduct from other states, without the need for obeying the international conduct rules
- Thus it is convient for the USA to oppose the UN because it does not want to have to obey the international conduct rules as they are inconvient for them, not because they have any actual objection to them
- Therefore if America lost the EMPW to protect itself from bad international conduct, it would no longer object to the UN

Argument demonstrated.

I can't stand America or any country attacking the UN, none of them seem to realize that the power of the UN depends on the willingness of it's member nations, that's why it's called the 'UNITED NATIONS', and the US needs to cooperate because it's the biggest power. If the UN is ineffective it's because it's member states (and the US in particular) are ineffective/incompetent or unwilling. It's like the US taking to the UN's legs with a chainsaw and then saying 'Stand up!'.

Argument demonstrated.

The average American is ignorant of power parities and is often influenced by overly nationalistic (but not reality based) sentiments. Pax Europa/Russia/China/Mars/Goofballian would not be seen as a credible threat to American EMPW short of an actual invasion.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_nations#Financing

United States (22%)
Japan (19.47%)
Germany (8.66%)

With three nations contributing to 1/2 of the finances of the UN, you can imagine the influence that such states could wield within the UN. Why does the USA defy the UN? Simply, it is because CAN. Where is UN HQ? In New York. If the UN suddenly lost 22% of it's operating finances, it would collapse. Japan, (whose modern state is a product of the United States post-WWII) is still closely aligned with American interests.In addition, with America still in its stint as hegemon, if the US were to withdraw from the UN, many other nations would simply withdraw too because the US withdrew its support. Examples of past failed state collaborations include the League of Nations as well as the Kyoto Protocol.

The average American is ignorant of power parities and is often influenced by overly nationalistic (but not reality based) sentiments. Pax Europa/Russia/China/Mars/Goofballian would not be seen as a credible threat to American EMPW short of an actual invasion.

Indeed, hence they need a lesson. My argument still stands. The only reason America dislikes the UN is because it believes it can do everything the UN would do for it by itself and without half the hastle. If it couldn't anymore, the American people would love the UN again

Why does the USA defy the UN? Simply, it is because CAN.

Exactly. Thus the Conservative thinker doesnt have a leg to stand on when they suggest there is some kind of legitimate objection to the UN

You can make as many "if this, then that" arguments as you want, but unless you can prove the "if" part in the "this," then the "that" part is irrelevant and unproven, since its foundation is on the "if" happening.

I don't see the U.S. losing any of its economic or military power any time soon. If you can prove that the U.S. has any threat of its 'EMPW' any time soon, then you will have a good argument.

Multiculturalism is the downfall of society.

Exactly. Thus the Conservative thinker doesnt have a leg to stand on when they suggest there is some kind of legitimate objection to the UN

I never asserted that there was any legitimate objections to the UN. However, I did assert that it is an example of power politics and that the US, as seen throughout history, has a very good poker face when it comes to this.

However, can you name me one state in history which did not exploit its power and hegemony? I do realize this was before the UN....however examples of strong-arming is seen throughout history. What makes you think once the USA is no longer hegemon that the new world leader won't abuse their powers as well?

However, can you name me one state in history which did not exploit its power and hegemony? I do realize this was before the UN....however examples of strong-arming is seen throughout history. What makes you think once the USA is no longer hegemon that the new world leader won't abuse their powers as well?

That's exactly his point. He's asking if the people going "Abolish the UN" now would sing a different tune once they were on the other end of the stick.

I blame veto power. Makes it hard to do something against a veto-wielding power when that nation could stop said action from taking place. Worst remnant of the Cold War. Even worse than Castro and Castro almost started a nuclear war in the early 1960's. Stupid veto power. What's the point?

Also, seems kinda too optimistic. Can't keep many nations friendly for long. After all, if History does ANYTHING, it repeats itself over and over and over again.

Seems kinda fragile, with its dependence on US and US-allied money and veto wielders.

To Americans (and other members of 'powerful' states citizenry) who oppose the UN, I offer this challenge...

If, in fifty-sixty-seventy however many years it is, when the Pax America has come to an end and instead we see Pax Europa or Pax Siamica etc, suppose they use the kind of influence and power over the international economic system and the kind of hard (millitary) and soft (cultural) power that you now weild in the world to your disadvantage. Will in that situation you call upon the UN in cases where your interests need defending?

