nofnway

I'll admit to having a visceral animosity for the UN...and have recently lost my head and gone too far in condeming it as the most evil and corrupt organization on the planet. I'm willing to moderate on that position.

I still don't see where the UN is sucessful in making the world a better place to be.

Let me have it...your opinions(about the topic)....guided research..etc.

__________________
"Iron rusts with disuse, stagnant water loses its purity and in cold water freezes. Even so does inaction sap the vigor of the mind"
Leonardo Da Vinci

Mephisto2

Great idea for a thread and very well put.



What good is the UN?

Firstly, consensus.

Without the UN providing all countries with a voice, actions taken by the US, NATO or the EU (for example) smack of unilateralism.


Secondly, legality.

Like it or not, the US is a signatory of international and UN treaties. It is the UN that decides what is legal or illegal with regards to international law (often by interpreting Geneva Conventions for example).


Thirdly, morality.

Believe it or not, UN actions are often the right thing to do. The UN funds and manages hundreds of international organisations, international tribunals and committees that try to improve social, economic, health and cultural issues throughout the world. The UNHCR, UNESCO, UNDP, ECA, ECE, ELAC, ESCAP, ESCWA, ICJ, E-MINE, UNOB, UNOCI, UNMIL, MONUC, UMEE, UNAMSIL, MINURSO, MINUSTAH, UNMISET, UNMOGIP, UNFICYP, UNOMIG, UNMIK, UNDOF, UNIFIL, UNTSO, UNIFEM, UNCTAD, ITC, UNDCP, UNEP, UNIFEM, UNV, UNCDF, UNFPA, UNICRI, UNITAR, UNRISD, UNIDIR, INSTRAW, UNOPS, UNU, UNSSC, UNAIDS, PfII, WTO, IAEA, CTBTO PREP.COM, OPCW, ILO, FAO, WHO, IBRD, IDA, IFC, MIGA, ICSID, IMF, ICAO, IMO, ITU, UPU, WMO, WIPO, IFAD, UNIDO, OSG, OIOS, OLA, DPA, DDA, KPKO, OCHA, DESA, DGACM, DIP, DM, OHRLLS, UNSECOORD, UNODC, UNOG, UNOV, UNON and so on.

If you want, I can give details on each and every of the above organizations or groups (all directly part of the UN, or in sponsored activities).

Let's just take a very few to actually expand upon.


UNDP - United Nations Development Programme - www.undp.org
The United Nations Development Programme assists and co-ordinates various activities such as Democratic Governance, poverty reduction, crisis prevention and recovery, energy and environmental issues, HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention and human development reporting.

"It advocates for change and connects countries to knowledge, experience and resources to help people build a better life. We are on the ground in 166 countries, working with them on their own solutions to global and national development challenges. As they develop local capacity, they draw on the people of UNDP and our wide range of partners.

UNDP helps developing countries attract and use aid effectively and integrates information and communications technology for development into its work in democratic governance and poverty reduction. In all our activities, we promote the protection of human rights and the empowerment of women."


UNICEF - United Nations Children's Fund - www.unicef.org
The United Nations Children's Fund is an advocate and contributor to children's issues around the world. They promote and provide child protection, education (and especially girl's education in developing countries), immunization for tens of thousands, childhood development, HIV/AIDS education and prevention, nutrition, gender equality and children's rights issues to name but a few.

Were UNICEF to cease existence, tens of thousands of children would die and/or live much worse lives.


WHO - World Health Organization - www.who.org
The World Health Organization is at the forefront of combating disase across the globe, especially in (but not limited to) developing countries. One of its most famous successes was the eradication of smallpox (some outbreaks have reoccured in Africa due to lack of education on the benefits of vacination). WHO is driving towards providing HIV/AIDS treatment to three million people by the end of next year. It promotes disase prevention, treatment and vacination across the globe. It co-ordinates inter-national response to epidemics and pandemics (including recent outbreaks of Ebola, SARS, TB, Bubonic Plague etc etc), and works not only for physical health but also mental and social well-being.


