The UN

[plattbridger]

please dont smite me! ive looked and not seen a thread on the UN etc


anyway how can all these international bodies have any meaning or sway anymore? after things like iraq?

where the UN didnt really do very much nor did it agree on very much

but america and the allies went ahead anyway

and now NATO and its concerns of it being left redundant in the face of this new planned EU army

what exactly has the UN done in mozambique? or anywhere else in the world of late?

has all this international co-operation ended now and instead we just unite behind a strong force be it america or an EU army or someone else?

it seems to me like its been a farce all the way through and the only reason countries ever participated in the UN was because of cold war tensions now thats over no one bothers anymore

the UN countries have never been united and they certainly do not share common ideals and goals

i give it about 25yrs before the UN and other such international bodies become nothing but glorified Christain Aid type things left to clean up the mess of the new political allegiances

[rabid_amoeba]

*sigh* It would appeard that Nato and the UN are going the same way as the League of Nations (their pre-WW2 forebearer).

Once again it has been shown that its easy to make a big country sign a peice of paper, but if they want something, they're not going to obey said document.

This time it would appear that the so called "good guys" are the ones breaking rules, so where does that leave us? Can we still trust other Nations?

However, NATO does have some power, if anyone has seen the "peacekeepers" documentary on UK Horizons or investigated the matter, you will know that troops in Bosnia have done and are still doing a great job calming the tensions and seizing dangers weaponry.

As with the League of Nations, the UN has done some very good work on improving quality of life throughout the world. But, like the League, it is only vulnerable countries that have any respect for it.

[plattbridger]

like i say the UN is good for some sort of glorified Christain Aid sort of thing going out there and helping the starving and uneducated masses etc

but it has NEVER done anything significant

what did it do to sort out things in vietnam? when france couldnt cope it asked britain and america to go in they didnt all sit around the UN table and talk it through

the same with the cuban missile crisis the UN didnt do a great deal to sort that out until the americans phoned the russians and decided to make concessions on both sides by themselves

as for SALT i dunno if that came about as a result of UN action or not cos i cant be bothered researchin it just yet :D


i dont think the UN ever meant much to anyone, especially america, its just a formality the UN was barely at the forefront during the cold war and now if anybody wants to go and invade or oppress anyone then the UN isnt really in a position to stop them- ie iraq or mugabe

and i dont thing any nations have ever trusted one another it was just cold war tension that kept them in the UN and post war tension that kept the League of Nations together


lol its a farce in short and NATO will just end up being surpassed by the planned EU army whether they say it will or not, id like to think britain wouldnt play much of a role in it- lol as much as it gauls me to say it wed be better off allying with america not europe and thats how its going to work in the future methinks

[Micky]

Regarding the UN and the war in Iraq, note that France must be at least mentioned for their almost childish stubbornness. Also, Iraq was an isolated incident of a major power going against the UN, not helped by it being an unusually contentious issue.

I think the UN is still a very important part of the world today. Bear in mind that it goes far beyond just deciding whether or not to invade a country, groups such as UNICEF do an incredibly important job.

edit: Plattbridger - the UN has never done anything of significance? Whilst it is obviously a matter of opinion as to what 'significant' means, Kosovo springs to mind very quickly, and that only comes to mind as one of the more recent, well-covered events.

[plattbridger]

kosovo was NATO micky ;)

lol and a right rollocking they got for it too cos it was a hell of a cock up

[canadian cub]

Bush is the biggest ass besides his vp. no doubt that cheney is named DICK

[canadian cub]

No world leader should be allowd to go to war without going through the UN. Bush showed extreme bad character by doing so.

[GorillaBearBear]

Yep the UN hasn't done anything

The Human Right's laws were completely useless.

Think, please

[leeroy]

oddly enough my class mates and i are about to take part in a model un club so it should be interesting, we will be representing either jamaica or cuba, most probably cuba, hopefully it should be interesting.

[psychohamster]

The U.N is very unstable and has no way to enforce it's authority. It may have the talk, but it has no punch. It's pretty much like the Articles of Confederation, or the Treaty of Versailles, it will eventually fail, i guarentee it.

[Dr-Electro]

Sorry, Psycho, that is not much of a guarantee coming from an induvidual human being who is not at this time a world leader. I'm not discounting your opinion nor denying your right to have an opinion. I'm pointing out that neither your opinion nor mine is powerful enough to stand as a guarantee.

The UN still has influence, but no real authority. Absolutely no world leader alive at the end of WW II would have given over all authority to a body as diverse as the UN. After all, the entire theme of the last World War was Those in Favor of World Dominance (AXIS powers) versus Those Opposed to World Dominance (Allied powers). The UN was supposed to be the organization that helped to stem the tides of war for all time to come.

