United Nations
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Current Affairs
Forum Discription: Debates on topical, current World politics
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21822
Printed Date: 29-Apr-2024 at 01:34
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: United Nations
Posted By: Adalwolf
Subject: United Nations
Date Posted: 22-Sep-2007 at 20:01
|
Are you for or against the UN? What are you views on the UN as it is currently? Also, what would happen if the US pulled out of the UN? What would be consequences for the US, the UN, and other countries? ------------- Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail. Edward Abbey |
Replies:
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 22-Sep-2007 at 20:06
|
Personally, I'm against the UN. I want it to be dismantled, or at least have the US pull out of it. Its a useless and corrupt organization. Now, I've that the UN is kept weak intentionally by the US and others, and I believe it, but I would never want a strong UN, as that would erode sovereignty of nations, and be a step towards a one world government, which I am adamently against. ------------- Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail. Edward Abbey |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Sep-2007 at 20:12
|
Better the U.N. than none.
The U.S. simply can't replace the role the United States do. NATO and EU are just local organizations that have not the reach of a UN-
Otherwise, without the UN, It would be only the empire of the force and money.
Sovereign nations are the causes of wars. They has to be controlled, particularly when low I.Q. people get in power.
With respect to corruption in the UN, what do you spect? Tell me one single developed country that doesn't have any corruption scandal at all.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: ArmenianSurvival
Date Posted: 22-Sep-2007 at 20:13
|
What has the U.N. done/accomplished? I mean besides documenting massacres and creating an armed force which is not allowed to engage in combat. ------------- Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։ |
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 22-Sep-2007 at 20:18
I should clarify: I want the US to return to its own soil, and leave the rest of the world alone. Don't bother us (the USA), and we won't bother you. It should have always been this way, but hasn't been the path the US followed for at least 50 years. A return to isolation is needed. ------------- Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail. Edward Abbey |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Sep-2007 at 20:26
|
In that case, what is needed is to empower the UN. I believe it should have a military power for itself, not only a peace-keeper force, but an striking force. If NATO works, why couldn't and international military force work?
But for doing so, it is necessary to build a society were the diverse oppinions are heared. Work together.
Just an example, in the past the U.S. intervined several times in Haiti, and always caused a strong reaction in the locals and world's public oppinion. Today it is the U.N. which is there and for at least the following ten years, many countries of the hemisphere and abroad colaborate with arm forces, and they have the support of the local government.
Just a thought.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Sep-2007 at 20:32
Many things. It is the real first universal organization in the planet. They have put the standards of humanity very high with theirs declarations: human rights, indigenous rights, etc.
They also coordinate lot of team works around the globe in things like education, agriculture, peacekeeping, culture, etc.
Yes, it is not a perfect organization at all, but at least works.
|
Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 22-Sep-2007 at 20:53
|
In total agreement with Pinguin.
The UN can seem powerless and useless from time to time, but that is mainly because nations with a selfish agenda obstructs the attempts for a better world for all.
A better world in terms of Human Rights, pollution, peacekeeping, education, child protection, Third World Aid Programmes, Fugitives etc. etc. - the list is a mile long.
UN is much more than some troops and in issues of Global interest and humanity, they have done and do more than any other current organisation.
But as I said - Indeed sad to see even higly developed countries pushing their own selfish agenda at the cost of others.
~ Northman
------------- |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 22-Sep-2007 at 21:31
|
I went with other because I have not yet made up my mind on this. As an american there is certainly an appeal to what Adalwolf has said in regards to isolationism. I think because we are so large and strong a nation, there is this opinion in all of us of who cares what europe and especially elsewhere like africa think or do it doesn't concern us. With global warming and the extinction of species I think we need to work with other countries to curb our destruction of the environment, (especially this country) though the concern is getting entangled in every little conflict that has nothing to do with us. Perhaps this is because of prior experience like Vietnam and current experience like Iraq. My personal opinion is that there is also this feeling that if we loosen our protectionist policies other countries, especially india and the rest of asia, will start exploiting the environment and other areas to the degree we do and that is the last thing we would want to see.