UNHCR - The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees - www.unhcr.org
This agency is mandated to lead and co-ordinate international action to protect refugees and help address refugee problems worldwide. Since 1950, when it was founded, the UNHCR has helped an estimated fifty million (50,000,000) people restart their lives. Currently it is actively assisting approximately seventeen million (17,000,000) people. It provides concrete assistance in the form of food, selter, resettlement, assylum and many other "real" activities as well as its co-ordination mandate. It is currently engaged in Southern Africa, Colombia, Europe, the Balkans, West Africa, North Caucasus, Central Africa, Iraq etc. The list goes on.


UNAIDS - Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS
UNAIDS is the "main advocate for global action on HIV/AIDS, UNAIDS leads, strengthens and supports an expanded response to the epidemic." It provides leadership and advocacy, information and reporting, tracking, monitoring and evaluation of the epidemic and mobilization of resources to support an effective response.


IFAD - International Fund for Agricultural Development - www.ifad.org
The International Fund for Agricultural Development target groups (those whose lives are directly impacted positively by its programmes) are the poorest of the world's people. This includes small farmers, rural landless, nomadic pastoralists, artisanal fisherpeople, the indigenous and rural poor woman. The fund contributes funds directly for assistance and development activities in an effort to help the rural poor overcome poverty, disase and malnutrition.



The above are just a FRACTION of the agencies, bodies, organizations and groups that make up the UN. As you can see from the list I gave at the beginning of this post, there are many many more than the few I provided extra detail upon.



Is the UN perfect? No.
Does it need reforming? Yes.
Would it benefit if the US actually paid their dues? Absolutely.

Should it be disbanded? Categorically not.

The United Nations is so very much more than the General Assembly and the Security Council. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why there is so much animosity against the UN in the United States. Don't you people understand that it's an organization that is there to assist people, prevent suffering, promote development? The world would suffer an incalculable disaster were the UN cease to exist. Yes, there have been problems. But EVERY ORGANIZATION on the world has problems.

And from an earlier post...

Please note the slightly provocative tone used above was appropriate to the original thread. :-)



I should be delighted to discuss this (very interesting and very important!!) topic further. It's a relief after all the US election hype!!






Mr Mephisto

Manx

Very nicely put, Mephisto. Thank you.

The_Dunedan

I will agree that the UN's functions as a public forum for the nation-states of the world are incredibly valuable. While I disagree with our involving ourselves in it from a legal standpoint ( that whole 'entangling alliances' thing ) I agree that, as members of the club, we have to play by the club's rules.
However, the UN's various "Social programs" are nothing more than Armed Robbery on a world scale; a system by which wealthy nations are fleeced and poor nations made dependant upon the fleecers. Nations like the US and Germany lose because we lose huge quantities of money; nations like Somalia and Bangladesh lose because they are dependant upon those funds ( in the form of loans ) for their continued existance. When they are forced to default upon the loans ( as they usually are ) the UN takes the money out of their rainforests/mines/seas through the aegis of the various multinational corporate and banking interests which largely control the massive beurocracy of the UN itself.

It is not the 'job' of the US Government to 'promote development' or anything else using money taken from Americans ( or anyone else ) by force. If a private individual wishes to do so, they are to be commended; however, the "wealth redistribution" schema of the UN, like all coercive taxes, are nothing more than common thuggery carried out by an unholy consortium of 3rd-world dictators, bankers, corporate fascists, and power-grubbing politicians of all stripes.

Mephisto2

Well, I shouldn't be surprised by that reaction, but I still am. Everytime someone comes out and describes the UN in terms like "an unholy consortium of 3rd-world dictators, bankers, corporate fascists, and power-grubbing politicians" I can't but help think they really don't know what they're talking about.

By that same standard Dunedan, you should be rebelling against your own government. They "coerce" you into paying taxes. Of course, there's always the possibility that you are some whacko loony who supports some off-the-wall Libertarian "pay no taxes; governments aren't needed" kind of socio-political mindset.

A comment like " UN's various "Social programs" are nothing more than Armed Robbery on a world scale" shows a breath-taking ignorance of the facts. I've also never heard of development aid being described as wealthy countries being fleeced!

However, as nofnway was kind enough to ask for some good examples, with references and research to support it, I can confidently hope that he will ignore your outburst for what it is; a pointless attack with no basis in fact.