The UN has not outlived its usefulness as an organization for peace. It may not succeed in the long run, but I have not seen any evidence to indicate that it is breaking up. Have any major nations renounced their membership in the UN? No, not as of today's news reports.

The United Nations is not a ruling body for all the peoples of the world. It is merely a loosely organized body of diplomatic deliberation intended to assist in staying the hand of oppression. If George W. Bush is labeled an oppressor by history and his successors, so be it. It is on his head. History has already condemned Saddam Hussein as an oppressor and he is soon to find history's judgement squarely on his own shoulders.

At this time, I neither condone nor condemn the actions of the United States in overthrowing Hussein's totalitarian regime. Insufficient time has elapsed for anyone to qualify the action as a success or failure. We must wait until the Iraqui government stabilizes to determine the true nature of the enterprise.

If the government of Iraq stabilizes into a democratic state where the Iraqui people are as free as the rest of us seem to be, then I will consider the whole deadly fiasco to have been at least partially successful, whether any WMD are ever found or not.

As for Bush, he is an untrustworthy liar, not only for the lies and ruses he used to ocnvince Congress and the American people to back his idea of invasion, but for all the other schemes he has cooked up dishonestly. I will not waste space here detailing all his sins. I will merely state that even though the end does not justify the means, in this one case, good was accomplished. It matters not to the Iraqui citizenry at large whether Bush is honest or corrupt: they are free of Saddam and the only Iraquis protesting Saddam's downfall are the thugs he was protecting. They amount to a small fraction of the total population and are about to be "pacified" for the present. They will no doubt behave as their kind always do, repeatedly rising up in the future to attempt to coerce the common man of Iraq to bow down to bullying once more, but if their new government is strong enough, they will be dealt with and life will continue in an orderly manner for Iraq.

Having said all that, I urge all who read this thread to respond honestly with your own views and opinions, but please do so in a peaceful fashion. Flaming does not get your point across and neither does spamming. Post all constructive criticisms and arguments, but try to be diplomatic with your posts. Every opinion is equally as valid as any other unless the opinion ceases to be friendly and diplomatic in nature. After that point, it becomes inflammatory. Perfectly useful threads get locked when diplomacy dies.

Be at peace, argue peacefully and respect each other, even if you do not respect each other's opinions. Thank you, peace be with you and good night.

[foxy]

Good points Dr. E.

Also, when looking at the Iraq conflict it is important to take into consideration the policies and manners in which the United Nations Security Council and Generaly Assembly Function as well as the difference between the political reasoning (intended for the american population) and the legal reasoning (intended for the UN). The Lawyers for the coalition found themselves a "loophole" that they could take advantage of (I use the term loophole very loosely here).
The legal reasoning behind the war on Iraq was that the Iraqi government had not followed up with the requirements for their disarmament. This is where is gets dicey, because the United States based their arguments on documents from the international atomic commitee (or acronym that I can't remember I hate acronyms) the information was incomplete. No one before the war would have been able to tell you the exact extent to which Iraq had WMDs. They said that the Iraqi government had not followed the agreement signed at the end of the Gulf War and were in breach of contract. They brought this to the table of the Security Council which voted on it. We all know what happened, what is interesting is the legal manuvering that took place. The issue never made it to the table of the General Assembly where it would have been shot down even more quickly because the United States never closed the issue in the Security Council and the same issue cannot go before the General Assembly and the Security council.

In this situation the US played with the system, and because they are a large power politically they can do so.

The United Nations is very important as it can, does and has acted on two fronts. The United Nations was meant to deal with problems between states to stop the occurance of another world war and it has been ablet ot do that effectively.

However we are now seeing starting in the 90s a trend towards civil war which the United Nations was not prepared to deal with. The Development of the UN peacekeepers (hums Canadian national anthem.. yes that was our idea) is to deal with those internal problems and considering the past history their track record has been questionable.

Why it is quesitonable though is due to the support of the state for peace keeping missions. Since Somalia the United States has been very afraid of letting their troops be killed in battle, one can make a linkage from this to the ethnic cleansing in Rwanda and the lack of action on the part of the UN.

So is the UN important?
There is a need to deter national conflict in an age of mass technology. There is a need for Peacekeepers to help maintain the peace. The United Nations is an important factor within international politics however, as the nature of the state changes I personally believe that those international actors based on state involvement will change as well to adapt to the situation.

