NationStates Jolt Archive

Many people belive that the UN has failed to achieve much of anything. With there still being wars all over the world and with strife, poverty and disease still very much present in many nations, what do you belive about the effectiveness of the UN?

Hmm... I believe this about the RL UN, which would make it General worthy.

How effective is the RL UN?

Peacekeeping: NOT
Disease fighting: Decent
Saving face in the int'l community: Important

If you're serious about finding out what the UN does, how it does it, and how effective it is, check their website: http://www.un.org/english/.

There's heaps of information, notably on their humanitarian work.

For example:

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was established on December 14, 1950 by the United Nations General Assembly. The agency is mandated to lead and co-ordinate international action to protect refugees and resolve refugee problems worldwide. Its primary purpose is to safeguard the rights and well-being of refugees. It strives to ensure that everyone can exercise the right to seek asylum and find safe refuge in another State, with the option to return home voluntarily, integrate locally or to resettle in a third country.

In more than five decades, the agency has helped an estimated 50 million people restart their lives. Today, a staff of around 6,289 people in 111 countries continues to help 32.9 million persons.


For more on the UNHCR, see here (http://www.unhcr.org/basics/BASICS/4034b6a34.pdf) (PDF) or here (http://www.unhcr.org/basics.html).

A bunch of idiots scoffing at the UN's "uselessness", despite the fact that they know nothing about it, are not really worth listening to.

Saving face in the int'l community: Important
I submit that this is actually a useful function of the UN. Most countries in the world are fucked up to some degree, and having the UN allows every country to pretend that they are important and civilized. An all-encompassing elaborate diplomatic farce where everybody pretends to come together in some kind of enlightened world forum is preferable to something more honest, like shifting schemes of opposing alliances that are likely to lead to war.

A bunch of idiots scoffing at the UN's "uselessness", despite the fact that they know nothing about it, are not really worth listening to.
True, but the normal rants about the UN's inefficacy generally seem to be no more than an internationalised extension of the way that people tend to rail against their own governments.

If you look at the standard anti-UN snipes that get made on forums like this you'll find that they are almost always about some debate or other in the General Assembly, or some needless veto by one or more members of the Security Council. They're rarely about UNHCR, or other aid efforts, for the same reasons as peoples' rants about their own, home nations are not usually about, say, the quality of the sewerage systems.

I'm not saying that the UN's myriad subsidiary organisations are faultless - they're not - nor that our individual nations all possess perfect civil engineering infrastructure - they don't - just that people like to bitch and whine about the 'ruling' chamber in any organisation.

Meh, I've totally lost where I was going with this :eek:

Many people belive that the UN has failed to achieve much of anything. With there still being wars all over the world and with strife, poverty and disease still very much present in many nations, what do you belive about the effectiveness of the UN?The UN is like school: What you get out of it depends on how much you put into it. I've discovered that those countries that bitch most about it are the ones not really helping out in the first place.

Many people belive that the UN has failed to achieve much of anything. With there still being wars all over the world and with strife, poverty and disease still very much present in many nations, what do you belive about the effectiveness of the UN?

I guess that depends what effect you're measuring. They have a 1-0 record at preventing cold wars from going hot. That's pretty effective. :)

No WW III yet,... so far so good.

UNICEF and UNESCO, while people say they're corrupt, they're the closest thing we had to an "unbiased" NPO.

I guess that depends what effect you're measuring. They have a 1-0 record at preventing cold wars from going hot. That's pretty effective. :)

It's funny how people keep forgetting the wars that never happen. Such as the Dutch-Indonesian War of 1946.

It's funny how people keep forgetting the wars that never happen. Such as the Dutch-Indonesian War of 1946.

Funny 'Ha-ha', or funny 'this milk smells funny'?

Funny 'Ha-ha', or funny 'this milk smells funny'?A little bit of both, I'd wager.

Same as the League of Nations.

International conflicts : Weak effort
Disease fighting : Very respectable
Other activities : Generally pretty good

precisely as effective, neither more nor less, then its member nations permit it to be. just as was the articles of confederation that predated the current federal constitution in the u.s.

with pretty much the same exact shortcommings. in today's world we need a un with unbiased supersoverignty. with a relationship to nations identical to that america's federal government has to its states. or perhaps a little more like what that relationship was, before states lost the right to state's rights by the inequitous behaviour of a few.

even in its current form the un has contributed a great deal that is too often taken for granted. not the least of which being in the area of legal precidents.

and it has prevented at least some major wars, and some of the wars it hasn't succeeded in preventing could and would likely have been much bloodier and more devistatin without it.

if there had not been a un, would not 'the cuban missle crises' or even the korean conflict of the early 50s, have been the spark that would have ignited a nuclear world war three?

there are just a lot of things all over the world, and quite possibly it is the ngo's who are to be thanked for the lion's share of the hard work involved, that really are better thanks to its and their existence.

as long as it isn't a world government, it IS a debating society, and even a debating society is better then all out, every nation for itself, bloody and universal war. even if it can't prevent all of them, or even very many when its most powerful members (not to mention any names, but the u.s., hint hint) are unwilling for it to.

