United Nations - Is it working?

[WanderingKnight]

Wandering Knight: This is from wiki, so I can't vouch for its accuracy. With that disclaimer...

"n June 2003 the issue was brought before a United Nations committee, and attempts have been made to open talks with the United Kingdom to resolve the issue of the islands. As far as the Falkland Islands Government and people are concerned, there is no issue to resolve. The Falkland Islanders themselves are almost entirely British and maintain their allegiance to the United Kingdom.[24]

On 2 April 2007 (exactly 25 years after the Argentine invasion), Argentina renewed its claim over the Falkland Islands, asking for the UK to resume talks on sovereignty."

I don't know what sort of info that Wikipedia article is based on, but Argentina has been steadily claiming for a reopen of negotiations over the sovereignty of the islands on the UN Decolonization Committee, and every petition has been approved.

Honestly, the islanders don't have much of a voice here. Though it's debatable, the thing is, they're invaders in the first place, so in the case of a favorable resolution for us their country will have to take care of them. Of course that for the UK there's "no issue to resolve", but there was an actual conflict 26 years ago, and geographically, the islands belong to Argentina.

My point still stands, though--the UK didn't give a damn about the approval of the petition to reopen negotiations.

[yezhanquan]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

I don't know what sort of info that Wikipedia article is based on, but Argentina has been steadily claiming for a reopen of negotiations over the sovereignty of the islands on the UN Decolonization Committee, and every petition has been approved.

Honestly, the islanders don't have much of a voice here. Though it's debatable, the thing is, they're invaders in the first place, so in the case of a favorable resolution for us their country will have to take care of them. Of course that for the UK there's "no issue to resolve", but there was an actual conflict 26 years ago, and geographically, the islands belong to Argentina.

My point still stands, though--the UK didn't give a damn about the approval of the petition to reopen negotiations.

Well, considering that Argentina isn't really high on their list of allies, I don't blame them. But, I digress. If there's a legal case to be fought, then I think the International Court of Justice should be the place to settle it.

Singapore just fought a case at the ICJ, and we won some, lost some there. The important issue is: are both sides willing to accept the verdict of the court?

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by Nightbat®

What use is an organisation that has 0 authority?
that says "don't do that" but noone listens until the shit hit the fan and they're sent to clean up the mess?

A very simplistic view. Again, it's no world government or police organization. It would be foolish to criticize a fork when you have difficulties eating soup with it, so why are you bashing the UN for it? On one hand, you deny the UN any real authority like military forces, and then complain that it alone can't implement world peace? Makes no sense in MY book.

that's what the UN is, and has been since it's beginning

the world's cleaninglady

And I'm glad that we have it. The UN saved more lives on this planet than ANY other organization. Look at the places where the UN did NOT get involved in times of trouble (Burma, beginning of Iraq war) and you see where you usually end up.

a bloody expensive one at that

What's the price of human lives?

[Nightbat®]

Originally Posted by Mentar

A very simplistic view. Again, it's no world government or police organization. It would be foolish to criticize a fork when you have difficulties eating soup with it, so why are you bashing the UN for it? On one hand, you deny the UN any real authority like military forces, and then complain that it alone can't implement world peace? Makes no sense in MY book.

The United Nations (UN) is an international organization whose stated aims are to facilitate cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress and human rights issues. The UN was founded in 1945 to replace the League of Nations, to stop wars between nations and to provide a platform for dialogue.

And I'm glad that we have it. The UN saved more lives on this planet than ANY other organization. Look at the places where the UN did NOT get involved in times of trouble (Burma, beginning of Iraq war) and you see where you usually end up.

...Srebrenica

Good to see there what the price of 8000 human lives was for the UN

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by Nightbat®

The United Nations (UN) is an international organization whose stated aims are to facilitate cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress and human rights issues. The UN was founded in 1945 to replace the League of Nations, to stop wars between nations and to provide a platform for dialogue.

Yea, something it did multiple times. What's your point?

...Srebrenica

Good to see there what the price of 8000 human lives was for the UN

Srbrenica had nothing to do with "costs". Are you trying to argue seriously, or are you just spouting nonsense?

[TinyRedLeaf]

I voted "Others".

The United Nations suffers from many problems, but I don't see any way to fix it short of dissolving the entire organisation and starting over, which would create more problems than it would solve.

The independent humanitarian agencies under the UN fulfill extremely important work that no other organisations can perform at international level. At the moment, for example, the UN Food & Agricultural Organisation's role in helping poor, developing countries deal with soaring food prices is becoming become increasingly apparent, while UNESCO has long played an important role in helping to preserve and spread scientific and cultural knowledge, particularly its World Heritage Centre.

