Should we quit the UN

[RayManKiller3]

The problem is, if the U.N do get a standing army, who is going to be the countries that supply them? What will happen if one of the countris in the U.N is the one causing trouble and starts some genocide? Who is their troops going to follow; The U.N or their own country?

That is the problem with a standing army at this moment for the U.N, I don't see how that can be agreed upon at this moment. So for now the U.N is definately going to be a paper tiger.

Politicians can't just look at the U.N, they have their own people to satisfy. I don't see how there can truely be a U.N that has any real strength. I also don't think the U.S will allow its troops to be wearing a U.N uniform or under command of a foriegn general (I could be wrong about that). Was any U.S forces commanded by the U.N during Libya?

 

[MontyB]

Someone needs to write "The UN for Dummies" book.

I really find it amazing, maybe perplexing, perhaps appalling that most of the people in this discussion have no idea what the UN is or what its role is yet you all hate it.

The UN does not need a standing army it has 192 member countries who each have their own military, it is not there as an international police force it is there as a forum, think of it more as a mediator than a policeman.

However when certain circumstances arise it can authorise the use of military force but that takes the worlds politicians to get their **** together and come to an agreement but please note the UN is basically just a building where representative's elected by you and I are meant to solve problems.

So as I have said stop looking at the UN as some independent government it isn't the UN's failings are the failings of world politics and of politicians we all elect, you could bulldoze the UN building tomorrow and disband it entirely and exactly the same problems would still exist.

 

[Seehund]

At the heart of the organization's mounting problems is an almost total lack of accountability, which gives rise to suspicions of wholesale corruption. Existing evidence indicates that corruption and mismanagement go beyond the routine fraud, waste, and abuse of resources that mark all public-sector enterprises.

UN budgets are shrouded in secrecy, and the actual performance of the myriad bureaucracies is translucent, if not opaque. There is no reliable way to determine whether the various and often competing specialized agencies (at least two dozen UN agencies are involved in food and agricultural policy) are doing their jobs, and many UN activities, even if they are of some value, can be carried out better and more efficiently by other groups. Other activities should not be undertaken at all.

Available evidence coupled with the United Nations' unwillingness to undergo a thorough audit raise serious questions about its mission and the means used to carry it out. The former Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali's rationale that the world body is accountable to all its member-states is meaningless. Such an amorphous standard of accountability is akin to saying no one is responsible.

The United Nations is in dire need of reform, starting with a comprehensive, independent audit. Even if a complete audit were performed, however, there is no guarantee anything would be done about the problems identified. And radical change may not be possible, no matter how obvious the need. Given all the earlier, failed attempts to put things right, even on a limited basis, optimism about meaningful reform may be an exercise in wishful thinking.

A half century of experience with the United Nations should have resulted in a real review of its flaws. Instead, supporters of the organization frequently act as though it should be immune from criticism. Far more realism is required if the United Nations is ever to reach its centenary.

Greater realism may lead to the conclusion that the United Nations cannot be salvaged--or at least that the burden of doing so may exceed any prospective benefit. Strip away the sentimental, often self-serving rhetoric, the utopian and hence unachievable aspirations, and it may well be that the international body is no more relevant to the world's problems than the Holy Roman Empire was in its waning decades. If that is the case, we should rid ourselves of the United Nations as Napoleon did Europe of the empire in 1808

 

[MontyB]

I cant really disagree with too much of that however I will disagree with the premise that the UN serves no valuable purpose and say that disbanding the UN as an international forum would be an incredibly bad idea.

There is no doubt that as an organisation it is very bloated and I suspect it has its finger in far too many pies however I highly doubt many of those posting here have a clue about these other functions and that most of the discussion here is solely about its action or lack of action in military matters.

 

[VDKMS]

Anyone knows or seen this movie?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48fRmFapblI"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48fRmFapblI[/ame]

 

[MontyB]

If one wants a completely overhaul of the UN we must consider some things. The voting is one vote for each country, this means that China, with a population of 1.4 billion has the same voting power as Monaco with a population of 36 thousand. On the other hand , China is not a democracy so voting power lies within the political party while in democracies the government is chosen by its people.
A UN army would be OK, but who's going to be the biggest general? Someone from the US? China? or maybe Zimbabwe?
The US pays 22% of the UN budget but has 1 vote, the same as Nicaragua.
Czechoslovakia had one vote, but they split up their country, now the same people have 2 votes (czech republic and Slovakia).
I don't think that (for now) the veto power is not that bad but that France and the Uk might be better replaced with say India and Brasil.
Those are just a few things that pop up into my mind. I really haven't thought about it.

