Has the UN failed?

Frozzy · March 6, 2003, 03:07

We all (should) know that the League of Nations failed from lack of meat, so to speak.

Has the United Nations failed?

I mean, if anything the only thing stopping a WWIII in the Cold War was nukes. The UN was a mere paper tiger and could no nothing about the rife between communism and capitalism.

Also, today we are seeing rips and tears in the security council system with the veto. As we (almost) saw in Korea, the South would be under Kim Il Sung today if the Russian Delegate hadn't stormed out of the debating chamber.

Any comments?

monkspider · March 6, 2003, 03:20

An interesting question, ultimately it may depend on the upcoming resolution. If the UN folds and gives into US threats, despite the overwhelming population of the world it is supposed to represent being strongly against war, then it will become little more than a puppet of the world's hyperpower. If it somehow stops the resolution, then there may yet be hope for it.

MRT144 · March 6, 2003, 03:23

hyperpower, i like that.

i agree with monkspider, being the ***** of the US does not create a world united.

Dis · March 6, 2003, 03:23

not yet, but it's about to.

Because the U.S.'s involvement in the U.N. will become much less after they veto the resolution to use military force (which I'm certain they will do).

and monk if they do veto the resolution- the U.S. may even withdraw completely- doubtful, but still possible. What will happen to the U.N. then?

Even if they don't withdraw, I think the U.S. will be very wary in the U.N.- and essentually it will be toast.

There is no reason they should be against going to war. Have they forgot what their purpose was in 1991? 1441 anyone?

DinoDoc · March 6, 2003, 03:24

Quote:

Originally posted by monkspider
If the UN folds and gives into US threats, despite the overwhelming population of the world it is supposed to represent being strongly against war, then it will become little more than a puppet of the world's hyperpower

Has it ever been any different for any of the permenent members of the UNSC?

notyoueither · March 6, 2003, 03:28

I think it is about to fail, big time.

Urban Ranger · March 6, 2003, 03:47

Define "fail."

Frozzy · March 6, 2003, 04:25

Easy. Failure to reach its aim of achieving world peace and stability.

Urban Ranger · March 6, 2003, 04:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Frozzy
Easy. Failure to reach its aim of achieving world peace and stability.

Okay.

Are you saying that if the UNSC won't give a green light to the US invasion of Iraq, it has failed?

monkspider · March 6, 2003, 04:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
not yet, but it's about to.

Because the U.S.'s involvement in the U.N. will become much less after they veto the resolution to use military force (which I'm certain they will do).

and monk if they do veto the resolution- the U.S. may even withdraw completely- doubtful, but still possible. What will happen to the U.N. then?

It's difficult to say for sure. If the USA resigned from the UN, it would be highly reminiscent of bad guys like Japan and Italy resigning from the League. It would severely hurt both, and it would put the USA at odds with the world.. If the USA did withdraw, it would almost certainly put the world on the path toward a calamity on a scale unknown since dawn of time.
It is difficult to say what the UN would be like minus the USA, it would probably more interested in various philanthropic causes, but it would also have to constantly stare down a mighty US juggernaut looking to stop it at every pass. Plus, where would the UN move? Paris? Berlin? London?
One thing is certain, the UN cannot become a tool for US expansion, that is the the worst scenario.

Dis · March 6, 2003, 04:36

expansion?

where are we expanding to?

we aren't in the beginning of the 20th century btw.

perhaps aggression is the word you wanted.

Frozzy · March 6, 2003, 04:39

Quote:

Are you saying that if the UNSC won't give a green light to the US invasion of Iraq, it has failed?

And here we go again. Whether Iraq is a threat to world peace or not, keep it to another thread.

The UNSC is designed to strive for world peace and stablitity. Whether Saddam Hussein is an immidiate threat to world peace is up to them.

Straybow · March 6, 2003, 04:45

Quote:

Originally posted by monkspider
One thing is certain, the UN cannot become a tool for US expansion, that is the the worst scenario.

"Jane, you ignorant slut." —Dan Akroyd.

The only country that successfully used the UN to the expansion of its hegemony was the Soviet Union.

I guess it would be the worst scenario for every country in the world to be ruled by an elected representative government tolerant of dissent, economically healthy, educated, etc. My God, what would the liberals complain about then?