Mr Mephisto

The_Dunedan

Actually, Mr. Mephisto, I -am- a Libertarian. I -am- rebelling against my own government ( not violently; the need for that has not been reached and hopefully never will be ), but I am doing my bit.

Secondly; as for these programs -NOT- being "Armed robbery" what else do you call it when a government or organization holds a gun to your head and demands your money? It doesn't matter how noble the purpose; that money was still STOLEN by threat of violence.

As for my description of the UN: what else do you call a body that elects Sudan ( Genocide, anyone? ) and Libya ( Pan-Am 103 ring any bells? ) to the Human Rights Council? What else do you call a body which proposes a thing like the Law Of The Sea Treaty, whereby the 2/3 of the world that's LANDLOCKED can vote on how the 1/3 of the world which uses ship gets to use the ocean? ( This is one of King George II's babies, btw. ) Poland gets to tax Japan to use the Open Seas under this monstrosity; how is this NOT despotism?

Finally, nofnway asked for opinions; I gave mine. I can provide a more thouroughly researched and sourced opinion if you'd like; I'll post it first thing in the morning. For now, I'm going to bed.

Ilow

I personally feel that this thread should have been closed after Mr. M's initial post which seems to have encompassed the first and last word on the topic, but since this is a discussion site, here's my $.02. It would seem to me that in order to dismiss the UN as an organization you would have to be beyond Libertarian. It is more than a "Robin Hood" organization who redistributes wealth. To me it is also a symbol of people and countries coming together in order to better the whole. Now I realize that the idea of a "society" has been labeled "liberal" and hence "bad" by large portions of the US, but I see Homo Sapiens as a societal creature whose best chance for survival in the long term is to utilize our superior ability to be logical and rational in an organized environment--like the UN. Sorry this is philosphical rather than polital, but there you go...

__________________
"Religion is the one area of our discourse in which it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about"
--Sam Harris

Manx

Dunedan,

What do you think global capitalism is other than Armed Robbery on a world-wide scale? Committed by the wealthy nations fleecing the poor nations. Where do you think your glow in the dark tooth brush was made? Why do you think all the manufacturing jobs fled the country? It's cheaper to send them to a poor country where all the corporation has to do is grease some palms instead of worrying about environmental damage, employee safety, employee health.

The world is a disgusting place. You reap the benefits because you live in a nation who takes the wealth from other nations. And you're not even paying enough as is to balance it. Sure it's easy for a bunch of folks i the richest nation on earth to suddenly hold up their hands and say "hey now, I ain't down with this whole taxes thing". You already took all the money.

Mephisto2

Fair enough!

Absolutely, categorically not the case. How on Earth is the UN (an unarmed organization) holding a gun to the United States (the most militarized and powerful nation on the planet)?

In fact, the US "owes" more money to the UN than any other country, if it were to pay its dues as per treaty agreements. Where is the armed robbery?

Well, each and every country gets a chance to sit on the Security Council. That's the way the system works. They'll be gone in 6 months.

You're absolutely right. I guess I could have worded that a bit better.


Mr Mephisto

ubertuber

I have wondered recently if the UN is not an idea that is just ahead of its time (at least in the US)... I think the most deeply rooted distrust of the UN here is because the largest political group that Americans feel allegiance to is the US. Until we start to feel ownership (in the sense of taking responsibility, not exercising control) in a larger community there will be the same uneasy relationship between US and UN that we see today. It may not be so far away - the difference between a bunch of states' rights advocates under the Articles of Confederation and a bunch of nationalists under the Constitution was less than 2 decades. However, it took a concerted effort by some of our founding fathers to sway enough of the popular thought to make the change. For myself, I think the United Nations could be a wonderful thing, but it currently exists in a crack between the desire for consensus and the desire for effective leadership. I don't see the average American being willing to submit our nation to a higher authority until we begin to see the least of the U.N. members as full partners instead of scavengers or parasites.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Ustwo

So they hand out food and pills.

I note no one mentioned security/terrorism/world peace.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

The Prophet

The evolution of mankind, we are just early in the process. Change is slow, but it does happen.

__________________
"The death-knell of the republic had rung as soon as the active power became lodged in the hands of those who sought, not to do justice to all citizens, rich and poor alike, but to stand for one special class and for its interests as opposed to the interests of others. " - Theodore Roosevelt

Mephisto2

Despite this being a blatant troll, I'll respond.