Structurally however, the UN's power hierarchy is far too byzantine for the organisation to work effectively in the areas that really matter, such as peacekeeping operations. The General Assembly has been hijacked by the sheer number of developing countries which are traditionally hostile to developed countries, particularly those from Africa. This has the effect of alienating the rich members of the UN, whose support is needed to finance expensive international programmes.

Then there is the Security Council, which holds true power over the entire organisation. The five permanent members of the Security Council reflect the geopolitics of the post-WWII era, and are completely outdated as a result. The Council has toyed with the idea of including Brazil, India, Japan and Germany for some time, but conflicting interests make such reforms impossible for now.

Finally, there is the Secretariat led directly by the Secretary-General, and apparently, Mr Ban Ki Moon has generated a storm of internal rebellions due to his attempts at rocking the status quo created under Mr Kofi Annan, the previous Secretary-General. It doesn't help that Mr Ban seems out of touch with the internal politics of the UN and has surrounded himself with a cabal of South Korean advisers. This has infuriated diplomats from other countries, who feel that they cannot get in touch with him to discuss policy (or make power-sharing deals, more possibly).

Meanwhile, the UN suffers from corruption and scandals, the most recent being the allegations of sexual abuse by peacekeeping forces and the oil-for-food corruption scandal under Mr Annan.

My opinion? The UN has become a huge, expensive and grossly wasteful talk-shop that gets very little done. However, even the little bits it can accomplish are far better than none. Having the UN around is better than nothing.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Meanwhile, the UN suffers from corruption and scandals, the most recent being the allegations of sexual abuse by peacekeeping forces and the oil-for-food corruption scandal under Mr Annan.

Maybe I'm biased because my own government and its armies have issues like this seemingly quite often, but what government body and what occupational armed forces don't suffer from issues like these?

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Maybe I'm biased because my own government and its armies have issues like this seemingly quite often, but what government body and what occupational armed forces don't suffer from issues like these?

Because they are not a occpational army. They are suppose to be there as a 3rd outside force keeping peace so people can lead peaceful. Of course like everything else with the UN, Reality is different form the Ideal.

[Ledgem]

Well just saying, whatever the purpose is, the UN's peacekeepers are made up of UN members' armies. It isn't like the UN carefully selects its own armed forces and is careful to ensure that these are people who would make good soldiers and diplomats/ambassadors. Thus, to lump sex scandals or other misconduct with peacekeeping forces as a problem with the UN seems a bit strange to me.

[Nightbat®]

Originally Posted by Mentar

Yea, something it did multiple times. What's your point?

You claimed the UN isn't an international policeforce, but with these tasks, it must be or it is useless
and it never prevented a war, it couldn't even stop the nuclear arms race

Srbrenica had nothing to do with "costs". Are you trying to argue seriously, or are you just spouting nonsense?

they stood there and did nothing, while being tasked with protecting the enclave
an organisation costing billions was there to do it's job yet didn't

I said the UN was an expensive cleaning lady, you asked me what the cost was of human lives ....ask the UN, since it seems that actively
preventing genocide is alot more expensive than searching for mass graves

[Viperx]

Since it seems like the UN is getting blamed for all failures of world diplomacy, removing it would leave people with no direction to pass blame.

There is also always the possibility that whoever you direct critisism to will start to do things about the problems, however deserving or undeserving of critisism they are.

So I guess my vote is that its working as intended.
Its just a forum, as powerfull as its member states want it to be.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Viperx

Since it seems like the UN is getting blamed for all failures of world diplomacy, removing it would leave people with no direction to pass blame.

There is also always the possibility that whoever you direct critisism to will start to do things about the problems, however deserving or undeserving of critisism they are.

So I guess my vote is that its working as intended.
Its just a forum, as powerfull as its member states want it to be.

so it is a billion dollar punching bag.

[LiberLibri]

I voted for the second option (yes, but...).

There are huge number of specialised agencies founded in the UN upon art. 57 of the Charter. Some of them have fat and ineffective burocracies, but nobody could assert they should be abondoned. ICAO, ITU and IMO are indispensable for our daily life. ILO, UNESCO and UNICEF have demonstrated certain achievements in the field of fundamental human rights and human development. WHO showed its precious role in the avian flu panic of 2005. The international monetary market demands the control of IMF and World Bank. ICJ and ITLOS are good fora to argue international conflicts by law and fact, not by violence. Today an international convention on the shortage of crops is held in Rome under the auspices of FAO.

However, the Security Council has been paralysed since its birth. Although one of the principal purpose for which the UN was established is "[t]o maintain international peace and security" (art.1 of the Charter), such task has been rarely performed for several reasons. The P5 system is undoubtedly among them. I remember just a few cases where the collective security concept functioned well; Third Middle-East War and Gulf War.

I don't think the existing P5 will agree to diminish their veto power. If they are urged to do so, they will choose rather to ignore the entire framework. Therefore I cannot say the failure "can be fix[ed]".