[Mexican Pie]

What is the use of the UN if there are nations that do not answer to the UN? It's kind of like a lawless city.

[Explosivo]

Originally posted by plattbridger
please dont smite me! ive looked and not seen a thread on the UN etc


anyway how can all these international bodies have any meaning or sway anymore? after things like iraq?

where the UN didnt really do very much nor did it agree on very much

but america and the allies went ahead anyway




What america did was in someways agreed apon by the UN because it (with the evidense shown at the time) came under one of the UNs Many saction/things which i at one point knew most of but i cant remember at present time

[dead]

I see it that the UN will fail like the allies if they don't enforce commands on the usa or the uk. because hitler wouldn't have invaded poland if they'd thought we would fight back straight away against their weapons.

[squealpiggy]

Realistically noone is going to try and "command" any of the really big world powers. Put it this way, if anyone tried to push around China, the US or the UK the answer would be "...or what?". Same goes for France. Those countries are all not just nuclear powers with enough weaponry to level every major city on earth each, but they are also very influential political and economic powers. The UN is not about to try saying to the Americans "You invade Iraq and we will invade you!" because any country trying to take on the States is committing suicide, in addition the UN cannot say "We will impose sanctions on you" because not only does the US have enough military power in itself to disable any attempts to blockade it, it also has enough economic power to stuff the rest of the world and manage on it's own (to the detriment of the global economy) and furthermore has enough powerful ideological allies to be able to survive any such attempt.

What the UN does and does well is to supervise any action and make sure that the Geneva convention is upheld. It can apply political pressure on governments to keep the peace and it can help with the bureaucracy of sending peacekeeping troops around the world. It isn't there to police the world, it is a political meeting-table where powerful and ideologically similar nations can discuss actions that they are taking.

[foxy]

:D

Good Points made above ( LOVE THIS TOPIC)

Regarding the UN agreement, it may have been agreed that Iraq should not have and create WMDs. However the UN did not agree to coalition forces entering Iraq, this means LEGALLY they were not supposed to be there, and for the UN that is the deciding factor.

Invaision fo Poland and the UN as a sitting duck:
Good point made, but it serves the purposes of those nations to keep the UN at least partially valid. The international system is a horizontal system, meaning that all states are equal (yes some are more equal than others). However, if the major powers look at policy there is a need for the UN within their countries, they will not get rid of it.

The above also goes with what mexican pie said.

THe international system is a lawless system. People follow the rules because it is in their best interest to do so. IF they don't, then others won't. The international legal system is based on an it's better than nothing order to the world.

[plattbridger]

the UN might be there to try and uphold human rights etc but like i say what has it done to uphold human rights in zimbabwe for example?

its not some sort of trade union and if your not a member "tough luck"

and if the only way to get decisive action done is by going outside of the UN then what good is it for full stop anymore a political (policing) force?

[psychohamster]

I repeal my guarentee, perhaps i was too hasty in my accusations. The U.N is still good for a place for nations to meet and discuss their problems, i just say that it needs work.

[squealpiggy]

Originally posted by plattbridger
the UN might be there to try and uphold human rights etc but like i say what has it done to uphold human rights in zimbabwe for example?

its not some sort of trade union and if your not a member "tough luck"

and if the only way to get decisive action done is by going outside of the UN then what good is it for full stop anymore a political (policing) force?

It can only really do anything when there is war with a threat to spill out and effect other nations, such as in Yugoslavia. There is technically no war in Zimbabwe despite the human rights abuses. It would be illegal for the UN to invade Zimbabwe under the UN's own rules.

[foxy]

the UN might be there to try and uphold human rights etc but like i say what has it done to uphold human rights in zimbabwe for example?

its not some sort of trade union and if your not a member "tough luck"

and if the only way to get decisive action done is by going outside of the UN then what good is it for full stop anymore a political (policing) force?


The UN opens the lines of communication making it an important international entity. The international system is a self help system meaning you have to bring yourself and your problems forward to the UN. Legally individuals have little rights in international law which is what the UN works under.

And to a certain point the UN is EXACTLY like the trade unions (see above)

However, when you move against the majority the implications of it can be quite nasty.

I still hold with the idea that the UN does and will have a place in the international spectrum.

[squealpiggy]

Absolutely. Mugabe gets away with it but should he ever make moves on a neighbouring country the UN will have him firmly under their mandate and will take steps against him.

[plattbridger]

well i wasnt advocating the UN invading zimbabwe but then surely the UN would of been useless against hitler for example

he could go around killing jews gyspsies blacks catholics homosexuals etc and so long as he only did it in his own country then its not UNs business? :confused: