Why all the UN bashing in this forum?
 

All this UN bashing in this forum makes me sick, maybe it would make people happy if we just let the US try it's hand at policing the world. The UN has been great for the world. Anyone with the answer to this question please respond because i have no idea and i've thought about it for awhile.

"the UN has been great for the world" ?

So tell me dear sir! Just what in the hell have they done?

http://www.un.org/works/
Just a place to start. You likely don't see the effects of the UN because you live in the US rather than India or Ethiopia.

When the UN is handing our care packages it does just fine. It should stick to such endeavors.

But it is absolutely worthless in conflict and agression.

When the going gets tough, the UN goes home.

The UN is gentlemens club for tyrants and dictators.

We need a more democratic organiztion.

There's plenty of UN Bashing and plenty of US bashing on this forum. It happens.

Agreed. Imagine if someone started a post, "All this US bashing in this forum makes me sick, maybe it would make people happy if we just let the UN try it's hand at policing the world. The US has been great for the world. Anyone with the answer to this question please respond because i have no idea and i've thought about it for awhile."

My guess is we'd have 30 anti-US posts by the time the original poster was returned to the thread. It'd be pretty much similar to this thread in tone, except possibly more in number, as there seems to be far more liberals than conservatives on this board.

-- Alvin

Suggestions?

How about these: first, boot France (and possibly Britain) off the Security Council to make way for Japan (second largest economy) and India (largest democracy). That'll make it the US, Japan, China, Russia, and India. Not bad, if you ask me. Pretty diverse, no? If we must, I suppose we can add the UK, Germany, and France, in that order.

Second, make rich countries like those in Western Europe, Canada, Japan, etc. start footing more of the bill. The UN shouldn't be beholden to the 25% of its budget the US holds. Oh, and the UN building/properties in NYC don't count, either. It should be an honor to have the UN building on your soil.

Third, make voting at least partly proportional to population. That Belgium or Liechtenstein have the same voting power as China or Brazil is, well, a bit strange.

Thoughts?

-- Alvin

Here's my UN Security Council (model UN in high school, w00p!)

U.S., 2 rotating members from the Americas, Britain, 2 rotating members from Europe (Russia being in the 'Europe' country tally), 2 rotating members from Africa, India, China, Japan, and 2 rotating members from Asia. And a seat for the Emperor Penguin representing Antarctica.

Dues should be a fixed percent of GDP, no matter which country you are- say one-hundredth of one percent of GDP.

Leave General Assembly as is.

Reform committees that promote democracy and civil rights so that countries that have none of either are no longer dominating them and bottling up resolutions. (I recall Libya at one point holding the chair of the human rights committee and the anti-proliferation committee at the same time, the irony brought some serious bile to my throat.)

If the U.N. were truly democratic and all that Jazz, if it were truly representative of the people of the world, all reprsentatives would be voted in by the people of said countries, not appointed. I think thats what it should be. Has it stands right now its not the "United Nations" its the "United Regimes" working for the interests of the regimes, not the people.

What organisation doesn't?
Can you say to me with all honesty that when America does something on the world stage ,that it is not in Americas interest?

I agree completely, thats why the organization is a joke.

Iraqi slams U.N. inaction
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20031...3953-8003r.htm

NEW YORK — Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari yesterday chastised war opponents at the U.N. Security Council — and the United Nations itself — for failing to help the Iraqi people during three decades of Saddam Hussein's brutal reign.
Although he did not list names, France, Russia and Germany were prominent among the countries that had resisted a Security Council resolution authorizing the war in Iraq.
"One year ago, this Security Council was divided between those who wanted to appease Saddam Hussein and those who wanted to hold him accountable," Mr. Zebari said dispassionately in an address to the 15-member council.
"The U.N. as an organization failed to help rescue the Iraqi people from a murderous tyranny that lasted over 35 years, and today we are unearthing thousands of victims in horrifying testament to that failure. ...

"The U.N. must not fail the Iraqi people again," Mr. Zebari said in a plea for Secretary-General Kofi Annan to return international staffers to Baghdad for relief work and nation-building assistance.
"We call upon the members of the United Nations to look beyond their differences over the decision to go to war on Iraq and come together to forge an international consensus," the foreign minister said.
--------------------------------BREAK--------------------------------------------


Speaking three days after Saddam's capture by U.S. troops in the northern Iraqi city of Tikrit, Mr. Zebari promised to provide "whatever security is required" to bring the United Nations back to Iraq for an expanded role in "humanitarian relief, capacity- and nation-building, promoting sustainable development and advancing the electoral and political processes."
"Your help and expertise cannot be effectively delivered from Cyprus or Amman," he told Mr. Annan, who last week had outlined plans to base the United Nations' Iraq mission in a safer country.
While expressing understanding for the losses the world body suffered on Aug. 19, when 22 of its staff were killed in a suicide bombing in Baghdad, Mr. Zebari told reporters after the council meeting that the United Nations "has always worked in difficult and war-torn regions and crisis areas."

