is the UN obsolete?

B

behemoth79

Active member
has the recent actions of the Unites States made the enforcement power of the UN obsolete? Has it become another League of Nations that cannot enforce any decisions?
 
To a large degree yes.

The UN will never suceed unless all parties work toward making it suceed as long as one party is determined to ignore anything not in its favour then it is screwed.
 
has the recent actions of the Unites States made the enforcement power of the UN obsolete? Has it become another League of Nations that cannot enforce any decisions?
Click to expand...

Two words: Certainly not.

The recent actions of the U.S. was done under the name of America's National Security and requires no international consesus for action.

But stating that the UN as obsolete is unacknowledging and ignoring the many nations who contributed greatly to the development of impoverished countries around the world.
 
The UN still has its place in the world. But it does have to ring some serious changes.
The big question is peacekeeping. What will become of the UN's peacekeeping role?
We all know it's no secret that peacekeeping missions are expensive, inefficient and on many occasions had led to disaster. There has to be a better way to do this.
The UN is particularily useful in coordinating NGO relief efforts in crisis zones. You need an authority to get many of these groups, whose missions are exactly the same, to do the work without conflict of jurisdiction etc.
 
I agree that the UN still has a place.

I mean, eventually we will go to war with a country that everybody agrees should be taken care of.
 
Only partially obsolete.

Organiztions such as WHO and the Red Cross are still needed, but it's military support is lacking because of recent actions. It's security council includes countries that are suspected of harboring terrorists.
 
It's never going to be as important as the creators in the 40s and the wide-eyed liberals in the 70s wished it would be.

Now the UN is less important than the Red Cross in international affairs.
 
the UN has been effective in helping 3rd world countries. however, is it an effective mediator of international conflicts?
 
Effective helping 3rd world countries Cmon you must be kidding. Most help to these countries are from aid agencies The Un failed in Korea somalia Zimbabwe Yugoslavia Rawanda, did nothing when suddam slaughtered thousands of Kurds, just to name a few. The Un in my opinion is a big bluff if the "BADDIES" call their bluff they are almost powerless. Never have they said if you do not killing people we will take action and carried it out effectively they usually back down. Now I am not saying that they are in an easy situation they cannot really enter a country without government request otherwise it would be invading another country which is something the UN like to avoid, far enough. But remember in most of these situations the in power government is the source of the corruption and or problem. I think the UN need to grow some balls so to speak or pack up. Eg the UN did nothing in East Timor the Australians and New Zealanders "went in" then after all was said and done recieved UN backing. The 1st and 2nd Gulf wars. US led UN backed. To me the UN is little more than a weak very expensive baby sitter! They still believe right or wrong I cant say that the pen is mightyer than the sword,but 1 thing is for sure their bark is defently worse than their bite!!!
Have a good weekend
 
by helping 3rd world countries i meant helping feed and give them free medical care and educating them about AIDS and limitied families. They do a decent job in that. its the militarist and diplomatic sides that i believe have become useless. the UN is better off as a peace corps-like program that goes around feeding the hungry.
 
Totally agree with you behemoth79 in regards to peace keeping and aid working but it is still avery expensive aid agency which in my opinion it has become. But once again if they Govnment of the country are not the issue then any aid agency can forfil this roll well eg world vision. But when the local Govnment is the issue and refuse help from the outside world they do nothing so my point and opinion whether it is right or wrong who knows is thatwhen military action is not required world vision or the like can suffice when it is required they tend to do nothing and will not repress or push out crooked govnments. If that is the case what is there real function?????
Surely unless they start prodocing results I believe the money could be spent better elsewhere.
But this is only my opinion and am in no way trashing yours but just participating in a friendly discussion. have a :) good day
 
The UN is good at providing aid and organizing relief efforts and this is actually a very important thing. If the UN is ever disbanded, there isn't anyone around who will fill this void.
 
The UN in general has never completed it's objectives. Though it may seem like it is obsolete the UN is still vital to the continuel level of peace we know have. However the UN will need to begin changing some of it's policeas if it is to last. For Example Japan and Germany should take two permanet seats on the UNSC and the GA should be given more power and not remain as a simple debating ground.
 
The inclusion of Japan isn't as simple as you think.
If you did that, you'd piss off pretty much the whole Asia Pacific region.
 
Yes I agree, Germany would be easir to get in thanks to the poltical power NATO and the EU has in the UN, Japan on the otherhand would be hard. Mostly due to China, and Russia would probably demand that India be allowed to join the UNSC. Though they have been trying to do that a while now.
 
Darcia said:
Yes I agree, Germany would be easir to get in thanks to the poltical power NATO and the EU has in the UN, Japan on the otherhand would be hard. Mostly due to China, and Russia would probably demand that India be allowed to join the UNSC. Though they have been trying to do that a while now.
Click to expand...

If we are looking at filling two seats then I would personally prefer it to be Germany and India as without some fairly major consessions on the part of Japan regarding WW2 I think there would be too many objections from Pacific nations.
 
Nations must learn to let the past be the past. Sure History repeats itself but look. America used to have no interferance with the outside world besides the America's. Now we are the Police of the world. That happend in under 75 years.
 
^Germany is going to have a ghard time getting into the UNSC seeing as both China and the USA have stated they are against it in recent articles. The whole UN needs to be reformed, the Vetos should be taken away and replaced with a majority voting system.
 
Dragonbone said:
^Germany is going to have a hard time getting into the UNSC seeing as both China and the USA have stated they are against it in recent articles. The whole UN needs to be reformed, the Vetos should be taken away and replaced with a majority voting system.
Click to expand...

I certainly agree that when it comes to adding nations to the UNSC there should be no option to use veto it should be a simple majority vote from the GA.

To some degree I agree that the veto power needs to be controlled as it seems odd to me that the entire UNGA can agree to something but as long as one UNSC country disagrees then its stopped in its tracks.
My personal preference would be to allow a 2/3 majority vote in the GA to over ride a veto.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top