Why On Earth Do We Let The UN Boss Everyone Around?

[d12]

Why do we let the UN into other nations business? They should have no duty in international security.

They are corrupt and inefficient (Dallaire, Rwanda 1994). After 10 Belgian soldiers are killed, the Belgians sound retreat and compromise many other soldiers in the area. They failed to realize there is no reward without a risk. Thousands of Tutsis were killed right infront of UN peacekeepers WHO DID NOTHING! Why? They weren't mandated to! There is no justice. Obviously protocol is more important to them than human lives.

UN Representatives are just appointed and not elected. Therefore it is safe to conclude that they will do everything in their power to ensure that they can make their bosses happy. In otherwords, they fail to complete the task at hand before completing the interests of their respective governments. Example: An American UN delegate would lobby to protect Saudi Arabia before any other OPEC country because of the oil incentive. Yet, we know that Saudi Arabia is a country run on substandard human rights and abusive policies. Another example is China. The Falun Gong and Christians (just to name a few) are being persecuted. The UN does little, if nothing to protect these minorities. The UN has failed to protect the population of it's members.

Canada is the most active peacekeeping force. Yet, we don't have nearly as much funding towards projects as the United States do or any other of the 5 veto seats do. Once again, if a smaller player in the game such as Canada contributes this much, it just goes to show how much the UN organization has failed. The little players are doing the jobs of the bigger countries, yet we don't even recieve recognition?

(Getting ready for a debating tournament on Tuesday
:( and I'm a tad worried.)

[erislover]

For largely the same reason we let all citizens boss all other citizens around, I'd imagine.

[d12]

Well if my country spends all their time and money supporting campaigns that do more harm then good, don't you feel that we should abolish the security council?

[erislover]

If I saw that the two were inexorably linked it would be a good start.

[Splanky]

Oh yeah, I'm thinking of getting about 512 MB RAM, 64 MB Graphics Card, and a processor of 1.5 GHz or higher. Though I'd take anything decent if it's a good grab.

[Splanky]

Oops, wrong thread. I feel so stupid.

[Hermann Cheruscan]

I can see the point of having a "United Nations", but I wish they would move it out of the US and into some country that really gives a rats ass about the UN, such as France.

[d12]

The current structure of the UN is skewed. We're supposed to believe that everyone is equal but it really goes like so:
US > 4 Other Veto Seats > Security Council > General Assembly.

[erislover]

I thought the GA and the SC were more or less independent?

[Polycarp]

Origin of the United Nations (http://www.un.org/Overview/origin.html)

Purpose of the United Nations (http://www.un.org/Pubs/CyberSchoolBus/unintro/unintro.htm)

How our troops got involved (http://www.hqusareur.army.mil/nurevision%20files/htmlinks/history/Brussels.htm)

The inherent cussedness of humankind and inveterate itch to boss each other around may have separated the U.N. from the ideals under which it was founded, but it started out as a good idea, a strong international body to enforce peace, led by the victors of WWII who knew what letting aggressive tyrants run loose might mean. It was made as strong as it was in reaction to the ineffectiveness of the League of Nations, in much the same way as a strong Federal government under the Constitution supplanted the ineffective Congress under the Articles of Confederation.

Hermann, the reason I'm an only child is that my father spent five years overseas when he and Mom could have been having children, and I was conceived about two weeks after her last monthly period -- ever. People of his generation were dead opposed to ever letting the world get into that kind of all-out war, ever again, and put the U.N. in place as part of their defenses against it. I don't know about you, but with all its faults, this is one American that gives far more than a rodent's hindquarters about the U.N. and what it could be.

[Princhester]

Originally posted by Hermann Cheruscan
I can see the point of having a "United Nations", but I wish they would move it out of the US and into some country that really gives a rats ass about the UN, such as France.

I find this comment intriguing. You see the point of the United Nations, but you would prefer that its physical location was elswhere?

Why? What difference does it make? Are you that tight for office space?

Or is this just a backhanded way of saying that you think the US should not be part of the UN?

[Cholo]

I'm curious as to who exactly foots the majority of the U.N.'s bill?

[d12]

The inherent cussedness of humankind and inveterate itch to boss each other around may have separated the U.N. from the ideals under which it was founded, but it started out as a good idea

I'm glad to see that you agree.