"Why not Iraq? Why an exception? We are all, in fact, targets for those terrorists. It is not just the U.N. and the coalition."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And dont forget putting Lybia on the human rights panel.
Syria on the Security Council. I know its rotating, but come on!
Rwanda?

The UN is a good idea, but like all great ideas, it became perverted by the tyrants of the world who learned to use its own rules against it. The only way for it to work, is to stop using 'Peacekeepers' and use soldiers. Its become a paper tiger.

okay Libya was a dumb idea, not exactly a human rights poster child
very true much of the people who reap the rewards of this great orginization are in third world countries, and if it wasn't for the UN they would still be hoping for aid from countries that don't care.

Anything Bushites cannot fault or control they bash, just like Dick Cheney.

Ironcarrot I think you are young and not up on the lingo.

We arn't "Bushites" to the left, "Neo-Con" is the proper term. If you don't want to be what you claim us Neo-Con's are, you should figure out how we are wrong about the UN being a spineless body, unable to do anything beyond giving out handouts.

Do you know where the last major genocide was? Ask yourself what the UN did to stop it.

Another horrible flaw about the U.N. is the fact that they don't ever ever infringe on sovereignity, even when warranted. Now I respect the rights of countries, and I recognize all sovereign nations as such. But in instances such as Sudan where the slave trade is still strong and 2 million people have been murdered, or Iraq of the past... bottom line, certain situations warrant intervention and action, horrible things do happen in sovereign countries.

Mojo_PeiPei, the problem with that is that sovereignty is the Foundation of international law. I know how much we Americans hate when Europeans tell us what we should do, imagine a scenario later down the road when we aren't top dog, and someone is forcing us to do something. Does that sit too well with you? It sure as hell doesn't with me...

The real problem with the UN is its lack of funding and resources. It should be used for peacekeeping, mediation, and basically for problem-solving of international issues. The reason it doesn't work well with anything but peacekeeping in small, mostly unarmed countries is unilateralism and an unwillingness for stronger nations to adopt a liberalism political view instead of a realism political view. I wonder though...

A huge reason that the United States got off the ground successfully was that George Washington tried to make it work... all systems take a bit of faith, I suppose. What if the US bought into the UN fully? What if Congress was willing to pay their dues to the UN?

The UN has unrealized potential... it has done some good in many places. But I really doubt it will reach its full potential soon, if ever... a major paradigm shift would have to happen.

The UN is relevant, but not effective.

First, the design of the security council has to go. The veto is what renders the UN useless nowadays. How many times has the whole world come to consensus only to have the US veto the resolution? Also, the security council no longer represents the proper power dynamic in the world today. Germany, Japan, and India would have to be given much more influence.

Abolishing the veto would also hopefuly lead to Secretary Generals being elected who might dare be critical of US policy. Kofi Annan has been really quite tame, whereas Boutros-Ghali spoke out on numerous occasions against the US and was therefore vetoed out of getting another term.

It might also help if the US payed its dues. How many billions of dollars does it owe now? That plus the fact that they're slowly trying to reduce their share of the annual budget.

You can't expect the UN to be effective when it is undermined so often. Also, a lot of changes must be made so power isn't as institutionalized as the Great Powers post WWII intended.


SLM3

How have we not payed our dues? We foot 25% of the operational bills, contribute more money/aid to the various operations and programs then any other country, contribute(d) troops to just about every major and minor peace keeping mission. What more could we do? And for the record the U.N. is in debt to us, the New York branch almost went under and we bailed them out. Maybe the rest of the world should step up to the plate.

Yes, this is the attitude that prevails... and an inherent problem with the UN... the stronger countries need to back it more than the weaker countries for it to have any strength. It is hard to have international legitimacy when these issues of funding and skewed participation creep in.