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

Firstly, pretty good analysis from Longhaul and Ariddia. Debates about the usefulness of the UN do tend to be like that.

Oh well. Anyway, as far as how effective the UN is as an organisation I'd have to say it doesn't do too bad at all.

The UN's chief role, to provide a forum to allow all nations of the world to communicate diplomatically that prevents international conflict, has worked wonderfully. Nations are no longer isolated by one another, and diplomacy isn't restricted to telegrams between heads of state, or adhoc conferences, like in the days of old.

Requests for UN Peacekeeping missions have increased exponentially over the last decade. Lesson's learned from Rwanda and Bosnia have revolutionised UN Peacekeeping doctrine, creating safe environments for peacebuilding efforts throughout war-torn nations.

UN organisations such as the UNHCR, UNESCO and UNICEF provide vital services to the people of the world, co-ordinating refugee resettlement, providing international education/preserving world heritage and working to uphold the basic rights and needs of children, respectively. All of these bodies have accomplished a fair amount of victories in thier lifetimes.

Of course none of the UN bodies work perfectly. Name a corporation, NGO or government that does. All vast organisations are riddled with inefficiency of some degree, but the UN is hardly as useless as some would have you believe.

How effective is the RL UN?

Peacekeeping: NOT
Care to prove that?

International conflicts : Weak effort
So you'll give the UN no credit for the fact that there are less international conflicts now than in, say, the 1940's - and that the conflict situation has moved from international conflicts to intra-state conflicts (civil wars and such)?

So you'll give the UN no credit for the fact that there are less international conflicts now than in, say, the 1940's - and that the conflict situation has moved from international conflicts to intra-state conflicts (civil wars and such)?
Wars that anyone really cares about :

1) Korea - UN actually supported
2) Various USSR business in the 40s-60s in Eastern Europe - VETO!
3) Vietnam - Did nothing
4) Afghanistan - VETO!
5) Various wars in the Gulf of Persia - Mostly negative
6) Any Israel : VETO!

Wars that anyone really cares about :

1) Korea - UN actually supported
North Korea breached the peace and invaded. Involvement to stop the war.


2) Various USSR business in the 40s-60s in Eastern Europe - VETO!
3) Vietnam - Did nothing
4) Afghanistan - VETO!
5) Various wars in the Gulf of Persia - Mostly negative
6) Any Israel : VETO!
It's difficult to talk about all the wars that didn't happen, but still:

You'll give the UN no credit for the fact that there are less international conflicts now and in the past 60 years - and that the conflict situation has moved from international conflicts to intra-state conflicts (civil wars and such)?

North Korea breached the peace and invaded. Involvement to stop the war.
Ah yes, stopping the war by deploying hundreds of thousands of troops and fighting for 3 years. Nice.
It's difficult to talk about all the wars that didn't happen
MAD assured no war in Europe, nor between the US and USSR.
You'll give the UN no credit for the fact that there are less international conflicts now and in the past 60 years - and that the conflict situation has moved from international conflicts to intra-state conflicts (civil wars and such)?
Err woohoo for the wars in the Balkans, Rwanda et al?

Nuclear weapons are the reason there hasn't been global wars involving the major powers, not the UN.

It's far worse than the League of Nations ever was.

It's far worse than the League of Nations ever was.Pics or its a lie.

It's far worse than the League of Nations ever was.
Not really. It's just equally as pointless.

But everyone knew the League of Nations was a joke. People actually act like the UN has any meaning. By worse, I mean they've gone to great lengths to legitimize terrorism and we won't even go into the cost. It really just gives a platform for dictators from backward nations to speak as if they are on equal terms with anyone else.

The UN is just like the sheriff who nails laws to a door and has no power or will to enforce them. I think the world is better off without illusions and meaningless agreements and mandates.

I was in Model United Nations for three years and I've learned what makes the UN tick. My general attitude is they are in dire need of improvement but here is why the UN tends to hit roadblocks:

There are over a 100 diffrent countries in the UN all with their own mindset of the how the world works and should work. All of them have political bias all have their own issues. They will not agree on everything.

Example:

Country A: let's pass a resolution to do this

Country B: Good idea

Country C: Who's going to pay for it?