So what fat people don't get 2 votes and obese people 4.

1 vote 1 country and no veto, increase the security council to 20 (incorporating the 5 permanent members+15 elected) and require 75% support for the security council to enact a resolution.

If it gains more than 50% support in the security council but falls short of 75% then the vote goes to the General Assembly at which point it only requires 50%+.

In this way the UN becomes representative of the worlds views (useful for a world organisation) and no one can hide behind a protecting power with veto.

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

So what fat people don't get 2 votes and obese people 4.

1 vote 1 country and no veto, increase the security council to 20 (incorporating the 5 permanent members+15 elected) and require 75% support for the security council to enact a resolution.

If it gains more than 50% support in the security council but falls short of 75% then the vote goes to the General Assembly at which point it only requires 50%+.

In this way the UN becomes representative of the worlds views (useful for a world organisation) and no one can hide behind a protecting power with veto.

Yes, without the veto the most powerful countries can be on a collision course, splendid, that would be the practical result of your suggestion of an extention of the UNSC and if it cannot reach a consensus or 75% or more.

 

[MontyB]

You are saying it is better to have indecision so the most powerful countries can covertly collide?

What exactly is it that the Veto does that is in any way good?

Currently we have Syria acting any way it feels like knowing that Russia will Veto any resolution against it, Israel does as it pleases knowing that American veto will allow it to carry on doing as it pleases and these are a few of the obvious ones.

Show me an instance where Veto has been used to do anything but protect the interests of the bloc it is in.

As I recall it was the US providing Afghan fighters with weapons to kill Russians in the 80s, it was Russian and Chinese equipment being used to kill Americans in Vietnam and Korea so please don't tell me that the power of veto is all that is protecting the world from seeing the big guys slug it out.

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

You are saying it is better to have indecision so the most powerful countries can covertly collide?

What exactly is it that the Veto does that is in any way good?

Currently we have Syria acting any way it feels like knowing that Russia will Veto any resolution against it, Israel does as it pleases knowing that American veto will allow it to carry on doing as it pleases and these are a few of the obvious ones.

Show me an instance where Veto has been used to do anything but protect the interests of the bloc it is in.

As I recall it was the US providing Afghan fighters with weapons to kill Russians in the 80s, it was Russian and Chinese equipment being used to kill Americans in Vietnam and Korea so please don't tell me that the power of veto is all that is protecting the world from seeing the big guys slug it out.

Would you have preferred an open conflict during the Vietnam and the Afghanistan (1980s) between the superpowers of the world or to use the proxy wars, which were common during the cold war? The Veto has its faults, as you said and I agree with you there, but the hidden danger to remove it? It will increase the risk of an open confrontation between the most powerful countries in the world. I would suggest a removal of the right to use veto from the GB and France, the problem would be to make them to accept that.

 

[MontyB]

Personally I think MAD works as a deterrent far better than veto so no I do not believe creating 3rd party wars is a better alternative to 1st party ones.

As for veto having its faults I once again ask you to show me any benefits from it other than to protect tinpot dictatorships within the veto countries sphere of influence, so veto does not have its faults it is a fault, it was a mistake of epic proportions and has probably lead to more deaths than WW2.

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

Personally I think MAD works as a deterrent far better than veto so no I do not believe creating 3rd party wars is a better alternative to 1st party ones.

As for veto having its faults I once again ask you to show me any benefits from it other than to protect tinpot dictatorships within the veto countries sphere of influence, so veto does not have its faults it is a fault, it was a mistake of epic proportions and has probably lead to more deaths than WW2.

So a conventional war between the US and the Soviet Union had been better than the two local wars they fought? Is that what you are saying? The veto prevent from open confrontations, even if I am not personally not so positive to some of the use of the veto. We have not seen a world without these veto rights, so it is very theoretical, but there are many hidden dangers without the veto right for the most powerful countries in the world. A proxy war is bad, but it is much better than a war between powerful countries

 

[MontyB]

So a conventional war between the US and the Soviet Union had been better than the two local wars they fought? Is that what you are saying? The veto prevent from open confrontations, even if I am not personally not so positive to some of the use of the veto. We have not seen a world without these veto rights, so it is very theoretical, but there are many hidden dangers without the veto right for the most powerful countries in the world. A proxy war is bad, but it is much better than a war between powerful countries

Don't ask me ask the countries who's affairs those two have meddled in for the last 70 years so they can fight out some proxy war of ideologies at the cost of countless Afghan, Vietnamese, Palestinian etc. lives, I am prepared to bet that very few third world countries would shed a tear over the demise of either or both of them.

