# What good is the UN? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 18, 2003, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-good-is-the-un/219659 "2003-12-18T00:32:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-good-is-the-un/219659/21 "2003-12-18T05:28:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ale \* > \*\*I think that the beef here is not whith the UN, but with the UNSC, the United Nations Security Council, that indeed is a sorry buisiness, since 4 countries are untouchable by it´s resolutions; IMO, to give teeth to the SC permanent memberships should be abandoned, or, better yet, the SC should be compossed of the totallity of UN members. \*\* I think those same nations would still be untouched by UN resolutions. Marc ---
**Author:** ![DreadCthulhu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DreadCthulhu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DreadCthulhu)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-good-is-the-un/219659/22 "2003-12-18T05:29:45Z")
Of course, to change the nature of the SC would require the approval of all five permanet members, and it would be a cold day in hell before all of them give up that power. ---
**Author:** ![5cents](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/5/46a35a/32.png) [@5cents](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/5cents)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-good-is-the-un/219659/23 "2003-12-18T05:30:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ale \* > \*\*I think that the beef here is not whith the UN, but with the UNSC, the United Nations Security Council, that indeed is a sorry buisiness, since 4 countries are untouchable by it´s resolutions; IMO, to give teeth to the SC permanent memberships should be abandoned, or, better yet, the SC should be compossed of the totallity of UN members. \*\* It’s 5 countries with veto power, not 4. Yes, they are untouchable, but what is the alternative? Who provides the teeth? Big countries, like the permanent members of the security council, don’t want to be bossed around by 10 or 100 little countries. If they lost their veto, or if the security council was abolished, the current permanent mebers would quit. A UN without the US, Russia, and China (and to a lesser extent Britain and France) is completely toothless. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-good-is-the-un/219659/24 "2003-12-18T05:30:48Z")
> [@](#): > > Uruguay or Rwanda have an equal say as powerful nations like the US, France or the UK, especially in non-Security Council issues. Why _shouldn’t_ they? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-good-is-the-un/219659/25 "2003-12-18T05:31:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by 5cents \* > \*\*It’s 5 countries with veto power, not 4. > > Yes, they are untouchable, but what is the alternative? Who provides the teeth? Big countries, like the permanent members of the security council, don’t want to be bossed around by 10 or 100 little countries. If they lost their veto, or if the security council was abolished, the current permanent mebers would quit. A UN without the US, Russia, and China (and to a lesser extent Britain and France) is completely toothless. \*\* Good point. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-good-is-the-un/219659/26 "2003-12-18T05:35:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*Why _shouldn’t_ they? \*\* So long as they provide the same amount of support for UN actions as France or Great Britian then they should have an equal say. Marc ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-good-is-the-un/219659/27 "2003-12-18T05:37:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > **The US should be severely sanctioned for it’s illegal invasion of Iraq. I think a trade embargo similar to what was imposed on South Africa would suffice.** Major economic upheaval and likely a serious recession throughout the world because to the arrogance and foolhardiness of the US President and Congress? Not something I’d like to see. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-good-is-the-un/219659/28 "2003-12-18T05:44:32Z")
How should the US be sanctioned then. Let’s put aside the Iraq invasion. What should be done, hypothetically, to the US if it commits a severe transgression against the charter? ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-good-is-the-un/219659/29 "2003-12-18T05:53:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*How should the US be sanctioned then. Let’s put aside the Iraq invasion. What should be done, hypothetically, to the US if it commits a severe transgression against the charter? \*\* I’d like to know how they could enforce any such sanction. Let’s just pretend that the UN members actually had the power to enforce sanctions against the US. What sanction could be enforced on the United States that also wouldn’t hurt our trading partners like Canada, Mexico, Japan, Thailand, S. Korea, etc? Maybe a stern letter condeming US warmongering would be the most effective thing. Marc ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-good-is-the-un/219659/30 "2003-12-18T05:55:17Z")
The sanctions in S. Africa was suppose to encourage that nation to change their violation of human rights. The purpose of the sanctions in Iraq was to limit their ability to wage wars. What would the purpose of sanctions against the United States be? Marc ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-good-is-the-un/219659/31 "2003-12-18T05:56:28Z")