Up until 1999, the US was almost a billion dollars behind in its payments. Now, the US routinely takes atleast 10 months to pay its dues to the UN. What usually happens is the UN operates without its full budget and when halfway through the year it runs out of money it has to borrow from the peace keeping budget. The UN is not allowed to borrow from external sources. Furthermore, what's taken from the peace keeping budget is not reimbursed for quite some time simply because there is no money to do so.

What more could you do? How about paying your bills on time?

SLM3

some links to the USA-UN situation
http://www.unausa.org/newindex.asp?p...s/reimburs.asp
http://www.unausa.org/newindex.asp?p...cy/usunfin.asp

(this is no US bashing almost every nation in the security concil is in debt (germany for instance has choosen to split their payment, so we pay twice a year instead of a big amout of money once a year, of course we didn't asked the UN if this is OK))

Personally I would disband the council, the veto power often is used for strange political games (USA will veto any russian/chinese resolution and vice visa).
Plus, mainly for the same reasons, I would like to see a mobile and quick "UN Response force" so the UN is autonomous from the mood swings of its members. This army would be under the command of the UN and not longer of their home-nations.

I don't believe this could ever be possible. Unless it were to only respond to minor outbreaks against ill equipped "enemies" it would have to be of a substantial size. Countries can build loyal armies because the members have ties to the country. Familial, historical, cultural, and geographic ties. These ties allow troops to come together into a cohesive unit and enable them to fight for the well being of their "brother/sister" soldiers. No way could the UN generate this kind of force. At best they would be made up of groups of soldiers whose primary loyalty would be to their own countries and fellow soldiers from that country, at worst it would be a bunch of mercenaries who join to fight for pay.

The UN has never been able to do what it was originally designed to do in many areas. The only real success it has had is much along the lines of success that the Red Cross has at times. It is successful in responding to shortages and natural disasters - in other roles it, like the Red Cross has been a dismal failure. The unwillingness or inability of nations to "get along" will always prevent the UN from being a peacekeeper or enforcer of international law.

The UN idea should be taken back to the drawing board. Perhaps a total redesign might turn it into an organization with value. For this to happen all nations would have to be equal with no one having veto power - this simply ain't ever gonna' happen!

I think instead of dismissing the UN, major nations such as the US should push towad to strengthen the UN, if it needs a revamp then go for it, but anyway I think the UN should be much more politicized and given a lot more of atention than it is as of now.
Because as bad as it is, it's the only thing we have to work together.

I think I understand what you are saying but I think this is why it is so bad - some see it as "the only thing we have" when it comes to working together and it has never, except in isolated instances, been an example of anyone working together - it has been an "in you face" debating society made moot by veto power.

The only success it has had on any scale is when the issue is so sterile that no one sees it as being a threat to anyone or anything.

If you wish to play tit for tat then America really has no leg to stand on. And I dont believe the UN is any better than the US except the UN does not try to convince the world their actions are utterly selfless.

2002-3 score card.

People liberated by the United States: 43 million
People liberated by the U.N.: 0

Being told the US is no better then the UN: Priceless

That scorecard is lessened when you are the country that strengthened the regime that kept those 43 million oppressed for 20 years.
It became our duty to liberate them.

Pretty, but alas, no spine.
http://beachsite.com/gypsy/jellyfish.jpg

Americans are going to hate the day when they become the little fish.

people oppressed because the US loved Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war it doesn't really matter the US supported him. maybe it was the lesser of two evils but what a way to decide who to throw your help behind. did the Americans not love the mujahadeen in Afghanistan back in the day?

Long live the UNITED NATIONS

"Americans are going to hate the day when they become the little fish."

If it were to happen... Bet the Canadians are really gonna' hate it!

Only way that will EVER happen is if we start to listen to liberals.

Canada would hate it ...................but it would be comical for awhile. all right i admit it stupid comment.

I agree, sadly and disgustingly we are slowly becoming spineless quasi-Liberal facist Euro's, we still have a long while to catch up with Canada, but we've started down the path.

:lol: :hmm: :crazy: :hmm: :lol:

how is Canada spineless? the americans are like children oh they didn't agree with us they suck. fuck that show me proof that Canada is spineless. we all aren't hawks by the US standards the world would always be at war because there are always going to be terrorists. as for Canada being spineless i can't get over that so maybe the mods will edit me but [removed]

yes, we will. so if you know it's wrong, don't say it next time.

now that that is out of the way let's not get back into an American Canadian bashing post that is not why I started this thread but if my country is insulted i am not going to sit idly by and watch it happen so let's get this back to being a civilised discussion. sorry all went off a little there