Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Texsox

Alternative to UN

Recommended Posts

In the Sudan thread, SS mentioned that the UN has outlived its usefulness. Some would argue it hasn't, some may claim it never had any usefulness. I'm wondering what y'all think would be the alternative? Every country for itself? No multinational organization. Maybe smaller regional ones? If the world disbanded and started over, what would be better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Something like the EU--so that older and wealthier countries can bar (or make v. difficult) the entering of new poorer, less "cultured," and of different religious background....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, you know, if Bible Prophesy is to come true, the UN better get its act together so we can get on with this Armegeddon thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You pose an interseting question. problem is, there is no better solution. For the UN to truely have any power, it should be able to enforce its 'rulings', which it can't do. What good is passing a 'resolution' condemning something. It does nothing. It should also be free of partisan politics, which one look at the Human Rights Committee will tell you it is not. Or almost any other committee they have. The current model does not work anymore. And without a viable alternative, I see no reason to continue in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the Sudan thread, SS mentioned that the UN has outlived its usefulness. Some would argue it hasn't, some may claim it never had any usefulness. I'm wondering what y'all think would be the alternative? Every country for itself? No multinational organization. Maybe smaller regional ones? If the world disbanded and started over, what would be better?

there is no alternative, it is what is.

 

And responding to other comments

 

And to do away with it is the worst idea, as dangerous of an idea, as one could put forward.

 

The UN does a great deal to foster communication, fight disease and hunger, and make advances on human rights, and there is nothing that can replace the lives saved and nothing is as valuable as forum where people can be heard.

 

Just because the UN is not the US lapdog and won't do our political bidding... Imperial Rome, here we come. Damn those Gauls and Goths and Visigoths who think they live in the world too and won't acknowledge we are their masters. They should do our political agenda or die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UN is screwed up because the Security Council controls what goes down. I mean, there is one theory in historical/political science circles that during the furvor for the Korean war, the Russian SC delegate got so angry that he left. If he didn't leave, he could have vetoed it and we may not have had a Korean war.

 

There are tons of resolutions that have been beaten, despite having votes of 100+ nations to 2 votes (almost always US/Israel vote against = that the resolution will fail) That is something that takes place in both Democratic and Republican presidential regimes. IIRC, we are one of 3 nations in the UN to not endorse CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women)...The other 2 are: Afghanistan and Iran.

 

The same sort of problem exists with the IMF/World Bank/Bretton Woods institutions. When they were created, the founding documents show that the goal of the organizations is to "enrich the 1st world at the expense of the 3rd". Still the US and the Allied nations control way over 60% of the voting ability in the IMF/World Bank. Many developing countries do not even get a voice.

 

There must be more parity in the voices who control these organizations. I mean, it was almost a non-story in the US that during the sanctions and continual US/UK bombings from the "end" of the Gulf War up until OIL (Operation Iraqi Liberation...the original DoD name for this war) that the most people in the history of the UN resigned in protest of the sanctions because they saw it was a genocide (with the bombings contributing to that genocide as well)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just because the UN is not the US lapdog and won't do our political bidding... Imperial Rome, here we come.

That is pure BS.

 

Just kidding. Had to get you good and worked up. ;)

 

It's quite amazing how history often repeats itself, and from that standpoint, the US is really heading toward the same path and political downfalls as Rome.

 

The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire - is quite similiar to the rise and fall of the United States of America.

 

The UN is but only a small part. It has its function, but it has been effectively neutered, much like the League of Nations before it. The United States with its "preemptive doctrine" and the world be damned, is a scary place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there is no alternative, it is what is.

 

And responding to other comments

 

And to do away with it is the worst idea, as dangerous of an idea, as one could put forward. 

 

The UN does a great deal to foster communication, fight disease and hunger, and make advances on human rights, and there is nothing that can replace the lives saved and nothing is as valuable as forum where people can be heard.

 

Just because the UN is not the US lapdog and won't do our political bidding... Imperial Rome, here we come.  Damn those Gauls and Goths and Visigoths who think they live in the world too and won't acknowledge we are their masters.  They should do our political agenda or die.

It also helps to keep Arafat in power in the Mid East, has been ignoring the Sudan for a long while, stole money from the Iraqi people in the Food for Oil scandel, turned a conference about human rights into a 'let's bash Israel' meeting, has some of the worst human rights violators sitting onthe Human Rights Committee, criticizing the US on Human Rights violations and has done pretty much zip in ending slavery where it still exists in Africa. Sure, they foster communication, but their records on other thngs are dubious, at best. Hell, we foster communication here, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there is no alternative, it is what is.

 

And responding to other comments

 

And to do away with it is the worst idea, as dangerous of an idea, as one could put forward. 