UNODC - United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime - http://www.unodc.org/unodc/index.html
The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime is mandated to assist member countries in their fight against the illicit drug trade, crime and especially transnational criminal and terrorist organizations and the struggle against terrorism itself. The UNODC works closely with the CTC (Counter Terrorism Committe) and provides active assistance and programmes to all members in drafting legislation, sharing information and intelligence and monitoring terrorist activities across the globe. "A detailed description of UNODC’s activities may be found in the Report of the Secretary-General “Strengthening international cooperation and technical assistance in preventing and combating terrorism” submitted to the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice at its thirteenth session (E/CN.15/2004/8)http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf.../2004/8&Lang=E.

A significant amount of further information is also available at the UN Action Against Terrorism site. http://www.un.org/terrorism/


UNIDIR - United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research - www.unidir.org
Article 26 of the United Nations Charter calls for 'the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world's human and economic resources'. To that aim, the UNIDIR was founded to help the world promote peace and disarmament. "Working with researchers, diplomats, government officials, NGOs and other institutions, UNIDIR acts as a bridge between the research community and United Nations Member States."


IAEA - International Atomic Energey Agency - www.iaea.org
The International Atomic Engergy Agency should be known to almost everyone here. It's been in the news quite a bit recently. Not only does it act to prevent nuclear proliferation and nuclear weapons falling into terrorist hands, but it also helps ensure the safe use [sic] of nuclear power across the globe. The IAEA organizes its activies around "three pillars": Safety and Security; Science and Technology; and Safeguards and Verification. A WhitePaper on the aspects of nuclear weapons and terrorists, and the IAEA's efforts to combat same, can be found at http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus...proliferation&

The IAEA also provides "inspectors" who monitor nuclear facilities to ensure they do not produce nuclear weapons, fuel that can be used in weapons or equipment that can be used to produce weapons. The IAEA is also the body that validates whether countries are abiding by the NNPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty)


CTBTO - Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization - http://www.ctbto.org/
"The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) is a cornerstone of the international regime on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and an essential foundation for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament. Its total ban of any nuclear weapon test explosion will constrain the development and qualitative improvement of nuclear weapons and end the development of advanced new types of these weapons." The CTBTO is working towards ensuring full ratification of this important treaty, which will aid in limiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Please don't go on about how the US doesn't intend to sign this treaty. It's not something to be proud of.


OPCW - Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons - www.opcw.org
The Organization for the Prohibtion of Chemical Weapons is mandated to assist member countries in implementing the Chemical Weapons Convention.

"The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is an international treaty that bans the use of chemical weapons and aims to eliminate chemical weapons, everywhere in the world, forever.

The Convention provides the basis for the OPCW to monitor the destruction of existing stocks of chemical weapons and the facilities used to produce chemical weapons, as well as by checking many industrial sites to ensure that new chemical weapons are not produced. The OPCW also promotes international cooperation and the exchange of scientific and technical information, so that people and governments can benefit from the peaceful uses of chemistry.

Each country that is a member of the OPCW commits itself never to:
use chemical weapons;
develop, produce, acquire, or keep chemical weapons, or transfer chemical weapons to anyone, anywhere in the world; or
assist or encourage, in any way, anything that is prohibited by the Convention.

The destruction of all existing chemical weapons, and the destruction or conversion for peaceful purposes of the facilities used to produce them, is a major goal of the Chemical Weapons Convention and an important aspect of the work of the OPCW. By destroying these weapons and the means of making them, the OPCW strives to ensure that never again can chemical weapons be produced to injure or kill people anywhere in the world."

The US is a supporter of the CWC. At least, it was when I last checked.


DPKO - United Nations Department of Peackeeping Organizations - http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/index.asp
Internationally sponsored and essential peace keeping activities are being undertaken, under the auspices of the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Organizations, in the following countries:

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
The Middle East

Details on UN peace keeping force's casualties and the particulars of each of the above missions can be provided if you want. The United States military are proud members of several of these missions. You do them a disservice with you disrespectful comment.


I could go on, but I think I've made my point.

Now someone HAS mentioned "security/terrorism/world peace".



