Printable View
I think so.
Here's just two, easy to understand reason's.
1)Libya(a well known human rights violator) sits on the Human rights commission.
2)Before the war in Iraq, Iraq's turn was coming up to chair conference on disarmament.
Who with a straight face can honestly tell anyone on this board that this organization has any credibility?
I hope Baghdad Bob isnt an AO member.
Can anyone make an honest rebuttal to my claim? I implore you.
I agree with you completely. It seems to me that the U.N has never been a completely strong board. Besides it takes to long for the U.N to do something about a problem.
Well if it wasn't, it certainly hasn't been helped by the US's gigantic middle-finger action toward international law. Precedent can make or break a law, setting the precedent that anybody with enough firepower / military strength can do whatever-the-hell they want doesn't exactly leave much room for legal process.
The tricky part is where the UN started hedging on its response to violations, telling people that they are naughty can not be the only action taken, setting the precedent on how far they can be pushed before acting... But, then isn't that the idea of imminent danger? Isn't that what we set the precedent against?
The problem is, what do we do without the UN? If one country leads, it can interfere with its "allies's" soveriegnty by power. What is the point of having seperate nations then? To allow for subservient third-world countries to act as cheap labor pools?
To enslave nations through imperialism, or set them free through international democratic process? That is the question that we are really asking. Do we want to rise above those that we are condemning, or wallow in the same filth just on a bigger scale?
If the system is flawed, then it needs improvement. Perhaps EVERYONE needs to start playing by the rules..., that would be a nice start...
Dhej
Quote:
Precedent can make or break a law, setting the precedent that anybody with enough firepower / military strength can do whatever-the-hell they want doesn't exactly leave much room for legal process.
I think you single handedly pointed out the problem with the U.N in this this sentence. The U.N has dropped the ball so many times they have allowed themselves to become accustom to it. This is the precedence they have set for themselves, thus its normal for them to not act in a responsible manor.
Next time Dhej, try not to avoid the issue. Its these types of reason's that the U.N is dead.Quote:
1)Libya(a well known human rights violator) sits on the Human rights commission.
2)Before the war in Iraq, Iraq's turn was coming up to chair conference on disarmament.
The UN is no different then it was ten or twenty years ago. It has always been a toothless tiger security wise but will stay around due to its diplomatic importance (it gives a neutral ground for countries to scream at each other), and the usefulness of some of its member organizations (WHO, various relief groups).
Note that both the USSR and China thumbed there nose at UN rulings long before the US did in Iraq. Also note that China and the US have been on the human rights board for a hell of a long time (its basically a joke and always has been).
Remember the UN isn't really an autonomous organization no matter what the right wing nuts tell you; they are made up of diplomats that have little to no power in their home country The UN has never been anything more then a debating league, its never been a ruling/legislative organization so claming that is dead as one is a little insane. The UN will stay in this same capacity and this will not change unless it develops a military of its on, and that will never happen.
Actually the U.N., for the past few years at least, has been a forum to bash Israel in all honesty. Now I don't want to change the subject here because you all bring up very valid points including that the U.N. will stay around even if it doesn't "actively" tackle security issues.
The U.N. will never have a standing army, never. It's already a street cop on valium, so putting an army directly under it's control would lead the world to ruin. Not to mention how would the soldiers get chosen, etc. etc. THere's too many issues and I'm too sick to type this much anyway.
Peace
I wonder if the state of the U.N. would be different if the HQ was in a different "neutral" country? Der Schweiz (Switzerland) perhaps?
I doubt the UN would be any better if it was housed in a difrent country..at least in the US there is only one countries air space that you need permission to fly through to get here.
As for a standing UN army, I agree fully with you korp, it owuld be an extreamly bad idea. The UN was never ment to be anything more then a debateing soceity for the superpowers to work out their diffrences with out fighting, it was never ment to be a legislative board and should never get that power.
UN has an army. This army is composed with military from all the contries that made the UN. USA is the biggest one. In a post someone has a link to a document where we can see how many military each country "give" to UN but I don't remember it. This is not a "real" army since each gouvernment lend resource. The job of UN is : Peace & security, Economic & Social development, Human Rights, Humanitarian affair and International law (see there web site Here
The U.N. does NOT have a standing army, it requests troops from cooperative Nations and that's how it polices. I say again, it does NOT have an army somewhere training specifically to enforce U.N. policy.... it just doesn't.Quote:
Originally posted here by Ghostdog
UN has an army. This army is composed with military from all the contries that made the UN. USA is the biggest one. In a post someone has a link to a document where we can see how many military each country "give" to UN but I don't remember it. This is not a "real" army since each gouvernment lend resource. The job of UN is : Peace & security, Economic & Social development, Human Rights, Humanitarian affair and International law (see there web site Here
Thanks for paying attention, GhostDog.
Is the United nations dead?
Plainly put - No, but it sure smells that way sometimes.
Good clarification Korp. In addition to having to ask for troops from member nations some member nations, notably the US and Australia rightly refuse to let their troops serve under a foreign commander.
On a side note Golipaly(I am sure the spell on that one is wrong any help?) with mel Gibson is a great movie about the battle that led to the Aussies refusing to ever fallow a foreign commander again.
If we make the bringing together with the business world, we can say that the United Nations employ soldiers of different country like a company requires labour. During the duration of the work, the employees are compared to workmen of the company thus we can compare that and say that the United Nations have an army. Do you see what I mean ?
Yes and no. IfI am employed by a company, even in a contracting form, I sitll have to fallow orders from higher ups in that company, and I can not be pulled out for no reason but have to fallow the contract.
In the UN if a country dosn't like how its troops are used it can pull them, and a number of countries refuse to have a forgin commander, so its more like a company outsourceing a project, with out an iron clad contract with the outsourceing company.
Hahahahaha, thats really funny Korp.Quote:
The U.N. will never have a standing army, never. It's already a street cop on valium
Bballad, why do you say that the U.S. is a joke? For the most part it does an okay job keeping ITS OWN citizens from poor treatment.Quote:
China and the US have been on the human rights board for a hell of a long time (its basically a joke and always has been).
Also Vescovono, [gasp] I agree with Bballad [/gasp] that moving the HQ would do any good.
The US has been sited for numerous human rights violations (admitadly mos where minor..some where not) a lot of hese where during our verious wars commited agenst forgin nationals, but we have more then our share of political prisoners.
do I jump in on this, old topic? The UN will function exactly as the more powerful nations wish it to, which, often is not at all. It follows that with diverse polarities on certain issues no agreement can be reached. This is not always a bad thing, but it can be tedious at times.
I'll answer that... based on the Human Rights Watch report from 1999.Quote:
Originally posted by schoolsucks
Bballad, why do you say that the U.S. is a joke? For the most part it does an okay job keeping ITS OWN citizens from poor treatment.
The US score poorly when it comes to:
- Police abuse
- Conditions in custody
- Asylum seekers and immigrants
- Death penalty
- General discrimination
- International human rights scrutiny
I love statistics. They are so honest. :thumbsup:
now who was who said "there are lies, damned lies and statistics".
(sc)