Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aliali
Your position seems to be that the U.N. does lots and lots of good things reasonably well that don't necessarily get big headlines. That's fine, but are you saying the corruption, which now appears to have lead to the funding of terrorists, isn't worthy of honest debate or should not be considered when evaluating the U.N.?
|
First, let me welcome your eminently reasonable post. It's a lot better than the "UN is an evil organization" kind of pap we had earlier. Now to the point at hand.
Do I think corruption should be ignored or accepted without criticism? Absolutely not. In fact, if you check my posts, I've noted that there are problems and that they need to be addressed; I've said this consistently from my very first post.
I drew analogies (which everyone knows should not be taken literally) between other "corrupt" organizations and the UN. No one (in their right mind) suggests things are always black and white.
The UN = imperfect, therefore it should be disbanded.
Nope. I'm afraid not.
The UN = imperfect, like everything else in this world, therefore it should be improved whilst not forgetting the incalculable good it does.
Quote:
|
For me, I think the corruption is a bad thing, particularly when you look at the nations involved in the oil-for-food program. I think the U.N. is pretty weak in international peacekeeping, slow to react when genocide or massive catastrophies hit, fails to stand by its resolutions if force may be required, and leans a little to anti-US in my opinion.
|
The corruption
is a bad thing. But you have to consider that it wasn't the UN profiting from the corruption, but corrupt individuals and companies (many of them American also). If one Senator is corrupt, you don't criticise the Senate! You improve things to try to avoid it happening again, but you don't accuse the Senate of being evil or conspiratorial etc.
With regards to the UN being weak in peacekeeping, you have to remember that the UN has
no forces of its own. It relies upon a Security Council decision to deploy troops and upon constituent member states in supplying those troops. Unless you allow the UN to have its own forces (and no one is suggesting that), or empower it to
compell countries to provide troops, then this is an unfortunate reality. And I can only imagine the howls of derision that would entail if I suggested that UN be allowed to compell America to furnish troops and material; which I don't believe it should by the way.
Secondly, the UN has done massive good with its existing peace-keeping efforts in Burundi, Cote D'Ivoire, Liberia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sierra Leone, Western Sahara, Haiti, East Timor, India, Pakistan, Cyprus, Georgia, Kosovo, The Golan Heights, Lebannon and the Middle East.
Has it deployed troops everywhere it should? Absolutely not.
Why not? Because the proposals have been vetoed (by the US in several circumstances), because the political will has not been there or the troops have not been forthcoming. Ireland, I'm happy to say, has a long history of providing UN PeaceKeepers when requested. But Australia (where I live) is not as generous; neither is the US.
Is the UN slow to react to genocide and ethnic cleansing? Yes, I believe it is. And some recent travesties are terrible examples of this (Rwanda and Sudan etc).
But the UN often has its hands tied. People have to get it into their heads that it's not the UN that is delaying things (do you really believe some bureaucrat in New York is sitting in an office gleefully stamping DENIED on requests for aid and assistance?), but that it is the fact that
consensus is needed before proceeding. In other words, there is often much time spent debating rather than acting. And whilst as long as the UN remains a "voluntary body" this will continue. Nation states put their own selfish goals ahead of the common good. Countries play politics will General Assembly proclamations or support for Security Council proposals. It's politics and it's unfortunate as it costs people their lives. But the UN saves far far more lives that are lost by inaction. Inaction that would be endemic were the UN not to exist in the first place.
You mention that the UN is slightly anti-US. Well, the General Assembly may be that way but, I hate to tell you, that's because the
world is slightly anti-US. The UN acts as the GA and Security Council dictates. Often the GA will vote a particular resolution or proclamation (and they are all entirely non-binding) but it is the Security Council that has the teeth, if you will. And there the US has more power than anyone else.
Quote:
|
I think it does a lot of humanitarian good, but wastes a lot of money and is inefficient in many respects. I think it is a mixed bag. We shouldn't disband it, but should not be afraid to criticize it.
|
I agree with you 100%
I'm also not trying to avoid debate (indeed, I think I'm doing my best to
foster debate), but I am reacting to some of the sillier statements made on this thread.
I've it before and I'll say it again. The UN is so
very very much more than the Security Council and the General Assembly. Without it the world would be an unquestionably worse place. But like all huge bureaucracies, it needs constant improvement and maybe even some fundamental changes.
Mr Mephisto