Should we quit the UN - Page 3




 
--
 
November 14th, 2011  
RayManKiller3
 
The problem is, if the U.N do get a standing army, who is going to be the countries that supply them? What will happen if one of the countris in the U.N is the one causing trouble and starts some genocide? Who is their troops going to follow; The U.N or their own country?

That is the problem with a standing army at this moment for the U.N, I don't see how that can be agreed upon at this moment. So for now the U.N is definately going to be a paper tiger.

Politicians can't just look at the U.N, they have their own people to satisfy. I don't see how there can truely be a U.N that has any real strength. I also don't think the U.S will allow its troops to be wearing a U.N uniform or under command of a foriegn general (I could be wrong about that). Was any U.S forces commanded by the U.N during Libya?
November 14th, 2011  
MontyB
 
 
Someone needs to write "The UN for Dummies" book.

I really find it amazing, maybe perplexing, perhaps appalling that most of the people in this discussion have no idea what the UN is or what its role is yet you all hate it.

The UN does not need a standing army it has 192 member countries who each have their own military, it is not there as an international police force it is there as a forum, think of it more as a mediator than a policeman.

However when certain circumstances arise it can authorise the use of military force but that takes the worlds politicians to get their **** together and come to an agreement but please note the UN is basically just a building where representative's elected by you and I are meant to solve problems.

So as I have said stop looking at the UN as some independent government it isn't the UN's failings are the failings of world politics and of politicians we all elect, you could bulldoze the UN building tomorrow and disband it entirely and exactly the same problems would still exist.
November 14th, 2011  
Seehund
 
At the heart of the organization's mounting problems is an almost total lack of accountability, which gives rise to suspicions of wholesale corruption. Existing evidence indicates that corruption and mismanagement go beyond the routine fraud, waste, and abuse of resources that mark all public-sector enterprises.

UN budgets are shrouded in secrecy, and the actual performance of the myriad bureaucracies is translucent, if not opaque. There is no reliable way to determine whether the various and often competing specialized agencies (at least two dozen UN agencies are involved in food and agricultural policy) are doing their jobs, and many UN activities, even if they are of some value, can be carried out better and more efficiently by other groups. Other activities should not be undertaken at all.

Available evidence coupled with the United Nations' unwillingness to undergo a thorough audit raise serious questions about its mission and the means used to carry it out. The former Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali's rationale that the world body is accountable to all its member-states is meaningless. Such an amorphous standard of accountability is akin to saying no one is responsible.

The United Nations is in dire need of reform, starting with a comprehensive, independent audit. Even if a complete audit were performed, however, there is no guarantee anything would be done about the problems identified. And radical change may not be possible, no matter how obvious the need. Given all the earlier, failed attempts to put things right, even on a limited basis, optimism about meaningful reform may be an exercise in wishful thinking.

A half century of experience with the United Nations should have resulted in a real review of its flaws. Instead, supporters of the organization frequently act as though it should be immune from criticism. Far more realism is required if the United Nations is ever to reach its centenary.

Greater realism may lead to the conclusion that the United Nations cannot be salvaged--or at least that the burden of doing so may exceed any prospective benefit. Strip away the sentimental, often self-serving rhetoric, the utopian and hence unachievable aspirations, and it may well be that the international body is no more relevant to the world's problems than the Holy Roman Empire was in its waning decades. If that is the case, we should rid ourselves of the United Nations as Napoleon did Europe of the empire in 1808
--
November 14th, 2011  
MontyB
 
 
I cant really disagree with too much of that however I will disagree with the premise that the UN serves no valuable purpose and say that disbanding the UN as an international forum would be an incredibly bad idea.

There is no doubt that as an organisation it is very bloated and I suspect it has its finger in far too many pies however I highly doubt many of those posting here have a clue about these other functions and that most of the discussion here is solely about its action or lack of action in military matters.
November 25th, 2011  
VDKMS
 
Anyone knows or seen this movie?