Anyway, at the moment that is the state of mind for me on this issue. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann 
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Sep-2007 at 00:04
Being the first anything is not really an achievement. I'll admit the UN has managed to coordinate aid... semi-successfully. They're really not achieving any permanent solutions anywhere. Also, their job has nothing to do with culture. If they're altering nations' cultures then what they're really doing is known as cultural assimilation. Peace-keeping is generally pretty unsuccessful too. I'll admit they have a few success stories, but the majority of the peace-keeping missions are undertaken by a small number of countries, which would probably do so anyway. As a global police force, the UN is completely ineffective. They are not efficient in decision making, they inspire little respect or fear, and they're completely corrupt. They act as a Western Capitalist propaganda tool and little else. ------------- |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 23-Sep-2007 at 06:07
|
I'm not sure that anyone who posted in this thread is aware what the UN is actually for. The UN isn't for peacekeeping, or education, or human rights declarations, it can do none of that and still be necessary. The UN isn't for global government or controlling rouge super powers. The UN is a meeting place! The UN is just the collective opinion of the governments of the world. It is a congregation of embassies, where governments can discuss their business with multiple other countries at the same time. If the UN won't agree to something it is because the governments of the world won't agree to something. If the UN is opposing you its because the countries of the world oppose you. Its solders are provided by countries that choose to. It is not an entity in its own right. It is only a secretariat. A country pulling out of the UN is like a person refusing to use a telephone. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Sep-2007 at 10:26
They do what is at theirs hand to do.
There is no alternative, except leaving those countries alone...
Who doesn't respect the UN? I would point to just two countries: Israel and the United States. The first didn't respect the deal for the division of Palestine. The second invaded Iraq against the advice of the UN.
The UN just do what it has power to do. Not much so far because the powerful countries don't want that organism to interfere in theirs business.
With respect to corruption, would you say the UN is more corrupt that the governments of many superpowers? In other terms, even with its corruption the UN is doing something, while the rest do nothing.
Long life to the UN, it is our only hope for global justice and equality. Let's make it strong rather than to destroy it because our particular ambitions. Just imagine what the world would be without the UN. Perhaps it would have dissapeared already because the UN helped to stop the Third World War during the dark days of the Cold War.
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 23-Sep-2007 at 14:52
But the US used to be self-sufficient in resources and markets. It isn't any more.
Otherwise line me up with Pinguin and Omar. And it should be pointed out that the UN is more than just the General Assembly and the Security Council, and it has more to do than peace-keeping. The International Labour Organisation, the World Health Organisation, UNESCO, UNICEF, the IAEA and the rest of the forty or so UN agencies all do invaluable work.
I do think there could be some improvements made to its organisation, and it seems to me that it should be possible to suspend (and deny benefits to) countries that are in flagrant violation of the Declaration on Human Rights.
------------- |
Posted By: akritas
Date Posted: 23-Sep-2007 at 17:07
|
UN at the present reminds me the League of the Nations because is incapable of preventing aggression by the known superpower of the World. Is the poltical tail of the US Foreign policy.
------------- 
|
Posted By: ArmenianSurvival
Date Posted: 23-Sep-2007 at 17:13
So why have they wasted so many resources putting together armed forces and sending them to dozens of countries? I say wasted, because they are not allowed to engage in combat. Thats like giving money and resources to put someone through university, but then not allowing them to use their education for anything. Don't get me wrong, I'm not completely against the UN, it has the potential for good, I just think they do some pointless things.
The UN is not just a place, it has its own bureaucracy which even goes so far as telling some countries what they can and cannot do (not that this is necessarily a bad thing, but it makes the UN more than just a place).