Because it is my observation that most of the Americans and others who disaprove of the UN, arguing it wants to control them, only think this because they believe they do not need the protection that the rules of international conduct provide, and that they can protect themselves. It is not an actual contempt for said rules. Thus with the ability to protect themselves from that which, without those abilitiys the conduct of international affairs would provide them protection from, they need not conform to international duties since they can get the protection from other sources. It is, I believe, the convience of not having to obey international duties rather than having a genuine viable objection to the UN that motivates objection to the UN as an institution of international arbitration.

Indeed, hence they need a lesson. My argument still stands. The only reason America dislikes the UN is because it believes it can do everything the UN would do for it by itself and without half the hastle. If it couldn't anymore, the American people would love the UN again

They're cute when they're young.

Listen, sonny, you've gone and conflated the current administration with anything I, as an American, agree with, support or believe. Trust me, there are plenty of us who wish to hell that President Unilateral hadn't done what he did, but there's less sense in backing out of it than dealing with the consequences, long term.

Until greed as a whole is subdued on the corporate and personal level, there will be no world accord because there's always going to be someone who wants more than their share. The corollary to that is that there will be others who, while not wanting omre than their share, will ask the perfectly legitimate question, "who decides what a share is and who gets how much?"

In short, the world was bought and paid for long before you had this clearly divisive and deliberately agitative thought. The vast majority of ANY nation's individual citizens have no idea what's done in their nations' names, even the ones with superior voter turnout.

So you can take your extremely tinly veiled moral superiorty complex and blow it out your alimentary canal. It isn't just my country's leaders who are screwing the world pooch.

You can make as many "if this, then that" arguments as you want, but unless you can prove the "if" part in the "this," then the "that" part is irrelevant and unproven, since its foundation is on the "if" happening.

I don't see the U.S. losing any of its economic or military power any time soon. If you can prove that the U.S. has any threat of its 'EMPW' any time soon, then you will have a good argument.

One word: DEBT. The reckoning is on it's way, it's only a matter of time. It will, at least, be fun to watch if you're a fan of gross entropy.

To Americans (and other members of 'powerful' states citizenry) who oppose the UN, I offer this challenge...

If, in fifty-sixty-seventy however many years it is, when the Pax America has come to an end and instead we see Pax Europa or Pax Siamica etc, suppose they use the kind of influence and power over the international economic system and the kind of hard (millitary) and soft (cultural) power that you now weild in the world to your disadvantage. Will in that situation you call upon the UN in cases where your interests need defending?

Because it is my observation that most of the Americans and others who disaprove of the UN, arguing it wants to control them, only think this because they believe they do not need the protection that the rules of international conduct provide, and that they can protect themselves. It is not an actual contempt for said rules. Thus with the ability to protect themselves from that which, without those abilitiys the conduct of international affairs would provide them protection from, they need not conform to international duties since they can get the protection from other sources. It is, I believe, the convience of not having to obey international duties rather than having a genuine viable objection to the UN that motivates objection to the UN as an institution of international arbitration.

Well, its simple the UN is a tool we use, we don't have anything to fear from it since we can veto it's measures or ignore them just as easily. To me there is no reason to oppose the UN, only to oppose any increase in the power of the UN, meanwhile keeping it servile to our interests whenever and where ever possible. Most the people who oppose the UN think its a waste of time since it achieves nothing (or seems to), but its true that the UN will never be able to oppose the hegemon in earnest since it will always be subject to the hegemon's desires, since the power of the UN is derived from it's member states. It makes no sense for the US to cede power against it's interests in hope that this will buy us safety in the future when there is no reason for the UN to be able to oppress the desires of the strongest nation.

The UN should take an equal portion of it's operating costs from each member (with exceptions for small or extremely poor states). That way, the UN doesn't depend on a handful of nations for it's finances.

The UN should take an equal portion of it's operating costs from each member (with exceptions for small or extremely poor states). That way, the UN doesn't depend on a handful of nations for it's finances.

No thanks, I don't want a NWO/Global Army Union thanks, it'll be the end of sovereignty.

No thanks, I don't want a NWO/Global Army Union thanks, it'll be the end of sovereignty.

Who said anything about that? The UN structure would remain the same. It instead of getting 22% of it's finances from the US, it would take an equal portion from each nation.

