United Nations - (no spam)

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Tue Sep 17, 2002 8:55 am

It is foolish to think that it would be a good idea to get rid of the UN.

The United Nations is a framework where leaders of all countries can come together and through dialogue and diplomacy deal with problems, if we got rid of it we would quickly have to reinvent it.

The UN does a huge amount of good work on civil rights, poverty, health and environment.

The United Nations commission for human rights has laid down the human rights law by which we can judge china and other nations - that way we have a standard.
Just one place in which the UN has been effective is in South Africa where its embargo and pressure helped end apartheid.

It was the UN that was instrumental in pushing through the Ottawa convention on landmines and its mine clearing programmes help millions all over the world.

Untold tens of millions have been saved by UN disease eradication programs. There are currently several such programs underway - should we drop those? Of course not - the UN is a place where we can focus attempts to help the poor and the sick and the war ridden.

The UN also made possible the recent world summit that made advances on clean drinking water - a huge killer in developing countries.

There are UN peace keeping missions all over the world making sure that conflicts don't flare up again and make sure the civilian populations are safe. You want to get rid of this? If we got rid of the UN millions would die and chaos would return to many places.

Only ignorance can explain why some people think the UN is not worthwhile.

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Tue Sep 17, 2002 9:07 am

Originally posted by Bishop
The United States and Great Brittain almost completely supply the UN with money, troops, and equipment.
-Bishop

There seems to be a myth that the US almost alone pays for the UN.

The US is the single greatest contributor with 22% of the budget.
But there are 285 million people in the US. Compare that to Japan's 127 million people that pay 19.63% to the UN budget - the Japanese pay twice as much per person. Similarly if you take western Europe together then western Europe pay far more, both in total and per person, than the US.

If anything the US should pay alot more to the UN.

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Tue Sep 17, 2002 9:16 am

The UN can only do what the members want it to do. There are lots of problems in the world that the UN is ideally suited to handle. The recent world summit was an effort to alleviate suffering from poverty, environment and other important arrears.
I don?t think that I have to remind anybody that it was the US that stood in the way of setting targets on poverty reduction and on controlling pollution.
When the UN doesn?t live up to expectations then we can only put the blame with the member states because the UN is just made up of the member states.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Tue Sep 17, 2002 9:48 am

More than seven decades ago, while the U.S. Senate was debating ratification of the League of Nations Covenant, Senator William Borah (R-ID) sought to cool the ardor of the League’s supporters by dousing it with a bracing shower of cold reality. Those who believed that a world army would consist of stainless champions of "world peace" were ignoring the unyielding facts about human nature. A world army, Borah declared, would consist of "the gathered scum of the nations organized into a conglomerate international police force ordered hither and thither by the most heterogeneous and irresponsible body or court that ever confused or confounded the natural instincts and noble passions of a people." Can there be any doubt that the UN has vindicated Borah’s dismal prophecy?

Beast in Blue

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Tue Sep 17, 2002 11:15 am

"DavelyDave"? I think you've been hanging around with Flanders too much lately, Mr Sleep.

I think the United Nations is a necesary organisation. If you want to know what the world would be like without the UN, just go back to 1914, when there were all sorts of secret alliances and other diplomatic intrigue which ultimately drew all of Europe into a war that could have very easily been avoided.

Further, I think the intent of the UN is a good one and I think many of the projects the UN undertakes are worthwhile. That said, I think the world needs to re-examine what the mission of the UN is, how it will undertake that mission and get rid of some of its top-heavy bureaucracy.

One of the most positive aspect of the UN is that it provides and avenue for countries to talk to each other, even if they have no other means. Without the UN, the US and Cuba (who have no formal diplomatic relations) can interact on some level, even if it is out of the public eye. Same thing for China and Taiwan.

Some people think that the UN pokes its nose in places where it doesn't belong or where it's not wanted. In many cases, they're right, but without the ability to act on it's decisions, as a global entity, it becomes impotent, like the League of Nations before it.

I think the reason why many people in the US don't like the UN is that we see it as something that get's in our way. Nevermind that we often use the UN for our own purposes (like we did as our front in the Gulf War and in Korea). I think it's important for the world to have a place where every country has a voice, from the biggest to the smallest, even if the weight of those voices is unequal. While the United Nations is a slow-moving body, the fact that it is there keeps all of the nations on the Earth engaged, which is far preferable to everyone going their separate ways.

