I would have to say no despite its recent troubles.

It needs to undergo a major gut check but it's really the only thing we've got in terms of international law. Which we still need.

The principle of the United Nations is a sound a just one. The only problem is that in it’s self it has no real power. Nations are too scared to give away any of their sovereignty to a higher power. Just look at the fuss people kick up over here in the UK when the EU decides something. I gave the UN the benefit of the doubt and voted No, though I feel in it’s current form it’s pretty pointless, it needs to be given some real oomph to start doing it’s job properly. It also doesn’t help when nations go off on their own agenda ignoring the UN’s rulings and claiming *others* are undermining it because they wouldn’t vote how they were told to.

hmm.. i voted no too, i agree it needs more teeth. well, with 3 of us posting that we voted no, then how are there only 2 no votes up there, someone must have forgot to vote.

___________________

Visit my site Antiwar Homepage

it needs definite revamping but its various agencies still do much good. so all in all, no

No it's still not a joke, regardless of the fact that the US currently ignored it. The fact is that every such organization relies on the good will of the major powers to function. Until recently, the UN has been supported by the US, infact, when it all began, US was probably the prime supporter of the United Nations. Sadly, the US has recently decided it doesn't want to listen to the opinion the rest of the world has, and in such situations UN is useless. That is more so because the current world is basically unipolar, meaning that when a small country goes astray, the UN can act, but when the one and only superpower does the same, the only thing the rest of the world can do is to watch, moan and complain.

Still, the fact that the US pissed off most of the world population as well as many countries by ignoring the UN means there is still hope for such an organization to be supported by the people. And I think it shows most of the people including me think that having an organization which at least tries to take care of international law and diplomacy is better than having many bilateral meetings and networks of hostile alliances with no diplomatic contacts.

___________________
1+1=10

Just another stage for fools and demagogues...

why does the response of "no, it's a prestigious organization" have to be tied in with the "NO" response. I don't think the UN is a joke, but at the same time i don't necessarily regard it as a "prestigious" organization either. A simple yes/no would have done the trick..

___________________
Palm Trees > Pine Trees , Sand > Snow

We focus too much on the failures of the organization. It may not be able to defuse all international crises, but it does a respectable job trying to co-ordinate health and quality-of-life improvement efforts.


But having a Libyan chair the Human Rights committee is a joke.

___________________
This is what you came for.

quote:

Originally posted by dEsidEL why does the response of "no, it's a prestigious organization" have to be tied in with the "NO" response. I don't think the UN is a joke, but at the same time i don't necessarily regard it as a "prestigious" organization either. A simple yes/no would have done the trick..

agree....

i voted no. I do believe it serves a good purpose. Maybe not very efficient at times, but it has done a lot of good over the past years.... I think it's really important to have such an organization!

___________________

the UN is as good as its members.

Bad members--> bad UN.

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek the UN is as good as its members. Bad members--> bad UN.

Exactly.

To have the organisation function properly, I believe that there should be severe constraints on the use of the veto in the security council (i.e. only in matters of the greatest magnitude, sepcifically with regards to military action and so forth) and that there should be a greater sense of the need to reach a "consensus" on matters, rather than just using the UN as a spring-board to pursue one's own agendas. That is, instead of having a nation bring forward a suggestion and having the others vote "yes" or "no", there should be a more active period of discussion that allows for a compromise which - in some way - satisfies all nations.

Also - with direct reference its recent behaviour - I'm questioning the logic of having the US in the United Nations. Given that they ignore international treaties and international opinion, having them in the system only gives them the opportunity to subvert the wills of the other nations, who may otherwise (left to their own devices) be able to find some compromise on issues such as the disarmourment of Iraq. If the US wish to continue with their hegenomic pursuits - and will do so with complete indifference to international opinion anyway - why are they part of the UN to begin with?

The UN was designed to unify the states of the world and to create a formal atmosphere for discussion and consensus building on issues that affect the entire world. If nations have no interest in world unity or discussion, then I severely question the logic they may have for remaining a member, and the logic behind other member states just sitting back and watching the entire process be derailed. So far as I see it, either the US learn the meaning of the word "compromise" or they should do the rest of the world a favour and retract their UN membership and be left to their hegemony, given that there's not much anyone can do - at this stage - to dissuade them from it.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/