Mr Mephisto

Mephisto2

Oh and one other thing.

The World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the International Finance Corporation, the World Bank itself, the International Telecommunications Union, the World Intellectual Property Organization, the International Labour Association and much more are all parts of the United Nations.

In other words, the "free" US economy would collapse in a quivering heap without the UN and its consitituent bodies.

Food and pills. Yeah, right...


Mr Mephisto

martinguerre

Yeah, 'cause starving, desparate, uneducated, jobless people NEVER stir up any trouble, or begin to listen to Militant Jihadist Islam as a way out of their otherwise hopeless lives.

As long as they recruit faster than we kill, we're in danger. Stopping sources and root causes of terrorism is the way to make America, and the world, safe.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

mirevolver

The UN has created organizations that are beneficial, such as the World Health Organization, UN AIDS (HIV/AIDS), and UNICEF. But the administrative levels of the UN, the general assembly and the security council, are as corrupt as can be.

If the UN is there to assist people and prevent suffering, then why has nothing been done in the Sudan?

The answer is quite simple. Russia, China and our "friends" the French all have oil interests in the Sudan. All three also have veto votes in the Security Council and are unwilling to do anything that goes against the Sudanese government for fear of losing those oil interests. The end result is that the UN won't even declare the events in the Sudan as genocide.

If you were a member in a club that constantly found ways to blame you for every problem is sees would you be willing to pay the club dues?

The UN continually finds ways to place blame for all the world's problems on the US and then turns around and asks the US to pay them money. Seems like a pretty odd way of asking for money.

Perhaps because according to the Constitution of the United States, the US is the largest political body for Americans. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land and supercedes all treaties with foreign bodies. The UN is a foreign body and therefore if any UN policy is in conflict with the US constitution, the constitution overrides the UN.

At worst, the UN is nothing more than a corrupt orginization. At best, it is nothing more than a bygone tool of the world's only hegemon which has lost its usefulness. In either case, the US could do itself a great favor by pulling out of the UN and kicking them out of New York.

__________________
Aside from my great plans to become the future dictator of the moon, I have little interest in political discussions.

powerclown

The largest, most corrupt, most bureaucratic, most dysfuntional whorehouse ever devised by mankind, run by the 5-6 most powerful countries in the world, purely out of guilt. Just my .02¢

irateplatypus

quite simply... i don't think there are any ringing successes for the UN. that's not to say they haven't tried to better the world with great sincerity at times... just that there isn't anything you can point to that validates the UN as a completely necessary part of international relations.

just watched a BBC 2 hour special on the UN's third world assistance efforts. by the BBC's account, the programs have failed spectacularly in trying to stimulate local economies. the UN has done some good in humanitarian assistance, but there is corruption and little proof the job couldn't have been done more effectively by other avenues.

i think the UNs primary relevance left with the cold war. it was useful to have a table where both NATO and the Warsaw Pact nations could sit at with so much diplomatic posturing. the Soviets are gone and so is the UNs most vital role.

it appears the arenas where the UN could be of the most help (somalia, sudan, rwanda etc.) have been disappointments as far as their involvement goes. the idea that the UN has an inherent benelovence that is missing from national governments is silly. i firmly believe that all the third world assistance and humanitarian aid could be accomplished better by means of individual national contributions.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

D Rice

I don't know i guess it keeps us (the world) from having a world war. I think that is the thoery but i don't see how. They do supple peace keeping troops which is always a good thing.

D Rice

They also do huge research on social issues throughout the world. For instance Aids in Africa and orphans to make the larger wealthier countries aware of the issues of the world

Mephisto2

I find this thread disappointingly depressing.

To me the benefits, the vast benefits of the United Nations are manifest. Yet many seem to recoil from it in horror, spouting nonesense about evil organizations, endemic corruption, fleecing rich countries etc etc.

I have done my best to show that the UN is hugely important to not only the United States, but also the global struggle against crime, hunger, terrorism, famine, disase, lack of education, gender equality, non-proliferation, finance, telecommunications etc.

I've heard nothing from the nay-sayers about how they would improve things, or what organizations they would put in its place. I have repeatedly accepted that the UN could be improved, as could all organizations.

