What would happen if the UN dissolved?

In various news reports, I have heard that there are rumors that the issue of Iraq might mean the end of the United Nations.

What would happen if the United Nations were not there? Would there be another organization brought into being to replace it? What are the world politic, economic implications?

(I know that this is a farfetched concept for the UN to go under, but the rumors got me thinking)

(basic OP CYA statement: I also know this is not a debate from me, but this is the best place I could figure to put this question and I know this is a debatable subject)

I would hurry to put down a deposit for a river-view condominium on East 44th St.

At the risk of sounding trite: there would be a significantly smaller number of genocidal, murderous dictators making noise in an ineffectual forum, yet using said forum in an attempt to subvert justice and legitimise their regimes.

Probably smaller alliances would take hold, rather than outright worldwide isolationalism.

[hijack]

Are we also seeing the demise of NATO?

[/hijack]

We don’t need the UN, what we need is a league of democratic western nations committed to mutual self defense!

I suppose the US would save about 300 million dollars a year.

Not much, I would guess. The international programs that various sponsor states felt were important enough (maybe UNICEF or something like that. Dunno if it is actually effective, though.) would keep those programs running.

If someone could actually list concrete and real things that the UN has done, it would be easier to WAG what would happen when they are gone, but like I said, I doubt there would any long-term effect in ‘The West’.

For starters, we’d have to figure out how to live without or replace GATT/WTO, IMF, IAEA, IMO, UNESCO, WHO, and the World Bank.
see http://www.un.org/english/
I’d be willing to bet that restructuring the world bank alone would spark several bloody revolutions in the debtor nations, if it’s not done carefully.

I think if the UN were to disappear, it would eventually be replaced by something similar, but more useful. Think back to the League of Nations. It was a joke, it disappeared, and was replaced by the UN. The UN was useful for awhile, but now it’s losing its relevence. I doubt the UN would actually dissolve - I expect it to undergo reforms before it bites the dust - but if it did, I would just expect a repeat of the LoN-UN transition.
Jeff

Right, because the one we have now is so effective at acting in the collective self-defense.

collective and mutual are not necessarily synonymous. The Turkey farce is not collective, but it does have mutual connotations becase the opposing nations do not agree.

The “Turkey farce” is a NATO issue, not a problem arising at the UN.

I was replying to hansel’s ambiguous retort to Xpav. But thanks for trying to fight my assumed ignorance.

The USA could merely withdraw from the UN. That alone would be sufficient.

However, that would mean the USA is a rogue nation.

I can live with that. :smiley:

Well then, I suppose we’d better replace it with an alliance of countries that fall into line whenever the US cracks the whip!

I’d like to see an example of military intervention that has been decided and carried out by the UN or NATO without the US being the one who decided and paid for the bulk of it.

I don’t know if other countries don’t have the political will or the resources to oust a Milosovic or Hussein.

But I think the UN wants to preserve itself more than to promote justice in the world, so member countries know not to annoy the US enough to make it want to leave.

I haven’t a clue as to what would happen if we pulled out and let it collapse. I think it would be something very different from what anybody would speculate right now.

-k