Who said anything about that? The UN structure would remain the same. It instead of getting 22% of it's finances from the US, it would take an equal portion from each nation.

Getting 22% of the US probably is equal.
It seems to me that you would be suggesting the US only give as much as every other country. That 22% the US is giving is in itself probably larger than the GDP of half of the countrys in the world. How would you expect them to pay anywhere near that amount.

The US has contempt for the UN because the UN is conveying values that US only superficially adhere to, like freedom, equality, democracy. And the UN is providing international help regardless of political agenda, which is something the US are incapable of. Although the US constantly talk about morals they don't apply any. US policies are exclusively determined by economic interests.

Getting 22% of the US probably is equal.
It seems to me that you would be suggesting the US only give as much as every other country. That 22% the US is giving is in itself probably larger than the GDP of half of the countrys in the world. How would you expect them to pay anywhere near that amount.

Ok, let's say the UN gets 100 billion a year (just making this up). The US is paying 22 billion. I reckon every nation should pay equal. So, let's round up and say there's 200 nations, each nation pays 500 million. That way, no country has economic dominance.

As someone who does oppose the UN, I would do so regardless of which end of the stick I happened to be on.

To further explain: The UN is essentially a democratic organization where all member nations, regardless of agendas or biases, have a share. The UN will then force, through sanctions or possibly military actions, the decisions of the majority on anyone they so choose.

As of right now, the balance of power rarely tips too far in any particular direction, and so the UN has little affect on any of the major regions. If the US was to falter and become weak, then any latent agendas by the remaining powerful states would quite possibly be levied against us (gun control is the usual suspect, but there are many others). Any regulations would not be approved by the citizens of the US or subject to our checks and balances.

Opposition to the UN, while the US is still strong, keeps it from being an absolute governing entity now, and possibly later. Keeping it in check is the better long-term strategy.

As someone who does oppose the UN, I would do so regardless of which end of the stick I happened to be on.

To further explain: The UN is essentially a democratic organization where all member nations, regardless of agendas or biases, have a share. The UN will then force, through sanctions or possibly military actions, the decisions of the majority on anyone they so choose.

As of right now, the balance of power rarely tips too far in any particular direction, and so the UN has little affect on any of the major regions. If the US was to falter and become weak, then any latent agendas by the remaining powerful states would quite possibly be levied against us (gun control is the usual suspect, but there are many others). Any regulations would not be approved by the citizens of the US or subject to our checks and balances.

Opposition to the UN, while the US is still strong, keeps it from being an absolute governing entity now, and possibly later. Keeping it in check is the better long-term strategy.

That's a rather nationalistic view. Do you really think the US is so much better than all other countries?

Who said anything about that? The UN structure would remain the same. It instead of getting 22% of it's finances from the US, it would take an equal portion from each nation.
The thing is, for international laws to work they have to be unfair to the biggest economic powers, I am in favor of UN power/representation proportionate to population (universal suffrage), but not proportionate to economic or military clout.

Unservjall, you obviously have no idea how the UN structure actually works. It's not some hung parliament with the Secretary General as it's Prime Minister.

The General Assembly is made up of national government-appointed representatives who propose, co-sponsor and vote on resolutions. The Assembly can be said to be democratic in that the representatives vote. Resolutions that are approved of course are then sent to the UNSC for approval.

This consists of the 5 permanent seats taken by the US, Russia, China, UK and France, as well as 10 non-permanent seats voted on by the General Assembly. Right now they are Belgium, Congo, Ghana, Indonesia, Italy, Peru, Panama, Qatar, Slovakia and South Africa until January 2008. Resolutions passed by the Assembly are voted on by the Council.

Each Council member has one vote. Decisions on procedural matters are made by an affirmative vote of at least nine of the 15 members. Decisions on substantive matters require nine votes, including the concurring votes of all five permanent members. This is the rule of "great Power unanimity", often referred to as the "veto" power.

It is therefore impossible for the UN to somehow "Impose it's International Will" on the US. The US would have to consent.

Oh, also. The UN doesn't want to take away your guns. No, really.

That ridiculous diatribe spouted by the likes of elements of the NRA and FOX noise, that the UN wants to somehow take away your guns is BS. They try to confuse this idea with UN efforts to stop illegal weapons transfers. You know. Like preventing terrorists from getting Kalashnikov's and A-bombs.