Oh, wait… what am I thinking? There's always "animal rights."

MRT144 · March 6, 2003, 04:55

frazzy stop playing debate dodgeball.

Urban Ranger · March 6, 2003, 04:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Frozzy
And here we go again. Whether Iraq is a threat to world peace or not, keep it to another thread.

The UNSC is designed to strive for world peace and stablitity. Whether Saddam Hussein is an immidiate threat to world peace is up to them.

Okay.

If there are no immediate threats to World Peace, how has the UN failed?

CerberusIV · March 6, 2003, 07:39

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2823149.stm

I find the attitude of the Americans quoted in this article unbelievable (assuming they said what they are quoted as saying). In effect they argue that the UN has failed because it is hamstrung by national interests. To me this implies a belief that the interests of the world as a whole are, to them, indistinguishable from US national interests. Unless one believes that the US intentions on Iraq are entirely altruistic and not intended to derive any benefit for the US.

So US national interest = good. Everyone else's national interest = bad (if it is different from the US interest).

If this is the attitude of the current US administration then the UN is over. It also raises the disconcerting spectre that the US administration regards the democratically elected French and Russian governments as not entitled to a legitimate view on world affairs if that view differs from the US one.

Co-operation is a two way street. If the US is going down the road of ignoring any contrary view and imposing its own through money and military muscle, how long before the world is divided into those who jump when the President farts and those who refuse to have anything to do with the US at all. The Cold War will be reborn. Is the American national psyche so fragile that it has to create enemies to feel it is significant?

MRT144 · March 6, 2003, 07:49

CerebrusIV, YOU ARE THE VOICE OF REASON!

Datajack Franit · March 6, 2003, 08:06

UN... pfui

The Viceroy · March 6, 2003, 08:55

not YET ..

But the US is the world super power, wether we like that or not, and to force them outside of the UN (regardless of them being right or wrong) is a huge mistake.

The only power to be in direct risk is Saddam's, and the surrounding arab dictatorships/kingdoms (who may fear a democratic Iraq). I could understand any of them wanting to Veto such an action, but they don't constitute a major power, so don't have that right.

France will not be put in peril by this action, nor China, nor Russia .. they certainly may lose some investment, but its small fry really.

I defend France, China and Russia's right wholeheartedly to disagree, even veto when they feel there national interest is put in danger .. but this doesn't.

If France, China and Russia abstain, and diplomatically state there total disagreement to the American action, and tell the US its on its own .. then that will be a victory for the UN. If any of them Veto what is clearly not a matter of gravity for any of these nations, then that will be a failure, not because they didn't agree with the US, but because they used their Veto to spite the US.

I still think there is hope that the 3 will abstain, and issue a warning, in which case, the UN may still come out of this stronger, not weaker.

Frozzy · March 6, 2003, 23:27

Quote:

If there are no immediate threats to World Peace, how has the UN failed?

Where did I say that?

There have always been immediate threats to the world.

Ted Striker · March 6, 2003, 23:47

Quote:

Originally posted by The Viceroy
not YET ..

But the US is the world super power, wether we like that or not, and to force them outside of the UN (regardless of them being right or wrong) is a huge mistake.

The only power to be in direct risk is Saddam's, and the surrounding arab dictatorships/kingdoms (who may fear a democratic Iraq). I could understand any of them wanting to Veto such an action, but they don't constitute a major power, so don't have that right.

France will not be put in peril by this action, nor China, nor Russia .. they certainly may lose some investment, but its small fry really.

I defend France, China and Russia's right wholeheartedly to disagree, even veto when they feel there national interest is put in danger .. but this doesn't.

If France, China and Russia abstain, and diplomatically state there total disagreement to the American action, and tell the US its on its own .. then that will be a victory for the UN. If any of them Veto what is clearly not a matter of gravity for any of these nations, then that will be a failure, not because they didn't agree with the US, but because they used their Veto to spite the US.

I still think there is hope that the 3 will abstain, and issue a warning, in which case, the UN may still come out of this stronger, not weaker.

Well done Viceroy.

Kramerman · March 7, 2003, 01:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Straybow
"Jane, you ignorant slut." —Dan Akroyd.

The only country that successfully used the UN to the expansion of its hegemony was the Soviet Union.