The United States itself is not above corruption. Should it be disbanded?
The United States itself has blatant self interest at heart. Should it be disbanded?

People seem to be ignoring the facts and basing their anti-UN rhetoric on the usual neo-con nonesense or unilateralist cum isolationist propaganda that one hears in the far-right media. Has anyone done any real research here?!

As the "Mighty Dollar" seems to speak more to many of these short-sighted people, as opposed to what is morally right or humanistic in nature, let me repeat some previous assertions.

The UN includes organizations and bodies such as the World Bank and the World Trade Organization. Without these, the US economy would collapse. Ergo, without the UN the US would collapse economically. In other words, without the UN you would probably lose your job.

The UN includes organizations such as the International Telecommunication Union. Without this, there would be absolute chaos in global communication and, if you work in the IT industry you would probably lose your job.

The UN includes organizations such as the World Intellectual Property Organization. Without this, international copyright law would not exist or be totally ineffective. If you worked as an author, in the film industry or maybe even in the music industry, you would probably lose your job.

The United Nations is what handles the COMMERCE, COMMUNICATION, INTERACTION and ENGAGEMENT between nation states. To call for its disbandment is meaningless. You might as well call for the disbandment of nations themselves.

There HAS to be a mechanism for nation-states to interact. The United Nations is that body. As I've said before, it's so much more than the General Assembly. The US ignores the GA anyway, and regularly vetoes Security Council resolutions.

The world needs the United States. The United Nations need the United States. And like it or not, the United States needs the United Nations. To say otherwise is to ignore the plain truth and you might as well stick your head in the sand.


Mr Mephisto

Pacifier

yes, but it is simple. Like Bush said "who is not with us is against us" and since the UN sometimes dares to criticize the US....

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

mirevolver

The reputations of these organizations aren't all that great. The IMF has earned status as the most hated organization in the world because they have a reputation of going into devoloping countries and completly destroying their economies by supplying loans with stringent conditions. The end result is the citizens of the affected countries are worse off than they were before the IMF came in.

The WTO hasn't been doing great things either. Russia, a country that is trying to strengthen their infrastructure and pull themselves out of the economic and social disaster that was the Soviet Union, is not a member of the WTO despite the fact that they really do need international trade to boost their economy. But the WTO has given in to pressure from OPEC and has set as a requirement for membership that Russia place export tariffs on their oil. OPEC can't control Russian oil production and export so they got the WTO to do it for them. Unfortunatly for OPEC and fortunatly for the rest of us, Russia wisely declined to have export tariffs on their oil.

The UN had a purpose at one time. It was a great tool for keeping the cold war cold. But the cold war is over, the Soviet Union is gone and the UN has become nothing more than a relic of a bygone era.

__________________
Aside from my great plans to become the future dictator of the moon, I have little interest in political discussions.

Mephisto2

I actually agree with you on the less than stellar reputation of the IMF and WTO mirevolver.

But the reason I mentioned them is that they are promoters of the US globilization "free trade" ultra-capitalist world order than BushCo and his supporters on this board tout all the time.

Personally, I think globalization and "laissez faire" (for those of you who know your economic history) suck. But that's an economic argument, not one that has to do with the pros and cons of trans-national organizations.

Mr Mephisto

Ustwo

Mr. Mephisto - Just because you list their programs doesn't mean they are successful.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Mephisto2

Ustwo, just because you make one line criticisms with no real content doesn't make them valid.


And this is typical of your approach to debate on this thread.

1) Make a single provocative comment that provides no real contribution to the discussion
2) Wait until it is refuted.
3) Make another, unrelated provocative statement.
4) Wait until it is refuted.
5) Repeat.

At least I did some research, some analysis, provided content and references.

If we take the UNHCR alone, the fact that it has helped over 50,000,000 people rebuild their lives should be enough for even the most callous neo-con...
Or maybe the fact that the WHO (which is part of the UN) effectively erradicated small-pox. Or the thousands of cultural, historic or environmental areas and locations that UNESCO protects. Or the thousands of lives saved by the UN Peace-keepers.

Actually, scratch that. Neo-cons have no hearts at all.

We all know you will knock any and all pro-UN arguments, so there's no point in trying to appeal to your humanitarian side. It's the others people who are perhaps sitting on the fence that I have hopes for.