I agree. The main obstacle is the politics that certain powers have in relation to the UN which keeps the UN from addressing certain violations while preaching about others. ------------- Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։ |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 23-Sep-2007 at 18:16
|
I suppose we only see the UN at work when they make fruitcake descisions, and that happens to be quite often. All sorts of screwed up agendas pass through there without notice. I once went into the UN building and it was the first and only time I have ever seen gold plated toilets. ------------- elenos |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Sep-2007 at 20:49
|
The UN is working. For people of the Western Hemisphere, for instance, we are more concerned about our problems rather than with the endless chains of problems of the old world. And our worst nighmare is Haiti: the poorest country in the hemisphere. In there, troops of many countries of the region, with the mandate of the UN and the permission of the Haiti government, are helping to build that society once again from scratch. We think the effort is worth the try. Will it succeed? We hope so. We are wasting our taxes in that and we will keep it going. Those are the things that the UN help to do. Not even the OAS can do it better than the UN in that matter.
|
Posted By: TheARRGH
Date Posted: 24-Sep-2007 at 02:03
|
the UN is...useful. it collaborates with charities, peacekeeping, education programs, etc. the problem is, it doesn't do any of those things as effectively as it could-and in many cases, should. There are three options in regards to it. 1) Dissolve it, which would hurt more then help, burobbing nations of a framework through which to interact and robbing many people of help they desperately need-peacekeeping, economic assistance, etc. 2) Keep it, which is unacceptable since it is in certain situations, ineffective. if it's kept, it should be fixed. somehow. 3)strengthen it, which many are adamantly against. i can understand why-nations should have individual rights. So,The only person i can speak for is myself when i say that I would rather have a international government than see millions of people die because "negotiations are still ongoing". ------------- Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god? "Thou shalt" is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, "I will." - Nietzsche |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 24-Sep-2007 at 02:17
|
Anyone else notice the irony of the change in the U.S. position in regards to the U.N.? In the days of Wilson, the U.S. was the main proponent of an organization like the U.N., now we are at the other end of the spectrum. I don't know what lesson is to be learned from this if any, just found it ironic.
I would be willing to bet if the U.S. were to go back to its isolationist policies like others would like to see, then the U.S. would warm up to the U.N. Afterall, if we were to renounce our self-appointed policeman of the world title then the natural thing to do would be to see the U.N. take our place in one way or another. Afterall, that was the reason Wilson and others wanted an organization like the U.N. in the first place, so that we wouldn't have to become the police-man of the world, especially the old world. We had the monroe doctrine and such, it wasn't any of our business what happened across the pond. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 24-Sep-2007 at 05:38
There might have been a case for saying that a generation or so ago. There's no reason at all for saying it now that the US has lost the power to get UN decisions taken its way, as was so evident in 2003 over the Iraq issue.
Quite apart from the fact that the US no longer has the money to bribe or the power to coerce small nations[1] into following its lead, Russia and China (and of course France and Britain) can still veto any proposed UN action. (Just admittedly as the US can.)
[1] I'm not saying that the US was the only country to indulge in bribery and coercion, merely that it no longer can do it as effectively as it used to. Ironically perhaps, the Bush adminstration has (inadvertently) done a great deal to bring that about.
------------- |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 24-Sep-2007 at 06:12
| UN is dominated by a few stronger nations. I don't see how anyone can describe it as a 'world government' or anything similar to that. |
Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 24-Sep-2007 at 06:15
|
Positive. Very positive. Sure, it could be better, but it's better than
not having anything at all. It's far better to have a place to meet
than not. Meeting and talking is the first step towards solving
problems. As for useless UN peacekeeping, again, if there is but one success out of ten mission it is still success. I've been prepared and basic trained for peace-keeping mission, and those who do go does it out of a genuine interest of doing good and provide safety for those who have none. Even if it is not 100% successive, I think it means a lot that there is at least interest and possibilty for people to risk their own lives in order to save others. All organizations have childhood diseases, and something like the UN, which has never existed prior to the last century, will take quite a while to reach any resemblance of perfection. Only a quitter would give up if his attempts didn't succeed right away. |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 24-Sep-2007 at 11:55
|
Most certainly not the most effective system, but it works sometimes.