 

The UN does a great deal to foster communication, fight disease and hunger, and make advances on human rights, and there is nothing that can replace the lives saved and nothing is as valuable as forum where people can be heard.

 

Just because the UN is not the US lapdog and won't do our political bidding... Imperial Rome, here we come.  Damn those Gauls and Goths and Visigoths who think they live in the world too and won't acknowledge we are their masters.  They should do our political agenda or die.

As a humanitarian group the UN does an excellent job. As a political organization, the UN is a failure. I don't know how you can say the UN isn't a lapdog of the US when all it takes is one vote from the US to derail what the entire rest of the world wants to do. And when it takes one vote to halt anything and everything, the voices of the world are not being heard. For Gods sake they delayed and weakened the resolution because they didn't like the connotations of the word "sanctions". Boy that's gutsy, we'll take sanctions against you if you don't stop allowing militias, which are government "encouraged" to keep raping and killing people. And you have 30 days to do it. But no, that is just too doggone tough. I guess the UN doesn't really get tough until they get up to like a million people like in Rwanda. Boy am I glad there was decisive action taken on... oh wait nevermind.

 

I very much agree with Apu. The UN is effectively our b****. They are totally dependant on the US for just about everything from funding, to troops, to political legitimacy. As a nuetral world political organization, the UN is useless anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It also helps to keep Arafat in power in the Mid East, has been ignoring the Sudan for a long while, stole money from the Iraqi people in the Food for Oil scandel, turned a conference about human rights into a 'let's bash Israel' meeting, has some of the worst human rights violators sitting onthe Human Rights Committee, criticizing the US on Human Rights violations and  has done pretty much zip in ending slavery where it still exists in Africa.  Sure, they foster communication, but their records on other thngs are dubious, at best.  Hell, we foster communication here, too.

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, good morning mr. i4e. You always seem to come around for these threads...

 

:lol:

 

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a humanitarian group the UN does an excellent job.  As a political organization, the UN is a failure.  I don't know how you can say the UN isn't a lapdog of the US when all it takes is one vote from the US to derail what the entire rest of the world wants to do.  And when it takes one vote to halt anything and everything, the voices of the world are not being heard.  For Gods sake they delayed and weakened the resolution because they didn't like the connotations of the word "sanctions".  Boy that's gutsy, we'll take sanctions against you if you don't stop allowing militias, which are government "encouraged" to keep raping and killing people.  And you have 30 days to do it.  But no, that is just too doggone tough.  I guess the UN doesn't really get tough until they get up to like a million people like in Rwanda.  Boy am I glad there was decisive action taken on... oh wait nevermind.

 

I very much agree with Apu.  The UN is effectively our b****.  They are totally dependant on the US for just about everything from funding, to troops, to political legitimacy.  As a nuetral world political organization, the UN is useless anymore.

I know when the US wanted to condemn the killing of the Kurds by Iraq in the UN, they had to provide a provision that Turkey would never be sanctioned for using their army to slaughter 3,000 villages in Kurdistan (northen Turkey) in order to get Turkey to sign on.

 

It sucks having the power of the veto vote in such a small cabal because even though the vast majority believe in something, it could very well get vetoed (as is the case in much legislation that seeks to punish US/Israel for human rights abuses) Saying that Israel votes with the US is almost reflexive, like saying the Ukraine voted with the Soviet Union.

 

William Blum's book "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower" is an excellent read. He is a former member of the State Department writing about foreign policy maneuvers by the US. In his book, he shows a table with hundreds of examples of UN votes where things like "ending military and nuclear collaboration with apartheid S. Africa" to much more recent rights struggles have been voted against and vetoed by the US and voted against by US/Israel, despite overwhelming votes against the two nations. In fact, the invasion of Grenada in 1983 was met with open contempt worldwide in the UN and in S. America only the military (US installed) dictatorships of Chile and Uruguay concurred with Reagan's decision. To this worldwide disapproval Reagan stated:

 

"One hundred nations in the UN have not agreed with us on just about everything that's come before them where we're involved and it didn't upset my breakfast at all." As Blum goes on to write, "One of the evils of the communist states, we were always told, was that they were oblivious to world opinion."

 

The UN needs to tone down its language because they can't afford to piss off a major power broker or they are f***ed if they do. They can't afford to lose the US, UK, etc. so the power brokers get to pick the rules. I remember having to read some Poli Sci stuff that during the post-Nicaragua Samoza death squad scandal, Nicaragua took the US to the Int'l Criminal Court, got a conviction and the US just dismissed the jurisdiction. Nicaragua then went to the UN with the conviction and the US vetoed any action that would be taken against the US for supporting a murderous death squad in Central America. The UN could function if it wasn't bent over the table to the Security Council power brokers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×