It’s not like the GA didn’t start out that way - unless you consider Stalinist Russia a democracy. And, as mentioned, the GA does not have a lot of power, and we have veto power in the SC.
But I think you summarize the problem nicely - how dare any other country be hostile to US interests! We clearly are perfect, and have never done anything worthy of such disdain. Not that there aren’t asshole countries, but dealing with countries hostile to our interests (because the conflict with theirs) is dealing with reality. Hell, we send our jobs to one such country.
I suspect most people don’t understand how UN military forces work, even for the few cases they even fight and aren’t just sitting there to discourage military action by the conflicting states. Except for the blue helmets, they are wearing the uniforms of their countries, and while nominally under command of the UN commander in the field, you can be damn sure they aren’t going to do anything rash. Peacekeepers from Trinidad, say, under UN command are even less likely to attack the US than plain old soldiers from Trinidad. Plus there are usually lots of countries. When I was in the Congo the UN forces consisted of troops from Canada, India, Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Ireland. At least they were ones stationed in Leopoldville. Clearly a conspiracy waiting to happen!
I think the point is that they can “dare” all they want, and we can be distrustful of them as often as they are. Even if we can just agree to disagree, there is no reason to be supportive of countries who are hostile to our interests.
The great thing about the institution, from the American POV, is that we can often use it to further our interests, when they are common interests with some other countries, and it suits us, but we can also pretty much ignore it when we want to. What’s the downside, really, in practice?
I’m supportive of the House of Representatives even though over half the members are hostile to my interests. The countries are there, like it or not, so a place to talk is good. I’m not in favor of letting countries with horrible human rights records onto human rights commissions, though.
As for China, they are far more hostile than some tinpot dictatorship. None of them has sent us poisoned toothpaste.
The UN is no moral authority, it’s decisions are based on the votes of many nations who have their own agendas.
The United States mistrusts outside interference in the same way all nations do on some level. Smaller nations seeking an international voice though, say Togo, have more power speaking in the UN than outside of it and are more likely to see direct benefits so are more likely to be enthusiastic about it.
Most people I know, and myself personally, don’t really dislike the UN. In fact, I could care less about what they do. It’s more that they’re so weak and hold no sway that what they do matters little to me. When a country does something they disagree with they usually just say “no, bad [insert country here, I’ll say Iran for the sake of example] don’t do that”.
There has never been a multinational organization of countries that holds any real power (I’m talking non-military, so excluding NATO).
Sure. But Sitnam seemed to be saying that the UN lacked moral authority because its decisions were based on votes by members each with their own interests. As if voting was a bad way for a diverse group to come to a decision.
I didn’t mean to imply that. There’s nothing wrong with voting.
Nations that can afford to go their own way regardless of world opinion are more likely to look on any organization of world opinion claiming any kind of authority with some disdain. I’m sure Russians, Chinese and French hold the UN in lower regard than we do.
Right, the “I am sending you a strongly-worded letter ordering you to stop the genocide right now, or I shall be forced to send you another letter” syndrome.
I think it may be a case where 60-80% of the US understand that it’s a pretty ineffectual organization for anything other than some talking and the occasional bit of aid. But because it is seen as largely ineffectual and corrupt, they’re really not going to spend a lot of energy arguing against the significant minority who find more sinister motives.
So it may end up sounding worse than it is, because only one side is really bothering with any rhetoric.
It’s rather more than an occasional bit of aid. True, the UN doesn’t have a great track record in stopping actual wars. But in humanitarian relief, economic development, support of emergent democracy, environmental policy, and public health, there are some real achievements that can be credited at least in part to the scope and coordination of United Nations efforts. Smallpox was eradicated, and polio is on the way out, for example.
Here is an American who partly doesn’t like the UN.
I love WHO, WFP etc… I think they’re super fly and I’m glad that we fund them.
But I don’t like that the UN seems to put the crazy racist asshole countries on the same moral plane as decent countries. By belonging to an organization that includes countries like Iran, Sudan, and North Korea, we are legitimizing them to a small degree. It’s kind of like when a news organization interviews the Chief of the Scotland Yard and an IRA terrorist. Putting the 2 in the same news report sends a message that the two are morally similar. They’re not. One targets innocent civilians the other doesn’t.