United Nations needs more power to be able to check the Superpowers. But it's not gonna happen anytime soon... ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi"> 
Join us. |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 24-Sep-2007 at 12:01
The purpose of the United Nations is to bring all nations of the world together to work for peace and development, based on the principles of justice, human dignity and the well-being of all people. It affords the opportunity for countries to balance global interdependence and national interests when addressing international problems.
The UN emblem shows the world held in the olive branches of peace.
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, AND FOR THESE ENDS to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS. Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.
------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24-Sep-2007 at 12:54
|
I agree with what Styrbiorn said. And apart from that, people always focus on the military/political actions of the UN. Even if those have been failures, organizations like the World Health Organization or the UNESCO have undeniabily done a lot of good work. ------------- |
Posted By: cattus
Date Posted: 25-Sep-2007 at 02:20
Dont isolate just these two countries. Infact, the opposite on Israel is true. Israel accepted the U.N. partitioning of the Palestinian region, it was the Arab countries that didnt. Perhaps the same on the U.S. considering 17 resolutions over a decade were passed threatening Saddam yet the UN would do nothing. Ofcourse, then there is the UN's shameful oil-for-food. Also, lets not exonerate the UN on corruption because other countries or "superpowers" are corrupt as well. The UN is not exactly dealing with its own money, you should refer to Omar's post. He seems to have the best understaning here on how the UN works. Yes, lets hope that this organization can clean up its act, grow a backbone and be a force for good. |
Posted By: ArmenianSurvival
Date Posted: 25-Sep-2007 at 16:51
Because they offered them a West Bank which is divided into 3 isolated regions in which Palestinians cannot even travel freely in their own land due to the Israeli checkpoints, illegal Israeli settlements, and illegal walls. It was a humiliating settlement and they only offered it to the Arabs because they knew they would refuse. The UN still cannot convince Israel to stop building its walls to divide Palestinian lands and stopping its illegal settlements which are once again messing with the demography of the region, despite the fact that both actions are illegal according to the UN. This is the epitome of the UN's futility in such matters. But we will see what happens. ------------- Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։ |
Posted By: akritas
Date Posted: 25-Sep-2007 at 22:30
|
Today in the UN General Assembly confirn that is the first partie that do not respect the Body is the UN, when the President of the UN and former foreign minister of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Srgjan Kerim act as x-foreign affair minister of this Balkan State by ignoring without hesitation its Resolutions .
How we then trust the UN if theirs high-rank officials trespass its Resolutions?
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/113839.html - http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/113839.html
-------------
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 26-Sep-2007 at 12:35
The point was that Israel accepted the partition in 1948. The Arabs didn't in 1948. There were no Israeli checkpoints or walls or occupying troops at that point.
It's not easy to read the map but it looks like the Arab and Israeli sections were both divided into two parts (at a quick look at a small scale map it looks like both were divided into three)
The map is too big to insert directly bit it's viewable at http://www.mideastweb.org/palestine_partition_detail_map1947.jpg - http://www.mideastweb.org/palestine_partition_detail_map1947.jpg
(You have to look carefully at the roads from Haifa to Galilee, and from Jerusalem to Gaza.) ------------- |
Posted By: SuN.
Date Posted: 26-Sep-2007 at 14:27
|
UN is absolutely necessary. They are doing a lot of good work. An expanded security council with Brazil, India, Japan & South Africa would be far better .
------------- God is not great. |
Posted By: ulrich von hutten
Date Posted: 26-Sep-2007 at 17:32
|
It seems to be an issue of Current Affairs, so moved. ------------- 
http://imageshack.us"> 
|
Posted By: ArmenianSurvival
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2007 at 00:43
|
Gcle2003, why on earth would the Arabs agree to give up land to create a state which will be populated mostly by New Yorkers, Londoners, Poles, Germans, etc? ------------- Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։ |
Posted By: TheARRGH
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2007 at 01:46
|
As useful as the UN can be, i think we may eventually need to form a new body-one that is more concrete, efficient, and less able to be stalled. However, many members of the UN would not allow such an entity to be created in the context of the UN, since, as regrettable as it is, some countries view a relatively weak body with little influence as far preferable to anything else for their purposes. Thus, it may become necessary to withdraw from the UN, if only for the purpose of working with other countries to create something different and hopefully better.