January 26th, 2012  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
If one wants a completely overhaul of the UN we must consider some things. The voting is one vote for each country, this means that China, with a population of 1.4 billion has the same voting power as Monaco with a population of 36 thousand. On the other hand , China is not a democracy so voting power lies within the political party while in democracies the government is chosen by its people.
A UN army would be OK, but who's going to be the biggest general? Someone from the US? China? or maybe Zimbabwe?
The US pays 22% of the UN budget but has 1 vote, the same as Nicaragua.
Czechoslovakia had one vote, but they split up their country, now the same people have 2 votes (czech republic and Slovakia).
I don't think that (for now) the veto power is not that bad but that France and the Uk might be better replaced with say India and Brasil.
Those are just a few things that pop up into my mind. I really haven't thought about it.
So what fat people don't get 2 votes and obese people 4.

1 vote 1 country and no veto, increase the security council to 20 (incorporating the 5 permanent members+15 elected) and require 75% support for the security council to enact a resolution.

If it gains more than 50% support in the security council but falls short of 75% then the vote goes to the General Assembly at which point it only requires 50%+.

In this way the UN becomes representative of the worlds views (useful for a world organisation) and no one can hide behind a protecting power with veto.
January 26th, 2012  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
So what fat people don't get 2 votes and obese people 4.

1 vote 1 country and no veto, increase the security council to 20 (incorporating the 5 permanent members+15 elected) and require 75% support for the security council to enact a resolution.

If it gains more than 50% support in the security council but falls short of 75% then the vote goes to the General Assembly at which point it only requires 50%+.

In this way the UN becomes representative of the worlds views (useful for a world organisation) and no one can hide behind a protecting power with veto.
Yes, without the veto the most powerful countries can be on a collision course, splendid, that would be the practical result of your suggestion of an extention of the UNSC and if it cannot reach a consensus or 75% or more.
January 26th, 2012  
MontyB
 
 
You are saying it is better to have indecision so the most powerful countries can covertly collide?

What exactly is it that the Veto does that is in any way good?

Currently we have Syria acting any way it feels like knowing that Russia will Veto any resolution against it, Israel does as it pleases knowing that American veto will allow it to carry on doing as it pleases and these are a few of the obvious ones.

Show me an instance where Veto has been used to do anything but protect the interests of the bloc it is in.

As I recall it was the US providing Afghan fighters with weapons to kill Russians in the 80s, it was Russian and Chinese equipment being used to kill Americans in Vietnam and Korea so please don't tell me that the power of veto is all that is protecting the world from seeing the big guys slug it out.
January 26th, 2012  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
You are saying it is better to have indecision so the most powerful countries can covertly collide?

What exactly is it that the Veto does that is in any way good?

Currently we have Syria acting any way it feels like knowing that Russia will Veto any resolution against it, Israel does as it pleases knowing that American veto will allow it to carry on doing as it pleases and these are a few of the obvious ones.

Show me an instance where Veto has been used to do anything but protect the interests of the bloc it is in.

As I recall it was the US providing Afghan fighters with weapons to kill Russians in the 80s, it was Russian and Chinese equipment being used to kill Americans in Vietnam and Korea so please don't tell me that the power of veto is all that is protecting the world from seeing the big guys slug it out.
Would you have preferred an open conflict during the Vietnam and the Afghanistan (1980s) between the superpowers of the world or to use the proxy wars, which were common during the cold war? The Veto has its faults, as you said and I agree with you there, but the hidden danger to remove it? It will increase the risk of an open confrontation between the most powerful countries in the world. I would suggest a removal of the right to use veto from the GB and France, the problem would be to make them to accept that.
January 26th, 2012  
MontyB
 
 
Personally I think MAD works as a deterrent far better than veto so no I do not believe creating 3rd party wars is a better alternative to 1st party ones.

As for veto having its faults I once again ask you to show me any benefits from it other than to protect tinpot dictatorships within the veto countries sphere of influence, so veto does not have its faults it is a fault, it was a mistake of epic proportions and has probably lead to more deaths than WW2.
 


Similar Topics
Turkey's military in turmoil as top brass quit (Reuters)
Japan defers tax hike plan as PM sets conditions to quit (Reuters)
Calls grow for Japan PM to quit in wake of quake (Reuters)
Palestinians plan fund to help quit settlements (AP)
Finns, Danes to quit S.Lanka monitors