I guess it would be the worst scenario for every country in the world to be ruled by an elected representative government tolerant of dissent, economically healthy, educated, etc. My God, what would the liberals complain about then?

Oh, wait… what am I thinking? There's always "animal rights."

monkspider · March 7, 2003, 02:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Straybow
"Jane, you ignorant slut." —Dan Akroyd.

The only country that successfully used the UN to the expansion of its hegemony was the Soviet Union.

I guess it would be the worst scenario for every country in the world to be ruled by an elected representative government tolerant of dissent, economically healthy, educated, etc. My God, what would the liberals complain about then?

Oh, wait… what am I thinking? There's always "animal rights."

Stray, if the UN becomes a marionette of American policy, then it will effectively cease to operate as a vehicle of peace and humanitarianism. This is highly undesirable for many reasons. One need only look at American foreign policy over the past fifty years to see that America, the superpower, is only interested hegemonic politics of expansion and empowerment of it's transcendent capitalist instiutions. In other words, the precedent that America has set on the global scene gives humanity much to fear.

Therefore,The reduction of the UN to a de facto US puppet would tear asunder the notion of a international body to check those who would wage aggresive war. Who would take the UN seriously when it is clear that the USA will use it as nothing more than an organ of further expanding it's role as both arbiter and imperator of world affairs. The purpose of the UN is to represent humanity, not the whims of a hyperpower who has hijacked it. It is clear that such a dichotomy would only lead to a general decrease in things such as living standards, democracy, and so forth.

Mr. President · March 7, 2003, 02:42

The U.N. was doomed from day one.

Drake Tungsten · March 7, 2003, 02:43

Why would the UN have to become a "marionette of American policy"? All the US wants is for the UN to hold Iraq to the consequences laid out in SC Resolution 1441. If the SC doesn't pass the new US-UK resolution, then they are effectively saying that they were full of **** when they unanimously passed 1441...

DinoDoc · March 7, 2003, 02:47

Quote:

Originally posted by monkspider
Therefore,The reduction of the UN to a de facto US puppet would tear asunder the notion of a international body to check those who would wage aggresive war.

Check? UN? Are we talking about the samebody?

Mr. President · March 7, 2003, 02:50

The reason the U.N. cannot keep anything in check is because it can't physically force a government to do something. As a result, people are generally free to disregard the U.N. resolutions that they don't like, even on things that some would think are important, such as "Don't torture people" and "Don't poison the planet".

Kramerman · March 7, 2003, 03:21

Quote:

Originally posted by monkspider

Stray, if the UN becomes a marionette of American policy, then it will effectively cease to operate as a vehicle of peace and humanitarianism. This is highly undesirable for many reasons. One need only look at American foreign policy over the past fifty years to see that America, the superpower, is only interested hegemonic politics of expansion and empowerment of it's transcendent capitalist instiutions. In other words, the precedent that America has set on the global scene gives humanity much to fear.

Therefore,The reduction of the UN to a de facto US puppet would tear asunder the notion of a international body to check those who would wage aggresive war. Who would take the UN seriously when it is clear that the USA will use it as nothing more than an organ of further expanding it's role as both arbiter and imperator of world affairs. The purpose of the UN is to represent humanity, not the whims of a hyperpower who has hijacked it. It is clear that such a dichotomy would only lead to a general decrease in things such as living standards, democracy, and so forth.

monkspider, you must be the most diametrically opposed person to me that I know... Of all the people on this forum and in my RL (heh, yeah, i got one of those...

), you are the only one who consistently seem to hold the exact opposite view on everything... I just thought that I would note this, for some reason. Nothing in particular about your post tho.

Kman

monkspider · March 7, 2003, 03:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Kramerman

monkspider, you must be the most diametrically opposed person to me that I know... Of all the people on this forum and in my RL (heh, yeah, i got one of those...

), you are the only one who consistently seem to hold the exact opposite view on everything... I just thought that I would note this, for some reason. Nothing in particular about your post tho.

Kman

No prob bro, at least we both dig Star Wars.

Kramerman · March 7, 2003, 03:42

Quote:

Originally posted by monkspider

No prob bro, at least we both dig Star Wars.

true, true.

I still would never want to shake your hand tho, I have a fear we would instantly annhilate each other and be converted into energy to be returned to the universe...