------------- Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god? "Thou shalt" is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, "I will." - Nietzsche |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2007 at 08:13
|
Can we honeslty assess what the UN has achieved? The UN is primarily responsible for the current mess in the middle east. The UN has really failed to stop any significant attrocities since its founding. The UN has been utilised by western nations over and over again to legitimise their wars. They have failed in efforts to keep peace, they have failed to be balanced, they have failed at stopping war crimes and genocide. They have, in fact, been responsible for alot of war. Their only significant achievements have been in aid, and even in that they aren't being particularly successful. They are naught but a drain on member's resources. Even as a meeting place the system is fundamentally flawed with the security council and veto powers. ------------- |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2007 at 18:42
|
There is a truth in what you are saying, Zaitsev... UN is ideally good. What is the problem is the "Security Council". United Nations offer peace talk and a guaranteed meeting place as long as international laws are still in effect. I believe United Nations is absolutely necessary. But let's think about this for a moment. Who runs United Nations. Who can say yes and no? Who really matters?
What can Solomon Island do if United States wanted to go to war in Iraq? What could Mexico say when USSR wants to invade Afghanistan? What could Ireland do when Israel advance to Palestine? What can Iceland do if Rwonda gencoide occurs?
In effect, it's not United Nations. It's Union of Superpowers with the support of small powers. If United States wants economical sanction against Iran, it shall be done in the name of United Nations. France, South Korea, Taiwan, India and other small countries have to help out the superpowers. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2007 at 23:45
|
You bet Pekau! If the U.S. want colaborators in wars, it must exist a multinational entity that groups the countries that have to intervine. Rights and duties should be shared. In the case of the Americas, it is a lot better than the U.N. intervines, rather than a single power like the U.S., the OAS unfortunately isn't though in the way of the OTAN. We need an international army and navy to control dictators and loonies in small countries. It should be an international and equalitarian organism where all countries have a saying, and the U.S. and other superpowers should subordinate to it.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2007 at 23:50
|
Well, I for one never want my nation to submit to the whims of any other foreign government or organization. The patriotism in me, even though it has receded greatly in the last year, will never allow me to want the US to be subordinate to anything. ------------- Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail. Edward Abbey |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2007 at 23:59
|
What if say Iran wanted sanctions against America for its wars of aggression and for past funding of terrorists? Not only will it not even be heard because small countries are ignored, but also it would be vetoed by the US.
------------- |
Posted By: TheARRGH
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 02:59
I can see where your coming from. However, If it becomes a choice between saving millions of lives as a "servant" and remaining a sovereign nation alone, I would have to choose the former. IF it becomes a choice between those two. ------------- Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god? "Thou shalt" is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, "I will." - Nietzsche |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 04:27
Yes, it is a good idea to be patriotic. But just don't forget that your bigger country is called planet Earth. From space there are no frontiers and whether we like it or not we live together...
|
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 04:47
|
I think people are a little bit confused about what the UN is responsible for, and what world powers are responsible for. For example, the division of Palestine, although sanctioned by the UN, is an action of the world powers at the time. As much of the world was under occupation at the time (including the Arabs) they didn't get a vote. They weren't invitited to the meeting.
It was a diplomatic decision made at the UN by other powers. As are all UN decisions.
If we want to talk about what the UN actually does, we should look at its beurocratic functions. For example, the ITU (International Telecomunications Union) which lays down the rules for Radiofrequency management amoungst other things. The mangament of this is something the UN actually does. If your opposed to the UN, I wonder if you would also like your neighbouring country broadcasting in frequency bands where you don't want them to. ie, have you TV signal disrupted by mobile phones and vice versa.
------------- |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 04:55
That is so American
 Patriotism is important because it ensures the survival rate. Nothing wrong with it idealy. It's just that when people with that kind of idea caused millions of bloodshed. Serbian assassin probably thought similar thing when he shot the Austrian archduke. That's what Japanese generals must have thought while thousands of Japanese citizens died due to Allied bombardment and, eventually, two cloud mushrooms.
