:lol: I don't even have to imagine it.

Other than the portion I quoted of your post, I agree with you. There is room for an honest discussion of the corruption of the U.N. But only after the discussion over whether or not the U.N. is totally worthless has been completed. If there is no middle ground from one side (those who despise the U.N.), there is no value in discussing the very real corruption of the organization.

That was assumed and you have no problem criticizing the administration even though many of the things the government does helps the poor, educates the people, gives money to third-world programs for health care and otherwise does things with good intentions. If there is corruption, lying, stealing and the like you want to know about it and want those in charge sent home.

Very well said.

Absolutely. And my point is, it doesn't mean I want the entire U.S. gov't disbanded (or have all states withdraw from it). I'm all for improving things. But as I said, there's no value in discussing the problems if a large group of people have already determined their solution is to throw the baby out with the bath water.

You don't want the government disbanded, but you want the administration held accountable and you wanted them to lose the election. I'm just saying it is as valid to discuss the U.N.'s shortcomings as their successes. If the powers that be are involved in corruption, then maybe there should be an investigation and consequences.

Not everyone that criticizes the U.N. wants it disbanded, most don't. Because some do is no reason to view the U.N. with rose-colored glasses and not debate the good and bad. The original post seemed to be an honest request for information and debate on the U.N. as a whole.

As I said, I agree with you. The original post is essentially worthwhile. But it was followed by a number of posts from people asserting and defending their assertions that the U.S. should withdraw from the U.N. Hardly productive contributions or productive methods of thinking through problems.

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.

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.


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

Well, I don't have much left to complain about and can't say there is much disagreement on my part with the above. Two thoughts though:

1) Re: the oil-for-food problem, I don't think the analogy to a single senator being corrupt is quite apt--I think the corruption is tied directly with the U.N. personnel relating to a U.N. administered program. I think it is more like an administration that violates the law by systematically and illegally aiding its contributors and, is therefore, a governmental problem that cannot be blamed solely on the contributors that profitted.

2) About the resolutions of the security council, and I may be focusing too much on Iraq, it seems that there is a lot of talking and foot stomping, but too much reluctance to follow through when threats made. That may be a product of the nations involved, I don't know, but I think it weakens the power of the institution.


Edit: Here is another story relating to screw-ups at the highest level and a potential no-confidence vote for Annan. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...n_041119115027

ouch

The UN staff union, in what officials said was the first vote of its kind in the more than 50-year history of the United Nations, was set to approve a resolution withdrawing support for the embattled Annan and senior UN management.

News like this and the other problems surrounding the UN and Annan this year make the entire establishment look bad.

Other than the obvious impotence of the UN (security-wise), my biggest problem with the UN has been this guy and I will not shed a tear should he lose his position.

Edit: I just saw that aliali's posted the saem link