That ridiculous diatribe spouted by the likes of elements of the NRA and FOX noise, that the UN wants to somehow take away your guns is BS. They try to confuse this idea with UN efforts to stop illegal weapons transfers. You know. Like preventing terrorists from getting Kalashnikov's and A-bombs.

Don't you see? Both NRA and FOX want terrorists to get AK-47s and nuclear weapons. The latter so they can sell more "OMG! Darkies going to kill you!" diatribe and the former selling more guns to satiate the fear generated by the hype.

Ok, let's say the UN gets 100 billion a year (just making this up). The US is paying 22 billion. I reckon every nation should pay equal. So, let's round up and say there's 200 nations, each nation pays 500 million. That way, no country has economic dominance.

500 million is still too much for most nations. Take for example Nauru, a UN member. Their entire GDP is a paltry $60 million USD. How would they be able to pay such a high sum?

Yes they do. Let me explain

- The UN is the arbitrator of international affairs and regulator of international conduct.

Theoreticly you are right. In Practice...

- Part of the UN's function is to protect states from bad international conduct of other states, but in return the states themselves have to obey the international conduct rules

And there in lies the problem. States don't and I am not talking just about the US.

- The USA had the EMPW to protect itself from bad international conduct from other states, without the need for obeying the international conduct rules

To the old addage...International Law is only as good as those with the power to enforce or not enforce it.

- Thus it is convient for the USA to oppose the UN because it does not want to have to obey the international conduct rules as they are inconvient for them, not because they have any actual objection to them

That goes for most nations. Shall we look at China or Russia?

- Therefore if America lost the EMPW to protect itself from bad international conduct, it would no longer object to the UN

Are you sure? Care to use logic to back that up?

Argument demonstrated.

And my argument counters yours.

I can't stand America or any country attacking the UN, none of them seem to realize that the power of the UN depends on the willingness of it's member nations, that's why it's called the 'UNITED NATIONS', and the US needs to cooperate because it's the biggest power. If the UN is ineffective it's because it's member states (and the US in particular) are ineffective/incompetent or unwilling. It's like the US taking to the UN's legs with a chainsaw and then saying 'Stand up!'.

This made me laugh.

No thanks, I don't want a NWO/Global Army Union thanks, it'll be the end of sovereignty.

For once I agree.

The US has contempt for the UN because the UN is conveying values that US only superficially adhere to, like freedom, equality, democracy. And the UN is providing international help regardless of political agenda, which is something the US are incapable of. Although the US constantly talk about morals they don't apply any. US policies are exclusively determined by economic interests.

This also made me laugh.

when the world is controlled by china as it inevitiably will be, and should they allow the continued existence of the UN....

im sure we will see it as the same powerless institution it is today and hate it all the more because we will no longer be pulling the strings.

sure we'll be able to petition to redress our grievances but if our chinese overlords are not interested in allowing our grievances to be settled in our favor, it wont happen.

as it does today but with the members of the security council pulling the strings.

although i am fond of the way the world court and the world trade organization sometimes make rulings against the big boys and in favor of the smallest of nations.

Multiculturalism is the downfall of society.

Hate to tell ya, but somebody else took that job. You're welcome to apply back in a few years.

To Americans (and other members of 'powerful' states citizenry) who oppose the UN, I offer this challenge...

If, in fifty-sixty-seventy however many years it is, when the Pax America has come to an end and instead we see Pax Europa or Pax Siamica etc, suppose they use the kind of influence and power over the international economic system and the kind of hard (millitary) and soft (cultural) power that you now weild in the world to your disadvantage. Will in that situation you call upon the UN in cases where your interests need defending?

Because it is my observation that most of the Americans and others who disaprove of the UN, arguing it wants to control them, only think this because they believe they do not need the protection that the rules of international conduct provide, and that they can protect themselves. It is not an actual contempt for said rules. Thus with the ability to protect themselves from that which, without those abilitiys the conduct of international affairs would provide them protection from, they need not conform to international duties since they can get the protection from other sources. It is, I believe, the convience of not having to obey international duties rather than having a genuine viable objection to the UN that motivates objection to the UN as an institution of international arbitration.

You're likely right as to most UN power opposition stances...

I tend to disagree with a powerful UN; but then, I also tend to disagree with using military and economic force against other nations; being abit more of a supporter of slight isolationism, little involvement internationally and a relatively neutral stance in dealing with other countries.