|
How effective is UN nowdays and what do you think about it?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| emc^2 |
I think UN is on its last legs. It seems that nowdays, more and more countries that were banking on UN resolutions as international clearing house for diplomacy and some sort of unbiased fairness, are losing faith in its effectiveness.
Ignoring a largely unfavorable view of UN by many in US, and overlooking alleged corruption scandal with Kofi Anan at the center of it (which was swiftly swept under the rugs), how effective do you think UN still is?
Do you think it's as strong as ever, stronger than before, weaker than before, or completely irrelevant? (or other shades of gray)
I don't think UN could enforce a peace among deceased in a cemetary - but that's just my opinion. I also think that ineffectivenes of the Security Council, with many economic and political interests that are represented within it - just further errodes any sort of confidence in its viability and suitability. Just look at China and Russia sheltering Iran.
Even with all its flaws I think UN currently presents the last line of diplomacy and some sort of attempt at controll the uncontrollable and it's also a forum for diplomacy, where normal diplomacy channels would not be available. However, given its beurocratic DNA, slow as a turtle response, and as effective as using laxatives to cure diarhea, I think that UN is heading for an inevitable junk yard of failed ideas.
What are your thoughts? |
|
|
| tathi |
The UN is far from perfect, and in cases such as Israel / Lebanon it has proved itself as extremely ineffective. It seems that for the UN to be of any use at all none of the countries on the security council can have a hidden agenda or vested interests in the conflict they're trying to resolve; when this happens the organisation can benefit humanity greatly.
The Democratic Republic of Congo just had their first multi-party election in 40 years, the 25million voters were protected by 17,000 UN peacekeepers; there are also currently peacekeepers in Burundi, Sudan, Haiti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Liberia, and the Ivory Coast, some of these missions are making headway, others not so much...
Here's an interesting Timeline of past and present Peacekeeping missions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeli...eeping_missions |
|
|
| ilya49 |
| the problem with UN is that nobody listens to it |
|
|
| Shakka |
| Bring back the League of Nations. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Bring back the League of Nations. |
Or in these times, how about the League of Extraordinary Gentleman?
Or even better, the Justice League?
That would so kick ass. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Or in these times, how about the League of Extraordinary Gentleman?
Or even better, the Justice League?
That would so kick ass. |
Are you talking bout da Superfriends? They'd clean this mess up, mighty fine like. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
The UN is as effective as it's members make it
The UN does not have a standing military reserve, and as such, cannot undertake any sizeable military operations without using US, Nato or the new EU military structures (or at a push Russia/China), and that means these have to give a (which unless they get something out of it they tend not to, like in DRC/Rwanda)
The UN cannot undertake any military operations any country in the Security Council does not agree with (hence no action against Israel, Sudan, Iraq, Serbia, etc)
In essence, every criticism of the UN can probably be laid at the door of America, Russia, UK, France and China
But what I always say when this subject comes up (typically by pro-US/Israel supporters for some reason) is that the UN is not just a security club, in fact thats a tiny part of what the UN does (or doesn't do as is more likely the case!)
If you can find as much criticism towards the rest of the UN's operations as you can towards the "military" failings then maybe I'll agree the UN is ineffective
And I'll say again - if the UN is milirarily ineffective (which is usually all people see) then that is the fault of America, UK, Russia, China and France, not the UN or anybody else |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Or in these times, how about the League of Extraordinary Gentleman?
Or even better, the Justice League?
That would so kick ass. |
+1 :p
I think the U.N. current involvement in Lebanon is going to be very important not just for Lebanon but for the U.N. itself.
Their failure as conflict-resolving orginization is already solified in my mind (they do have other branches that are great) so it'll be interesting to see what comes of this.
I'm willing to bet that the rockets will continue right over the U.N.'s heads into Israel... |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Their failure as conflict-resolving orginization is already solified in my mind (they do have other branches that are great) so it'll be interesting to see what comes of this. |
I'm not disagreeing with what you said above, but I'd be interested to hear why you think it has failed? Can you give me examples?
My view is that America, UK, Russia, France and China take the blame for what you describe, not the UN per se |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
as far as its inadequacies from a military standpoint are concerned, i blame the french :toothless
i agree with smiley. its as only as strong as its weakest link(s). the main problem for me is that there seems to be resolution after resolution, without any practical plans for effecting these changes or enforcing punishment for breaches. how many resolutions were passed to disarm hezbollah in lebanon again??
as long as youve got states with powers of veto youre going to have to rely on the lone soldier approach, such as NATO in the balkans.
i understand that military effectiveness is not the only thing the UN is there for, however it has to be more than the toothless tiger if anyone is ever going to pay it any attention.
id like to see the mandate of the UN force in lebanon (for instance) extended so they can proactively act rather than simply uphold the peace. |
|
|
| Purple |
UN is a scrap now. A paper work. G8 is more influential than UN nowdays. I dont know about it, but some people suggest birth of EU led to death on UN.
Solutions for revival of UN:
Sack Kofi Anan.
Impose sanctions on US for invading Iraq, impeach Bush and arrest him for war crimes.
Send peace keeping troops with permission to shoot and kill Israeli soilders if they infiltrate into South Lebanon.
Also its needs to play a more aggresive part; like instead of just sending 'peace-keeping' troops they need to send fighting troops which will kill men if necessary. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nou
I think the UN needs to militarize and become the worlds police. The military wing should also be devoid of national identity so it faces no bounds on who they have to police.
How this would all work I don't know... :p It would be cool though. |
Yikes. I couldn't disagree more. |
|
|
|
|
