If the UN's credibility comes under question,that's rather because of the arrogant action of the US and its allies(UK....).....in much the same way Germany disregarded the League of Nations before WW2
Printable View
If the UN's credibility comes under question,that's rather because of the arrogant action of the US and its allies(UK....).....in much the same way Germany disregarded the League of Nations before WW2
Perhaps, but at least I'm offering my opinions for discussion instead of...what exactly? It seems you only have condescending soundbites and lectures to bring to the table.Quote:
Originally Posted by agwiii
Do you honestly believe that the process of international relations have improved in recent years, and that President Bush has provided effective leadership in this area?
What do you propose takes the place of the UN? If nothing, do you honestly believe that the international community would accept a single state acting as the world's policeman instead?
The UN is far from perfect, but instead of perpetuating Bush's policy of undermining and discrediting the UN, how about working towards reforming it constructively? It's very easy to criticse, and complain about the ineffectiveness of the UN, but all the time the US is doing this the Bush administration continues to withhold funds owed to UN Peacekeeping efforts, thus making them less able to do the work they are there to perform. So yes, the UN may be ineffective, but there you have one of the reasons why.
Arrows,Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
The Security Council DID invoke Chapter 7, determine there were threats to the peace and had never declared a formal cease fire since the Gulf War as a result of Iraqs lack of compliance with requirements to do so. As no cease fire was ever enacted, all authorities to use force remained in effect.
In my opinion the best hope of resolving issues should be the UN, but history has shown it to be little other than a paper tiger. The Iraq situation is an example of this. In 12 years and after many resolutions they still had not forced compliance with cease fire agreements, nor did they even get close to doing so.
If the worlds best hope at peace lies in an organization who uses terms such as "as necessary means" and "will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations" and backs it only with more words, then it's a huge paper tiger and nothing else.
The situation in Darfur is a current day example of what the UN is capable of. Without strong pressure from individual nations they would not even term the problem genocide. The UN has done little to nothing, individual member states have accomplished a great deal more.
The UN concluded that a peacekeeping mission would hold risks unless the involved parties quit fighting first. Just how stupid is that?
I agree with your point on legal matters being secondary, but unfortunately unless there is defined legalities the organization has failed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
Right now, if any individual or collective of member or non UN member nations stopped the genocide in Darfur the world would support it, "legal" or not. Yet if those same nations failed or created a worse situation the world would condemn it as "illegal".
It shouldn't matter, there are more than enough wealthy and equipped countries to stop what is happening, yet they aren't.
I think the main value of the UN is not in its (potential) ability to sort out the world's problems by acting as a super-national kick-ass force, but rather as the only universally recognized forum where nations can sort out matters between them - and before other nations - without having to go to war. And as such, it's an immensely valuable organization.
You haven't answered my question as to whether you felt so strongly about the UN before Bush told you to...Quote:
Originally Posted by agwiii
Here are a few (very few) of the UN's functions. Then tell me if they are useless. Firstly, weapons inspections. The UN weapons inspectors did an excellent job in Iraq. Their presence contained Saddam Hussein's ambitions with regard to developing new weaponry and helped ensure that there were no weapons of mass destruction there.
Then there have been the numerous humanitarian and peacekeeping operations in which the UN has been involved over the years. In spite of its many faults, which I acknowledge, it has generally proved to be a very effective co-ordinating body for such tasks, crucially ensuring that more countries are brought together to participate than would be the case if operations were merely, for instance, US-led.
And in spite of what some people might think, it is important to have a framework of international law within which to operate, in order to prosecute people in an appropriate way for war crimes and other such things.
Of course the UN is highly inefficient and needs reforming. Unlike you and some others commenting on these issues, I like to think that acknowledge that and don't just see the situation in black and white. However, it is far more of a force for good in spite of these major faults than you believe it to be, and I would far rather that my country worked within the frameworks provided by the UN than acted unilaterally or just in concert with the USA.
I don't think so. Just as an individual shouldn't take law into his/her own hands but let the justice system to take care of the situation the best it can, any single nation shouldn't take international matters into their own hands but let an international body like the UN to take care of it the best it can. I think this is necessary in order to maintain law and order and not cause more and deeper rifts in international relationships. No means no, and the US should learn to understand it just like Iran, North Korea and Sudan should too.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
The US invasion to Iraq was deemed illegal from the word "go".Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
I would like to agree with the former two opinions, however I find it hard to see examples of the UN working to solve any major issue.
For the most part I think that they do a good job of monitoring situations such as the weapons inspectors, or peacekeeping missions. But in both instances they seem to fail when it matters. Iraq simply kicked out the inspectors with nothing other than more resolutions to condemn it, and the peacekeeping missions seem to come after the peace is for the most part already existent.
The one area I can almost agree without condition is that they do a good job of coordinating humanitarian relief efforts, but really often simply identify the need.
Can either of you provide an example in recent history where the actions of the UN alone fixed a real problem?
This is where I cannot agree with you, Arrows, or with BDunnell. The UN is a nice idea, just as the League of Nations was a nice idea. Peace-loving peoples gathering together to talk out their differences, instead of fighting them out. More jaw-jaw and less war-war, as Churchill put it, in uncharacteristically clumsy fashion.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
But the sad truth is that a house is only as strong as the bricks it is made of. You can't build a constructive group of nations working toward peace out of quarrelsome countries, each with its own interests and varying levels of power. Either you leave the quarrelsome, power-hungry member states out of the decision-making process, which is what the Security Council system is designed to do, or you include them, and watch the angry results. There is no way around this. There are numerous national governments whom you wouldn't trust to look after your children on an evening, never mind letting them determine matters of war and peace. What are you to do with these regimes? Let them have a say in determining your foreign policy, risking that they will club together and actually dictate it, or shutting them out, and depriving your international body of all legitimacy? I don't see a third way.
I'd personally like to see the UN be disbanded. maybe NATO too. Even though I'm from a country that is not a member of NATO, many countries within the EU are members of NATO.