Well, at the minimum, they should be officially censured with a violation of the Charter…if in fact they are guilty. I’m not sure sanctions or embargo will work with the US though…there are too many other factors, and the worlds economy is too tied into the US’s…it would be like shooting yourself in the foot to spite me. What else could be done? I suppose countries could make it knows that they were unhappy and cool their relations with the US. Sort of a shunning type thing I suppose, but without any actual economic repercussions. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-good-is-the-un/219659/32 "2003-12-18T06:04:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MGibson \* > \*\*The sanctions in S. Africa was suppose to encourage that nation to change their violation of human rights. The purpose of the sanctions in Iraq was to limit their ability to wage wars. What would the purpose of sanctions against the United States be? > > Marc \*\* For one thing it could be a way to force them to withdraw from Iraq and tirn over control to the UN. For another it could force the US to start following the Geneva convention with regards to prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. I don’t like the idea that the US should just be immune to any kind of sanction and have no accountability at all. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-good-is-the-un/219659/33 "2003-12-18T06:07:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*How should the US be sanctioned then. Let’s put aside the Iraq invasion. What should be done, hypothetically, to the US if it commits a severe transgression against the charter? \*\* Perhaps forfeit its veto? ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-good-is-the-un/219659/34 "2003-12-18T06:14:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bump \* > **If the UN had more proportional representation, possibly by some combination of GDP and population(which would account for populous and economically powerful nations) then it would have much more legitimacy in many Americans’ eyes.** So now it would be, screw the poor; right, much better than before. :rolleyes: As to what kind of sanctions could be enforced to i.e the USA, how about a loss of voting rights for an X amount of time on UN resolutions? ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-good-is-the-un/219659/35 "2003-12-18T06:16:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > **For one thing it could be a way to force them to withdraw from Iraq and tirn over control to the UN.** With the UN hauling ass out of Iraq, that would be more than a bit assinine, wouldn’t it? Or is the theory that the UN will make a triumphant return when America leaves? ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-good-is-the-un/219659/36 "2003-12-18T06:19:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*How should the US be sanctioned then. Let’s put aside the Iraq invasion. What should be done, hypothetically, to the US if it commits a severe transgression against the charter? \*\* What does happen? Nothing, as the US is on the Security Council and is an economic, political, and military heavyweight. What would happen if the SC were changed or removed? Probably pretty much the same thing. Whether it’s Panama, Grenada or Iraq, I don’t see the rest of the world voluntarily ham-stringing their economies over it. I know you said putting aside Iraq, but if such an embargo were to be put in place over Iraq, what would be the necessary conditions for ending it: the US leaving Iraq and handing the problem over to the UN? Unfortunately the best source for the manpower for a UN operation to keep Iraq from spiraling into civil war would be the US. I don’t much like the fact that the permanent members of the SC have immunity for their actions, but their power in this respect doesn’t just come from their ability to veto. If China were kicked out of the Security Council, I don’t think a trade embargo over Tibet would be likely to pass either, much as I might like it to. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-good-is-the-un/219659/37 "2003-12-18T06:20:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*For one thing it could be a way to force them to withdraw from Iraq and tirn over control to the UN. > > For another it could force the US to start following the Geneva convention with regards to prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. \*\* Ok, so we’ve got the purpose of the sanctions. How could those goals be successfully pulled off? > [@](#): > > \*\* > I don’t like the idea that the US should just be immune to any kind of sanction and have no accountability at all. \*\* You might not like the idea but realistically that’s just the way it is. The US isn’t really alone in this since there’s no real way to impose sanctions against some of the other more power nations. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Tooth \*\*\* > Perhaps forfeit its veto? \*\* A self-imposed sanction? Marc ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-good-is-the-un/219659/38 "2003-12-18T06:22:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*How should the US be sanctioned then. Let’s put aside the Iraq invasion. What should be done, hypothetically, to the US if it commits a severe transgression against the charter? \*\* Your hypothetical scenario would be something along the lines of the US invading Canada and Mexico. In that case, a sanction from the UN would be irrelevent. The world would be in deeper shit than the UN could dig it out of. NATO would be the organization to look to for acton. Perhaps we should be thankful that the US won the cold war, not the USSR and move on to realistic issues. There is no real way to sanction the sole superpower without plunging the world into economic catastrophe or global war (or both). ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-good-is-the-un/219659/39 "2003-12-18T06:22:46Z")
The Tooth, another great mind 😃 ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2003, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-good-is-the-un/219659/40 "2003-12-18T06:58:11Z")
I don’t think so, **Ale**. I’d probably end up following **D** the **C** or **elucidator** around saying “me too” a lot. > [@](#): > > A self-imposed sanction? > > Marc Is that what it would be? I’m all for the US retaining a vote, just not a deciding vote. Not to punish the US as such, but to keep American Interests from being the deciding factor in how the rest of the world works. Most of the time I’m all for American Interests. Not so the past six months or so. Lately American Interests seem to include lying about the necessity of killing bunches of people. That has to go. I have a feeling it will at about the same time the Bush administration does. If it’s a totally unrealistic idea, then toss it. It was a suggestion, not a solution. But to me it seems a better idea than doing nothing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-good-is-the-un/219659.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-good-is-the-un/219659.md?page=3)