[MEBuckner]

We don't let the UN boss everyone around, and in fact the UN doesn't boss anyone around. The sovereign states of planet Earth pretty routinely ignore the UN. On occasion, some of the more powerful of those states--mainly the US--will use the UN as political cover for their actions (the Korean War, the Persian Gulf War), but it's still not the UN "bossing everyone around", it's the sovereign states, mainly the US, "bossing around" (that is, bombing the heck out of) certain other of the sovereign states (North Korea, Iraq). The name United Nations actually goes back to World War II, as a synonym for the Allies. Although after WWII there was an actual organization created under the name "United Nations", complete with a permanent bureaucracy, that organization and bureaucracy have little power and certainly nothing like an army. (Some of the member states of the UN assign some of the troops in their national armies to various peacekeeping missions which are done in the name of the UN. These missions have varying success at actually keeping the peace anywhere; mainly they "monitor" cease-fires in which the participants have already agreed to stop fighting.)

[msmith537]

Well lets at what you said:

Originally posted by d12
Why do we let the UN into other nations business? They should have no duty in international security.

...and...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by d12
After 10 Belgian soldiers are killed, the Belgians sound retreat and compromise many other soldiers in the area. They failed to realize there is no reward without a risk. Thousands of Tutsis were killed right infront of UN peacekeepers WHO DID NOTHING! Why? They weren't mandated to! There is no justice. Obviously protocol is more important to them than human lives.


The UN "peacekeepers" in their white APCS and blue helmets are not cops or actual enforcers of the peace. They are simply lightly armed observers.

The UN does not "boss any nation around" because it is not a world government and has no real power. It is simply a forum for nations to air their greviences.



I don't see that France gives a rat's ass about anything other than France.

[The Calculus of Logic]

Why do people complain about UN intervention? is it more evil than domestic intervention?

Can a UN police officer kick your door down, kidnap you at gunpoint and take you to a prison? The domestic police can though. Why not remark on that?

I used to argue pretty strongly in favor of the International Criminal Court, and it never stopped to amaze me how many people (americans mostly) who felt violated that the UN asked american leadership to sign a document saying we wouldn't commit war crimes. WHen did being asked to sign a treaty saying you wouldn't commit war crimes constitute being 'pushed around'?

The UN has no power, each specific countries domestic military (the police, secret police, etc) and international military do. They are the ones that should be reprimanded for interfering with other people's rights.

[Urban Ranger]

How does the UN boss anybody around? OTOH, the US has been trying to push the Security Council in letting them attack Iraq.

[erislover]

Rather than filing, what, another five or six resolutions?

25th Resolution: "blah blah, bad stuff, and if you don't do something about it we will be really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really upset."

I don't know that I'm a huge fan for war, in fact, wait, I'm not a for war at all in this case, but I'm not a member of the UNSC and if the Security Council is going to pass resolutions that make ultimatums of some kind, it seems a little silly to not act on them.

Any regular criminal would laugh at a cop like that. If they don't want to police the world, then I guess maybe its usefulness has ended; that wouldn't bother me much at all. If it is there to police the world, or at least the part it likes, then of course we're going to have politicians/representatives trying to get action taken. That's politics. Doesn't bother me much either.

You want a forum for politicians but no politics, or a forum for politicians with politics but no action, or what? Should we tighten down on the food for oil program and starve more people? Should we let it all hang loose and forget about it? Honestly, I'm interested. I freely admit I have no solution.

What is the security council for?
What would you have it do that it hasn't already done before in this case?
Would you change it if you don't like what it is for?

[ticker]

Why On Earth Do The UN Let The US Boss Everyone Around?

[ticker]

Why On Earth Do We Let The US Boss The UN Around?

[auRa]

Originally posted by Cholo
I'm curious as to who exactly foots the majority of the U.N.'s bill?

IIRC, each membership country pays a certain amount of money each year to the UN, depending on its size. Technically, the US's "membership fees" should pay for 25% of the general budget and 31% of the peacekeeping expenses. However, the United States has not exactly been a regular payer, and has racked up a debt of 1.8 billion dollars (2001 figure) to the UN.

[Polycarp]

In the Korean War, the U.N., at the behest of the U.S., called for assisting the Republic of Korea (South K.) in resisting aggression from the People's Democratic Republic of Korea (North K.). The U.S. supplied generals and the bulk of the troops, with significant contingents of Canadians, Aussies, and others bolstering what we put in. And the job was to restore the status quo ante and keep North Korea from being in a state where it could repeat the aggression. Why MacArthur was fired was because he refused to carry out the policies decided by the U.N. (under strong U.S. influence) and which he was ordered to carry out by his own Commander-in-Chief.

So the U.N. is not completely powerless -- it can raise an army to carry out its will, with the consent of its member states.

[sqweels]

if the Security Council is going to pass resolutions that make ultimatums of some kind, it seems a little silly to not act on them.

So which is it? Does the UN "boss everyone around" or is it an ineffectual wet noodle that can be defied at will? Should it be made weaker or stronger?