Oh, and once again, I've yet to hear anything but one line, throw-way, troll-baiting comments. If you actually have some contribution to make, please do so. I know you can, as you evidently showed in the "socialized medicene" thread you started yourself way back... I miss the old Ustwo that actually had something useful to contribute.

Mr Mephisto

thefictionweliv

...

Mephisto2

Nope. No I don't.

I don't support the Libertarian political system, but that's not the issue.

And both Ustwo and I regularly have good-natured sparring on this board. Hence my inclusion of smileys. I'm sure he doesn't need you to step in and make comments about me. I presume you are being sarcastic in your praise.

Mr Mephisto

Charlatan

Mr. Mephisto... Bravo! I am a fan of you on this thread.

I really have nothing to add to the discussion (you have said most of what I would have said... and then some).

Your level headed defence of the UN is admirable.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Irishsean

Hmmmm...

In the town I live in it is illegal for members of the UN to enter the city limits.

__________________
There are no absolute rules of conduct, either in peace or war. Everything depends on circumstances.
Leon Trotsky

roachboy

thanks for your interventions in this thread, mr mephisto
they are an impressive effort.

side notes against the american right:

the ideology about the u.n. owes its shape to the history of american right politics--that this politics requires a fetishism of the Nation is obvious, that this fetishism would be looped through fear of the un--which is itself set up and dedicated to the defense of the nation-state---is a function of the role that john birch society ideology plays in that ideology.
which operates best in a space of fewest facts.

the bircher view runs dangerously close to those fine propositions outlined in the "protocols of the elders of zion"
in this argument, the un is the rootless internationalist conspiracy that is positioned against the interest of those who fancy themselves rooted in blood and soil.
if you listen to really far right radio, you find this paranoia being mapped onto an "international socialist conspiracy that wants to reduce 'real americans' to slavery by taking away 'our' guns."

the step from there to the world jewish conspiracy idiocy is but small.


1. the american right has shifted in ways that allow its core ideology to assimilate whackjob stuff on the order of the birchers is alarming in itself.

2. if there is a force that operates to undermine the notion of the nation-state, it is capitalism, not the un. but because capitalism is an unqualified good in the dreamland of conservative ideology, the anxieties generated by globalization need be channelled somewhere else.
whence the hostility to the un.
it is basic sublimation---a crude reasing of freud built into the shaping of ideology.
the sad thing is that it seems persuasive to some folk.

3. much of the material posted by conservatives above amounts to straight repetition of various elements that have been floated in conservativeland during the period when the bush administration felt it had to justify its illegal and immoral war in iraq by discrediting the un because and only because the unsc did not find the administrations shabby and false case for going outside the sanctions regime compelling.

straight repetition.

for all the emphasis on the freedom of the indivdual you read and hear from conservatives, the degree of groupthink on matters like the un can only really make you laugh.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

silent_jay

Good Show Mr. Mephisto, your posts on his thread have been great in describing just how good the UN is to the world. Much like Charlatan I have nothing else to add as you have said all that needed to be said, I just wanted you to know that you aren't the only person out there who supports and believes in the UN.
That had to be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard Bush say, I mean why not just say go to Iraq or you're next?

The UN dares to criticize the US, why not criticize the US, they do it to everyone else openly, or is the US too thin skinned to be insulted and criticized? Hell if they can give it, they can expect to gt it right back.

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

Ilow

indeed, in fact I don't know how:
a) you type so damn fast
b) manage to stay so levelheaded
Bravo!

__________________
"Religion is the one area of our discourse in which it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about"
--Sam Harris

irateplatypus

mr. mephisto,

it's obvious to me that the UN has a bureau, committee, task force, bank and fund for every noble cause in the world. what isn't apparent is whether the eloquently worded mission statements and a helluva lot of money have translated into real growth among the poorest of nations. all this talk of the poor nations getting poorer... yet that has been one of the missions of the UN and it's surrogate organizations for 50 years. much of the world has not seen improvement economically since the UN's inception. even for the part that has, it would be difficult to draw correlations to UN policies that enabled such growth.