As for the inetrnational law... I feel the members of Sixth Committee of the General Assembly has done their business not so badly. International treaties made by them including ICCPR and ICESR are well drafted.

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by Nightbat®

You claimed the UN isn't an international policeforce, but with these tasks, it must be or it is useless and it never prevented a war,

I already gave examples where it did. Right now, blue helmets are keeping the peace in Kosovo, and without them we already would have another live war going on there. Likewise on several other trouble spots. Deployments are usually made to keep warring factions ISOLATED from each other.

it couldn't even stop the nuclear arms race

Yea, and it didn't stop global warming either, there's still AIDS and cancer, there's hunger in the world, and Bush actually got reelected too. The UN can't get ANYTHING right.

*shakes head in amazement*

Look, you need to decide WHAT you want. Either you give the UN a hard majority mandate AND allocate sufficient forces to it, THEN you could arguably complain. However, those wiseguys who complain the loudest (most commonly half-informed American supremacists) tend to be the same people who would be the first on the barricades if THAT would actually be proposed.

Initiatives taken and resolutions made by the UNSC are limited to what member states are willing to support. Which is almost always less than what would be desirable. But I prefer a 20% effective organization (particularly in the humanitarian help and peacekeeping areas) over the law of the jungle. Recent history showed us all too well where THAT usually leads.

[Xellos-_^]

The general feeling seems to be a broken UN better then no UN.

and that the UN should be reduce to nothing more then a social gathering for nations to meet face to face and just talk.

The other organizations under UN, World Bank, IMF, WHO might be better off by spinning them off as seperate organization away form the UN.

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

The other organizations under UN, World Bank, IMF, WHO might be better off by spinning them off as seperate organization away form the UN.

Why?

It would only complicate things, would it not?

[2H-Dragon]

I dunno I always liked the UN especially on the note how much they help refugies. Most countries give the big fuck you, full is full bullshit. The UN somewhat forces them to take people in. That is a sign of power no? Sure they didn't cure cancer. Saying it's broken is probably true. Saying it's useless or that it isn't working is a lie.

[Nightbat®]

Originally Posted by Mentar

I already gave examples where it did. Right now, blue helmets are keeping the peace in Kosovo, and without them we already would have another live war going on there. Likewise on several other trouble spots. Deployments are usually made to keep warring factions ISOLATED from each other.

Though I agree the war in Yugoslavia would probably be over now because 1 group finally slaughtered the other
Decisive action could have stopped it well before the bodycount raised to genocide levels
but because there was no money to be made, the UN was sent in to "clean up the mess
100.000 deaths later, they finally had things under control

but it does prove the point that the UN IS a policeforce, yet no one wishes to look at it that way

Yea, and it didn't stop global warming either, there's still AIDS and cancer, there's hunger in the world, and Bush actually got reelected too. The UN can't get ANYTHING right.

*shakes head in amazement*

Look, you need to decide WHAT you want. Either you give the UN a hard majority mandate AND allocate sufficient forces to it, THEN you could arguably complain. However, those wiseguys who complain the loudest (most commonly half-informed American supremacists) tend to be the same people who would be the first on the barricades if THAT would actually be proposed.

Because I called the UN a toothless lion doesn't mean I think they should be

But keep sending in troops half-assed and 1 day we're gonna see bluehelmets
used as gravemarkers
together with the lives they tried to protect

indecisiveness (politics) is gonna bite them in the ass someday

Initiatives taken and resolutions made by the UNSC are limited to what member states are willing to support.
Which is almost always less than what would be desirable. But I prefer a 20% effective organization
(particularly in the humanitarian help and peacekeeping areas) over the law of the jungle.
Recent history showed us all too well where THAT usually leads.

So even the members don't take their utopian organisation seriously, all the more reason to rethink it's existance

might as well leave humanitarian help to the red cross (which has no military threat)
and the peacekeeping to the Americans


Perhaps it looks like I blame the UN for being incompetent
but I know very well that the tool is only as good as the craftsman that uses it

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

has surrounded himself with a cabal of South Korean advisers.

I love how people listen to the propaganda of the people who are trying to maintain the status quo.

[TinyRedLeaf]

You've quoted me slightly out-of-context. My full sentence says:

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

It doesn't help that Mr Ban seems out of touch with the internal politics of the UN and has surrounded himself with a cabal of South Korean advisers.

And I further added:

This has infuriated diplomats from other countries, who feel that they cannot get in touch with him to discuss policy (or make power-sharing deals, more possibly).

Of course, I'm sure South Koreans would feel differently. Regardless of the actual truth, it does seem that Mr Ban's work ethic is clashing with the existing work culture in the Secretariat. So, I'm not confident about his promises to reform the United Nations from within - there are too many entrenched interests in the entire organisation to make revolutionary change possible.