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Tue Sep 17, 2002 11:55 am

Originally posted by Tom
It is foolish to think that it would be a good idea to get rid of the UN.

...

Only ignorance can explain why some people think the UN is not worthwhile.

Have I just been called "foolish" and "ignorant" - ?

Just curious.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Tue Sep 17, 2002 4:27 pm

Originally posted by HighLordDave
"DavelyDave"? I think you've been hanging around with Flanders too much lately, Mr Sleep.

Yeah you might be right, is DiddlyDave any better?

Further, I think the intent of the UN is a good one and I think many of the projects the UN undertakes are worthwhile. That said, I think the world needs to re-examine what the mission of the UN is, how it will undertake that mission and get rid of some of its top-heavy bureaucracy.

I agree, the recent meetings are a good example of the decadance that the UN high brass now exude, they are in plush conference halls and cushy offices, why? They could conduct the same discussions in a village hall, it should be more concerned with what they say not where they say it.

The question becomes who is going to push them to this change, most nations are probably happy to abuse the UN when they get the chance so what nation/person is going to shake them up and is it even possible?

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Tue Sep 17, 2002 5:03 pm

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
Yeah you might be right, is DiddlyDave any better?

I agree, the recent meetings are a good example of the decadance that the UN high brass now exude, they are in plush conference halls and cushy offices, why? They could conduct the same discussions in a village hall, it should be more concerned with what they say not where they say it.

The question becomes who is going to push them to this change, most nations are probably happy to abuse the UN when they get the chance so what nation/person is going to shake them up and is it even possible?

I am sick of the whole thing. Read this article and see where the enforcement in UN resolutions comes from.

Bribing Our Way to War

Bribing our way to the enforcement of UN resolutions would be a better title to this article. After the Gulf War the UN should had enforced the demands put on Iraq...they didn't. In 1998 Bill Clinton should had went to the UN and did the same as George Bush jr., he didn't. A problem in the Middle East that could had been solved years if not a decade ago is still unresolved and now to even think of solving it, my country must bribe the rest to do anything at all.

UN = Failure.

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Tue Sep 17, 2002 5:11 pm

Originally posted by Weasel
I am sick of the whole thing. Read this article and see where the enforcement in UN resolutions comes from.

Bribing Our Way to War

Bribing our way to the enforcement of UN resolutions would be a better title to this article. After the Gulf War the UN should had enforced the demands put on Iraq...they didn't. In 1998 Bill Clinton should had went to the UN and did the same as George Bush jr., he didn't. A problem in the Middle East that could had been solved years if not a decade ago is still unresolved and now to even think of solving it, my country must bribe the rest to do anything at all.

UN = Failure.

Wow, Weasel makes sense....(scary)

der Moench · Post by **der Moench** » Tue Sep 17, 2002 5:17 pm

@Scayde: Weasel always makes sense --- Weasel-sense!

Ummm ... just so I am not spamming: I agree with Weasel.

Peace.

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Wed Sep 18, 2002 8:59 am

Originally posted by Lazarus
Have I just been called "foolish" and "ignorant" - ?

Just curious.

Not at all.

I don't know you nearly enough to judge you like that.

But I do think that getting rid of the UN would be foolish, thus if you think that then, IMO, you have a foolish belief. I do not know how many foolish beliefs one need in order to be foolish but one such belief is surely not enough.

I think that the UN is both a great idea and (despite its undoubted flaws) a good institution. It is not perfect of course - how could it be when the member states that make up the UN are patently imperfect to say the least.

But I realise that my statements were over the top and I apologise - it is just that I believe passionately that the world should try to work together and that to me is what the UN represents.

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Wed Sep 18, 2002 9:01 am

Originally posted by Weasel
Beast in Blue

@ weasel. The article that you linked to was indeed shocking and saddening. There can be no doubt that soldiers posted far from home are prone to unacceptable behaviour and that strong safeguards are needed to insure that such disgusting behaviour does not occur.
That said, one should not forget that there are many peacekeeping operations ongoing at this moment and that hundreds of thousands of troops from at least 50 countries contribute to these.
It is clear that the UN can improve in its accountability and checks on its troops. I don't think it means that the UN as a whole is flawed.

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Wed Sep 18, 2002 9:06 am

Originally posted by Weasel
I am sick of the whole thing. Read this article and see where the enforcement in UN resolutions comes from.