Here is an interesting little fact for ya, the UN involvement in the Korean conflict was only made possible because Russia had walked out of the UN over Taiwan holding the Chinese veto right otherwise they would have vetoed the resolution that got the UN involved in Korea.

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

Don't ask me ask the countries who's affairs those two have meddled in for the last 70 years so they can fight out some proxy war of ideologies at the cost of countless Afghan, Vietnamese, Palestinian etc. lives, I am prepared to bet that very few third world countries would shed a tear over the demise of either or both of them.

One dead is a tragedy, one million dead are statistic, how many people do you think had died if it had been an open conflict between the US and the Soviet Union? Of the two evil we must choose the lesser evil, it was bad for the people in Vietnam and it was bad for the people in the Afghanistan, but they were not casualties of a total war between the superpowers back then, if they were, they had only been a footnote. And I really need to sleep, this is interesting, can we continue tomorrow?

 

[MontyB]

One dead is a tragedy, one million dead are statistic, how many people do you think had died if it had been an open conflict between the US and the Soviet Union? Of the two evil we must choose the lesser evil, it was bad for the people in Vietnam and it was bad for the people in the Afghanistan, but they were not casualties of a total war between the superpowers back then, if they were, they had only been a footnote

I am not sure quoting Stalin is going to help your cause here and why must we choose the lesser of two evils why can't we choose what is right?

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

I am not sure quoting Stalin is going to help your cause here and why must we choose the lesser of two evils why can't we choose what is right?

Damn it! I cannot go to bed now. This is so interesting. What is right and what is wrong? Who decide that? You? Me? The United States? The Soviet Union? China? To quote Stalin has it purpose, what do you prefer? One dead or one million? The consequences of removing the veto can be the latter. The proxy wars ongoing during the cold war were really bad, but a war between them back then, I preferred these proxy wars, or low intensity conflicts

 

[MontyB]

Damn it! I cannot go to bed now. This is so interesting. What is right and what is wrong? Who decide that? You? Me? The United States? The Soviet Union? China? To quote Stalin has it purpose, what do you prefer? One dead or one million? The consequences of removing the veto can be the latter. The proxy wars ongoing during the cold war were really bad, but a war between them back then, I preferred these proxy wars, or low intensity conflicts

The reality is you haven't proved that removing the veto would lead to the dire consequences you suggest hell to date you haven't even given me a positive that has come from a veto.

I would also suggest that "right" is far more accurately determined by a collective decision from 200 countries as opposed to 5.

I also have no doubt you do prefer proxy wars, those of us in countries that are not fighting them most frequently do.

 

[fireoverwater]

The UN ceased to being anything on the world stage decades ago.
Their solution to everything is continual talks and idle threats to these renegade countries and if military intervention is authorised; the limitations placed on the troops virtually make it impossible to do their jobs.

Australia should have left the UN years ago

 

[VDKMS]

So what fat people don't get 2 votes and obese people 4.

that's discrimination.

1 vote 1 country and no veto, increase the security council to 20 (incorporating the 5 permanent members+15 elected) and require 75% support for the security council to enact a resolution.

If they vote for that in the general assembly and it gets a 75% support I'm in.

If it gains more than 50% support in the security council but falls short of 75% then the vote goes to the General Assembly at which point it only requires 50%+.

The problem with the General Assembly is that the resolutions are not binding, so transferring the vote from the security counsil to the general assembly has no use.

In this way the UN becomes representative of the worlds views (useful for a world organisation) and no one can hide behind a protecting power with veto.

You are right about that but isn't it a bit dangerous. How would Russia react if the SC demands a military intervention in Syria? When the big powers cannot veto each other doesn't that enhance the chance of conflict?

 

[VDKMS]

The UN ceased to being anything on the world stage decades ago.
Their solution to everything is continual talks and idle threats to these renegade countries and if military intervention is authorised; the limitations placed on the troops virtually make it impossible to do their jobs.

Australia should have left the UN years ago

The UN is not only about military intervention. They have lots of other departments that do a really good job.

 

[MontyB]

You are right about that but isn't it a bit dangerous. How would Russia react if the SC demands a military intervention in Syria? When the big powers cannot veto each other doesn't that enhance the chance of conflict?

If Russia wants to take on the world over Syria then go for it but remember Russia like the USA and every other country on earth is interlinked through economies and therefore I believe it is unlikely the Russians would let there economy collapse over Syria.