one of your posts listed a lot of regulatory roles of the UN. it's quite a stretch to say that w/o the UN those regulations (that have proven helpful) wouldn't have been made otherwise. that's like saying no terrorists would have been arrested without john ashcroft as attorney general because without an attorney general... how could we prosecute terrorists? well, hell... that's circular thinking. it's ashcroft's job to arrest terrorists like it's the UN's role to make regulatory decisions. simply stating that they have done their respective jobs make no critical observation about how well they're doing them or whether those decisions would have been made more effectively and cheaply by other means.

bottomline: i'm know the UN has done some good things. however, it has been given an enourmous amount of resources and i judge that the world has received very little return for the investment. in some areas (emergency humanitarian aid, third world assistance, economy of resources, fiscal transparency) failures are clearly observable. in their successes there is reason to believe similar achievements could be made other means. it's difficult to prove that the UN is worthwhile on it's own record while there is no other metric by which we can gauge its success.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

aliali

I don't think it is the idea of the UN that bothers people. As irate said, it has a committee and some ideas to solve all of the world's problems. But is it an effective agent towards its various goals? Maybe, maybe not.

It is reasonable to see much of it as corrupt--the oil for food program in Iraq is a big deal to those that don't like the UN. It is also easy to see it as un-American (or is it just the member nations that are un-American?).

To the extent you don't focus on its resolutions regarding war and peace, which it (or is it the spineless member nations?) does not stand up for )"Stop, or I'll say stop again."), I'm sure there are lots of programs with good intentions. Are they run well, with efficiency? Or are they like the charity that spends 85% of the money on fundraising and office spaces for its exec.s? I appreciate the laundry list of things it does, but what does it really do well?

I know it is ensconced in several areas of commerce and wouldn't call for it's demise, but there is nothing wrong with criticising the UN and telling the truth about its screw ups. There is no shortage of venom on these boards for W or Ashcroft or anyone who lives in a red state or anyone who voted for any democrat or repub in the election. The UN is well-deserving of most of the criticism it gets in this country.

roachboy

it's funny reading these vague allegation of corruption--how did this get to be something that sticks?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

aliali

Don't mean to be vague, just don't want to argue every sub-point on an issue so vast. The corruption of the oil-for-food program fits nicely into the viewpoint that many American anti-UN-ites have about lots of issues--the U.N., its Sec'y General, France, Russia, Iraq, etc. A short article is found at: http://washingtontimes.com/national/...2528-7849r.htm

Lebell

The Cato Institute wrote on the subject of UN corruption a few years back:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-253.html

It is much too long to post, but if you are seriously exploring the issue of the UN and whether or not it is worth staying in, you should read it.

After exploring the issue myself, I believe that there is no hope of reforming the UN, mostly because there is no incentive for those who are profiting from it. I say it is time to leave the UN and kick them out of NY...they can use the office space and parking.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Mephisto2

And you believe that without a trans-national body to co-ordinate nation-state interaction, things would just happen?

It's easy to criticise the UN, or claim it should be abandoned, without suggesting a replacement.

The League of Nations, pet project of the US President Wilson for those of you who seem to believe the US is above all this kind of thing, was abandoned and look what happened...

Some of them were regulatory bodies; the ITU for example. Most of them are co-ordinating bodies, financial bodies (funds, banks, development agencies etc), and several of them are simply administrative or developmental.

No it's not.

First of all, I repeatedly said the UN need reforming. For those of you who have not actually read or understood my posts let me repeat myself.

The UN is not perfect.
The UN needs reforming.
The UN, like all bureaucracies, could be streamlined.

That's your bottom line. Thankfully the world disagrees. You may not support the UN, but even the Bush Administration agrees that the UN is required.

As is the case with the United States. Why don't you call for its disbandment?

Such as what? I keep hearing "something else could do what the UN does", or "it needs to be replaced", or "it's an evil organization" (lol).

So, let me ask, AGAIN, with what would you replace it?


Mr Mephisto

mirevolver

Comparing apples to oranges here. The United States is an independant state, a sovereign nation. The US exists in a physical place outlined by borders and governs the land it occupies.

The UN is just an international forum for diplomats to meet and talk. It has no sovereignty, there is no physical area outlined by borders defining it as a state. It is simply the end result of a few treaties put together.

__________________
Aside from my great plans to become the future dictator of the moon, I have little interest in political discussions.