Bribing Our Way to War

Bribing our way to the enforcement of UN resolutions would be a better title to this article. After the Gulf War the UN should had enforced the demands put on Iraq...they didn't. In 1998 Bill Clinton should had went to the UN and did the same as George Bush jr., he didn't. A problem in the Middle East that could had been solved years if not a decade ago is still unresolved and now to even think of solving it, my country must bribe the rest to do anything at all.

UN = Failure.

It seems to me that this is false. The Bush administration is indeed trying to bribe and blackmail some countries into allowing the US to use that country as a base for attack.
It is not about enforcement of UN resolutions which the Bush don't give a **** about. He wants to invade - talk of enforcing the UN resolutions by sending in inspectors is bad news as far as he is concerned.
Anyway the US government consistently blocks the implementation of UN resolutions concerning Israel.

All policy towards Iraq has been dictated by the US (with the UK doing the poodle). So if this policy has been a failure (and I think it has) then don't blame the UN.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Wed Sep 18, 2002 10:36 am

Originally posted by Tom
It seems to me that this is false. The Bush administration is indeed trying to bribe and blackmail some countries into allowing the US to use that country as a base for attack.
It is not about enforcement of UN resolutions which the Bush don't give a **** about. He wants to invade - talk of enforcing the UN resolutions by sending in inspectors is bad news as far as he is concerned.
Anyway the US government consistently blocks the implementation of UN resolutions concerning Israel.

All policy towards Iraq has been dictated by the US (with the UK doing the poodle). So if this policy has been a failure (and I think it has) then don't blame the UN.

As to being false, this would be a matter of opinion.

As to Bush's reason, I for one am not a mind reader nor can I speak for him. But I do know Bush did in fact goto the UN and explain if they did not enforce their own resolutions, the US would take it their own hands to do so. Something some countries was saying Bush needed to do, and I for one was for.

For all the rant about Bush and his administration, this is my opinion, not George W. Bush's nor his administration. If you want his or his administration opinion ask him. I say the US is being forced to bribed the UN to enforce it's own resolutions. And to me this means the UN is a failure.

As to Israel, is this not more of a reason to call the UN a failure? If one country, as you say, can block all the rest, what use is the UN then?

All policy towards Iraq has been dictated by the US? So in other words the US controls the UN, another good reason pointing to the failure of the UN. If one country controls it, I would personal can it beyond hope of fixing.

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Thu Sep 19, 2002 9:52 am

Originally posted by Weasel

As to being false, this would be a matter of opinion.

As to Bush's reason, I for one am not a mind reader nor can I speak for him. But I do know Bush did in fact goto the UN and explain if they did not enforce their own resolutions, the US would take it their own hands to do so. Something some countries was saying Bush needed to do, and I for one was for.

For all the rant about Bush and his administration, this is my opinion, not George W. Bush's nor his administration. If you want his or his administration opinion ask him. I say the US is being forced to bribed the UN to enforce it's own resolutions. And to me this means the UN is a failure.

As to Israel, is this not more of a reason to call the UN a failure? If one country, as you say, can block all the rest, what use is the UN then?

All policy towards Iraq has been dictated by the US? So in other words the US controls the UN, another good reason pointing to the failure of the UN. If one country controls it, I would personal can it beyond hope of fixing.

The US does not control the UN but as the only super power in the world they have a lot of power. If the US and other powerful nations did not have proportional power in the UN compared to the world they would simply not bother. We have a security council made up of some of the stronger nations and consequently the less powerful nations in the world have less power in the UN.

The UN is not a Utopian institution - it is a pragmatic one.
There are many good reasons for having a forum where countries in the whole world can come together. So we have to look at what would be acceptable to the powerfull nations in the UN as well as what is desirable for the world.

The limitations of the UN are set by it's member states - not the organisation. In the mean time the UN is the best we have got. It's a bit like democracy that way.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Thu Sep 19, 2002 10:05 am

For all of its faults and many imperfections, we need the United Nations to be a place were everyone can come to the table and make their voice (no matter how small) heard.

Everything that is negative about the UN can and should be changed, but what is indespensible is the worldwide forum and meeting ground that it represents.

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Thu Sep 19, 2002 10:11 am

I totally agree.

I would also add that there are several other functions that the UN carries out that are particularly suited for a global organisation. The main one I believe is disease control.

Tens of millions have been saved by the UN and more will be saved if we keep it.