[Azael]

It's easy to focus on the negative with the United Nations... at least try and recognise some of the good that it has done. Why does the UN have any business being involved in international security? Well what exactly is the alternative? A system of secret treaties like the one that led to World War I? Perhaps you would rather emasculate the UN and end up with the League of Nations (who were so instrumental in using sanctions and reprimands to prevent WWII from happening). Wait, you mean its pointless to have a forum for international conflict resolution unless that forum has a way of backing up its decisions? :smack:

You know what they say, ask a stupid question...


Originally posted by Hermann Cheruscan
I can see the point of having a "United Nations", but I wish they would move it out of the US and into some country that really gives a rats ass about the UN, such as France.


And have them go on strike every two weeks?

France cares about herself, just like any other country. Besides, what the hell does it matter where the UN is hosted?


from sqweels
So which is it? Does the UN "boss everyone around" or is it an ineffectual wet noodle that can be defied at will? Should it be made weaker or stronger?


I'm leaning toward the "ineffectual wet noodle" right now, although that might be a blessing in disguise. Apparently some people can't understand why it is important for an organisation like the UN to exist.. (and some people really hate it when they think their nation's sovereignty is in question)

[UDS]

I’m not the first to point out that the OP is confused. The complaint is that we shouldn’t “allow the UN to boss everyone around” but the supporting detail is to the effect that the UN is ineffective, inefficient, and fails to achieve anything.

[d12, you are right to be a tad worried about your debating tournament. All your arguments point to a conclusion which is diametrically opposed to the one you apparently wish to advocate. Think again.]

The UN can only do what its member states allow it to do. Affirmative action requires a positive resolution of the Security Council, and five world powers have a veto in the Security Council. Hence nothing can be done which is not, at a minimum, at least acceptable to those five states. Frequently this means that nothing at all can be done.

At the moment it suits the US administration to bellyache about the ineffectual nature of the UN, and its reluctance to take action to enforce its views. This is a posture. The US administration would be horrified at any serious proposal to make the UN more effective, since this must entail a reduction of the veto power of the US (and the other states with veto power).

During the cold war, the superpower balance functioned to control conflict – wars within]/I] one of the superpower camps were contained, and wars [I]between the superpower camps were unthinkable. This mechanism no longer applies.

The only alternatives are

(a) that the US acts as the world’s policman,

(b) that the UN is strengthened, or

(c) that no attempt is made to control conflict.

I have already suggested that (b) is not acceptable to the US (or to other veto states), but neither of the other alternatives are immediately attractive to the US. Acting as the world’s policeman is not a role which, historically, the US has wished to undertake; arguably they are doing so in the present crisis with Iraq, but it is highly controversial and, if it remains acceptable to the American people, it will only be because vital US interests are perceived to be at stake. The US is certainly not going to take on a “police” role in other disputes unless its own interests are involved. Apart from being unpopular at home, it would be ruinously expensive.

At the same time the US does not want to allow conflicts to be uncontrolled. The US and its citizens have enormous investments and interests outside the US, and they have perhaps a bigger interest than any other country in a peaceful and prosperous world order. And, if nothing else, allowing local and regional conflicts to go unchecked until they expand to a point where they can be seen (by the US electorate) to threaten US interests and then intervening militarily is neither the most efficient nor the most effective way of protecting US interests.

This is a conundrum that the US hasn’t really solved yet. Where do its best interests lie in this matter?

[d12]

I'm curious as to who exactly foots the majority of the U.N.'s bill?
Each member nation is required to pay 0.01 or 0.001% of the budget (this is all just off the top of my head) and it works out so that the poorest countries still pay $102,000USD a year. This is a severe disadvantage to any of the smaller countries.

[erislover]

Originally posted by sqweels
So which is it? Does the UN "boss everyone around" or is it an ineffectual wet noodle that can be defied at will? Should it be made weaker or stronger? I think it is quite strong enough, but there are roadblocks to its effectiveness because of inconsistant and shifting political ideology inherent in democratic systems. Sometimes this is a blessing, sometimes it is not. I do not honestly know which case we are in right now.

[Polycarp]

I’m not the first to point out that the OP is confused. The complaint is that we shouldn’t “allow the UN to boss everyone around” but the supporting detail is to the effect that the UN is ineffective, inefficient, and fails to achieve anything.

[d12, you are right to be a tad worried about your debating tournament. All your arguments point to a conclusion which is diametrically opposed to the one you apparently wish to advocate. Think again.]

During World War II, Churchill's government won a vote of confidence. The circumstances surrounding the motion of no confidence that was defeated are interesting: the man making the motion argued that Churchill had unduly interfered with the generals and admirals charged with fighting the war; the man seconding the motion argued that Churchill had lost the confidence of Commons by not interfering enough with the incompetent generals and admirals who were charged with fighting the war! :confused:

Sounds like that's the problem here!