To find perfect balance between nationalism and internationalism will be instrumental for world peace, but that's not gonna happen anytime soon~ ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 14:31
|
Bah. Pekau, the only thing worse than nationalism is internationalism. It'll just create a world government more reprehensible than any national government ever dreams of being.
------------- Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail. Edward Abbey |
Posted By: TheARRGH
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 16:53
and then i'll try to become president of it....  ------------- Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god? "Thou shalt" is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, "I will." - Nietzsche |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 20:34
|
The UN is an anarchonism. An embarassing one. It was setup to be a talking shop, to ensure that the talking remained between the US State Department and the Soviet Foreign Ministry, not the Strategic Air Command and the Strategic Rocket Forces! It was never meant to resolve issues. It was ment to stop fighting. ------------- |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 23:34
It's the opposite, actually. UN is dictated by the Superpowers trying to meet their interests and keep the nations under control by greater good, which is majority of the Superpowers' will. When Iraq attacked Kuwait, UN reacted quickly. When North Korea threatened democratic influence in Far East, UN acted. When Suez Canal was threatened, UN acted. When Balkan regions were exhausting themselves... UN acted to ensure no Superpowers could easily take Balkan (Namely Russia.) UN is dictatorship, absolute monarchy... (Where superpower is are gods)
But you said that UN is anarchonism. Make up your mind, Spartan. Why are you now saying that UN is anarchonism when they are stopping the fight?
------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 23:35
Quite a statement, but statement nevertheless.  ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 23:43
I agree. UN decision is Superpowers' decision supported (Whether they like it or not) by small nations.
What? What UN actually does? You are confusing right there. You just said that UN's decision is Superpowers' decision. That is what UN actually do. That is the reason why we are arguing whether UN should exist or not. What is UN without Russia/former USSR, USA, Britain, France, Germany and China?
And about your example... UN does not decide that without being approved by Security Council. Superpowers are interested in maintaining peace and order in small countries to ensure that their economy stays strong. Why would China want destruction of Canada and US when much of their exports are sold to them? Why wouldn't United States want peace in Burma? Burma' insecure peace and order would mean deline of their economy. All economists remember fall of German Empire in WWI, and the aftermath of Great Depression. One country falls, others fall. Interntional economy is like a food chain. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2007 at 00:42
|
Nothing with people involved is perfect - but we really should ask ourselves: What could replace UN and do better?
UN is very young - give it time to mature and give nations time to listen to other nations - we all can learn from one another.
UN is not the first, but absolutely second to none, the best initiative so far towards a better and safer life, not least for the weakest.
Another example of how important it is to "talk"....
For centuries, most of Europe was a tormentet battlefield of rivalizing nations who only saw one good purpose - their own.
A little club of nations started to talk not too long ago and what came out of that?... EU did.
EU isn't perfect either, far from it - but today it's unthinkable that any nation in Europe would declare war against a neighbor; - and why?
Because of a greater understanding between the countries - because they met, talked - negotiated.
If we could put the petty selfishness aside and get equally far with UN, I think much would have been acheived.
When people stop talking, the guns start talking.
So I'll repeat the question in the first paragraph:
What could replace UN and do better?
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2007 at 02:12
|
Pekau,
SAC and SRF do not exist anymore, the cold war is over, that is why it is an anarchonism.
Northman, implict in the EU are the US security gurantees, the US is not about to let another European war start again. ------------- |
Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2007 at 02:26
I think you confuse effect and cause Sparten - unless you want to claim that EU is an US invention?