Country D: We don't want foreign bodies in our state to disrupt our life

Country E: I'm with country D on this

Country F: What about the possiblity of this this and this?

And the chain goes on. It takes a long time to work on a resolution that everyone will agree, and still not everyone will agree with you.

At least the League of Nations didn't invade and destroy independent nations, like the UN did with Katanga.

Overall, the UN does a pretty damn good job, I mean, they succeeded in East Timor just recently and have been keeping Turkish and Greek Cypriots from killing each other. And I have to praise the WFP for saving countless lives across the world (you know, at least when Somali warlords and North Korean soldiers don't siege the shipments...)

But with the un-overrideable veto still in effect in the Security Council, the UN will never be able to attain the same kind of influence as the Big Five. That's the main criticism I have for the UN; the veto power in the UNSC and the fact that UNGA resolutions are non-binding.

Ah yes, stopping the war by deploying hundreds of thousands of troops and fighting for 3 years. Nice.
Alternative? Accept aggression? Accept territorial gains through conquest?


MAD assured no war in Europe, nor between the US and USSR.
And the UN did nothing? International mediation did nothing? A world forum was useless... how?

Err woohoo for the wars in the Balkans, Rwanda et al?
No. Don't be so obtuse. Wohoo for less wars - thanks in part to the UN and international cooperation / diplomacy and dialogue-

North Korea breached the peace and invaded. Involvement to stop the war.


It's difficult to talk about all the wars that didn't happen, but still:

You'll give the UN no credit for the fact that there are less international conflicts now and in the past 60 years - and that the conflict situation has moved from international conflicts to intra-state conflicts (civil wars and such)?

Don't forget the Authorization of Force to liberate Kuwait.

But the fact that there are less international wars is purely circumstantial, though. I would have to argue that it's not because of the UN, but because there's only one superpower left to encourage violence in the world.

It has done a lot, thats true. But most nations laugh at the UN as its power is allowed to it by the nations who run it, so if they want to do something, the UN can only send threatening messages and whatnot, unless others allow it to take it.

But the fact that there are less international wars is purely circumstantial, though. I would have to argue that it's not because of the UN, but because there's only one superpower left to encourage violence in the world.
I find it unconvincing that the presence of an international forum comitted to the preservation of international peace, set channels of discourse and diplomacy, the creation of an international court and fleshing out of international law designed to hinder and mediate in transnational disputes, and everything else that follows the UN, had no bearing on that issue.

I find it unconvincing that the presence of an international forum comitted to the preservation of international peace, set channels of discourse and diplomacy, the creation of an international court and fleshing out of international law designed to hinder and mediate in transnational disputes, and everything else that follows the UN, had no bearing on that issue.

Could have been coincidence. You can't ignore how much MAD (you nuke me, I nuke you back) had an influence. You had two nuclear superpowers (US and USSR) that didn't want to be nuked to kingdom come. If anything, fear prevented more potential wars than some international forum.

Many people belive that the UN has failed to achieve much of anything. With there still being wars all over the world and with strife, poverty and disease still very much present in many nations, what do you belive about the effectiveness of the UN?

The UN is the most hypocritical governing body in the history of mankind. It was supposed to be founded for the express purpose of bringing peace to the world, and yet it has hosted more wars since its inception than occurred in any two (if not three) centuries before it existed.

The UN is the most hypocritical governing body in the history of mankind. It was supposed to be founded for the express purpose of bringing peace to the world, and yet it has hosted more wars since its inception than occurred in any two (if not three) centuries before it existed.
This is the moment you get to shine!

Now you actually are going to list all the wars since the founding of the UN AND all the wars between, say, 1745-1945.

After the Herculean job of yours, we get to judge just how hypocritical the UN is.

Scram.

The UN (meaning the UNITED NATIONS) is only as effective as the willingness of it's member nations, and most importantly the US, any attack on the UN only discredits the unwillingness of the US to participate fully.

Could have been coincidence. You can't ignore how much MAD (you nuke me, I nuke you back) had an influence. You had two nuclear superpowers (US and USSR) that didn't want to be nuked to kingdom come. If anything, fear prevented more potential wars than some international forum.

I wouldn't be the one ignoring anything: I fully accept that MAD, the cold war, and the superpowers all were factors. But how you can discount the UN like that without presenting any evidence against it having an impact, and just claim "coincindence", seems ignorant to me.

Many people belive that the UN has failed to achieve much of anything. With there still being wars all over the world and with strife, poverty and disease still very much present in many nations, what do you belive about the effectiveness of the UN?

I think that UN is like democracy: it is not too efficient and does not work as well as it should (in general, it sux quite a bit), but it's the best we've got so far.