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2007 at 02:50
|
Hardly, but the fact that the US gave a security gaurentee to the European Nations against external and internal problems, and the fact that any European conflict is against the interests of the United States is one of the reasons why the EU has succeeded. And has gone further than other initiatives in the past, like the concert of Europe for instance. Also IIRC inter-European travel was actually more intensive pre-1914 then even today. ------------- |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2007 at 03:04
No. Although the countries of the world define the guidelines, in the form of treaties, that the ITU operate under, the ITU is not managed by other countries. It is a function of the UN. There was a need for a world wide regulatory organisation so the ITU was created. ------------- |
Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2007 at 03:31
I think you give US way too much credit in respect to what US can do on European soil. Europeans are more critical than you might think. The European countries also quarrels amongst themselves, but they talk until a settlement is made.
Of course - US is a friend of most EU countries and not interested in war or conflicts amongst its friends and tradingpartners - neither are we and basically you can say - we are all interested in preserving the peace. Thats the first condition for growth and better conditions for everyone. Maybe some parts of the rest of the world could pick up a few hints from that.
I hope your last remark was caused by a temporarily powersurge that emptied your brain for a few seconds - I don't think you really are serious about that.
Pre-1914, normal people didn't even own a bicycle and the few travels that took place crossborder, was exclusively done by the elite, Royalty, Nobelity and a few artists. Normal people walked - so only rarely did they visit the next parish. Today - every family has a car or two and can travel freely (no border control) around Europe. Each day when I drive to work on the highway, I see trucks as well as normal cars from any European country you can think of - for not to mention the airtraffic with millions of travellers.
Wouldn't you like to see Pakistan, India, Afghanistan and all their neighbors in a similar "peaceful" situation?
Back to the UN and the question I asked: What could replace UN and do better?
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2007 at 04:39
|
We had such a peaceful settlement, it was called the Mughal Empire, until the Aurengzeb anyway.
Secondly, sir (though we have had a storm here and a few powersurges today), you seem to forget railroads, which revolutionised transport from the 1850's onwards, indeed, the whole concept of passports was abolished since they could not keep up with the explosion in railtravel, they were not introduced until WWII.
Finally, you give the Yanks too little credit, the presence of US troops has been the greatest guarentee of peace in Europe and the fact that the US is not likely to take kindly to another European war is definatly a factor in squabbles remaining that, squabbles.
------------- |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2007 at 04:44
To be replaced by War on Terror. USSR died, but Chinese pressure is still there. And it just means US has more power now. I believe Russia still is part of Security Council... so there's power shift, but I believe change is not that big. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2007 at 04:47
Indeed. Marshall Plan itself should deserve huge credit. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2007 at 09:09
The UN is not a corrupt organization. It's just an organization prone to corruption but so are all other organizations, including the magnificent goverment of the USA.
It's not useless, unless you think of being useless in promoting only US interests.
A strong UN wouuld not erode the sovereignity of nations, on the contrary, it would protect the weak sovereign nations. Of course, it would affect those nations too, and the big ones also, like it does now, but you can't stop that from happening.
Remember that your idea of self sufficient isolation was tested in the past. After all, it seems that the USN guns were those that made the Japanese Empire wake up, weren't they?
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2007 at 19:18
Mostly they revolutionised transport inside the country, rather than internationally. Northman is quite right, international travel remained the preserve of the better off, though it would be true to say that post 1860 or so, the upper middle classes were able to join the aristocracy. Even as late as the 1920s and '30s travelling abroad was something few Britons did, which is why it was the heyday of the British seaside resorts.
Read any books of the period, novels or whatever and you will get the flavour of travel at the time. Read the Sherlock Holmes stories. Read the Diary of a Nobody. Or even later, read the Diary of an English Country Lady, or check out the passenger list in Vile Bodies or Murder on the Orient Express.
For that matter, do you think any of the De Maupassant or Gottfried Keller or Chekhov characters regularly went to the Costa Brava on holiday?
You mean WW1. In 1920 the League of Nations had to issue 'Nansen passports' to stateless people, because it had become impossible to travel internationally without a passport.
And the Ottoman Empire and Russia, probably among others, never abolished them. However a major reason for not needing a passport was that in many countries people were required to carry identity cards.
At one time that might have been true. It isn't any more. ------------- |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2007 at 20:29
------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |