The state of the UN.

[Liar]

It's another political thread. Yaaay!

Colly said, in one of the 'stingy' threads:
Sorry if others disagree, but my current opinion of the UN is about as low as it has ever been


Trying to figure this one out. I hear this opinion being shouted from the rooftops lately. Suprisingly only by Americans.

So I'd just like to know, with as civilised discourse as possible: What is so much worse these days than, say, ten or twenty years ago? And what's the beef with Kofi Annan? I've heard some stuff about corruption involving his son. I can't find enough unbiased info about it on the net though to actually form an opinion about it, but even so does that mean he's been doing a bad job otherwise? I mean he's been the top dog there for quite a while. If he is so rotten, surely he woulda been replaced already? It is a democratic institution, after all. Or not?

The major problems for the UN in my uninformed opinion are two things:
-Genocidal despots and dictators hvaing the same membership status as progressive, open societies.
-The big kahuna nations' veto right clogging up every chance of efficient desicion making, obstructing diplomacy and consensus efforts.

Then there is also the problem of big, powerful nations, the actual core of the UN, acting with complete disregard of the congregation's desicions and conventions, because it just isn't convenient for them. Thus badly damaging the authority of the organisation.

It seems to me that the UN's hands are tied, in part by the same people accusing it of being inefficient. I'm not saying that that is the case, just that that's how it seems to one who have lived his life believing they were the epitome good guys of the world. Could someone with insight, and the ability to explain it in simple enough terms, educate me? What's up, and down with the United Nations?

#L

 

[Songcatcher]

What's up, and down with the United Nations?

#L

They are not united at all.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

It's a question that requres a long response or a blurb. Let me refill my coffee and I'll try to clarify at least my position for you.

 

[BlackShanglan]

A few other issues ...

(1) Kofi Annan's remarkable decision to dismiss the findings of the UN's own internal commitee indicating a need to seriously pursue an employee's claims of sexual harassment and discimination by a senior UN official. Annan ignored these recommendations and shelved the matter, which incidentally involved one of his hand-picked officials. It's difficult to maintain faith in the UN if it appears to be rife with nepotism and favoritism.

(2) I don't think that the corruption issue can be lightly dismissed. It has the potential to involve billions of dollars. More significantly even than the dollar figures, however, is the implication behind it: that UN policy might be driven by the personal interests of those in charge rather than by global concerns or altruistic ideals. In that case, the UN would have no more moral authority than any individual country ruthlessly pursuing its own aims.

(3) Agreed, there is a problem with large, powerful countries throwing their weight around outside of the UN. I would argue that there is also a problem with smaller but more numerous countries throwing their weight around within the UN. When the United States is kicked out of the Human Rights Commission but Libya, that shining star of enligthened practice, is permitted to remain, it is difficult for citizens of the United States to believe that the process was entirely unbiased.

(4) While the UN has traditionally been excellent at disaster relief and the supply of aid, they have had poor success at disaster prevention, especially when it involves regimes that torment their own people. Hussein, whatever one thinks of the US actions, was an evil and disgusting individual, and the record of his sons' abuses of the Iraqi people is enough to make anyone with an ounce of human feeling weep. Rowanda, Serbia, and now the Sudan have all self-destructed under the UN's watchful eye, and there has been no effective action taken on any of these fronts. Some of the only notable recent advances in traditional hotbeds of discord - the peace accords talks in Northern Ireland spring to mind - were negotiated outside of the UN. The essential problem is that no one in the UN wants his or her own country scrutiinized, and none of them want to raise the frightening possibility that regimes do not, in and of themselves, have an automatic right to exist. This would threaten their own stability. For this reason, the UN cannot marshall effective action when a regime itself is clearly the problem.

(5) They are all over the map on very basic human rights when it comes to women. Frankly, I find them quite hypocritical. They talk a wonderful game of human rights when they want to scold industrialized nations, but for over half of the world's popluation they are willing to excuse the most barbaric and repulsive practices under the umbrella of "cultural tolerance." Torture, mutiliation, enslavement and murder are regularly excused, provided only that the victim be female and the practice be reasonably common. It is very difficult to take them seriously when they so readily overlook whatever props up the egos of their more machoismo-driven member states.

Those are the issues that spring most readily to my mind.

Shanglan

 

[Colleen Thomas]

There are multiple issues, I'll adress them in no particular order.

The corruption within the UN is troubling, especially in light of the seeming chronism. It probably isn't that hard to believe, considering the massive amount of money involved, but it is without a doubt, a black eye.

One UN agency has admitted employing members of Haamas. If it weren't for the US veto, the UN would have intervened against isreal multiple times, while giving a wink and a nudge to organizations that even the most blind cannot say are violent and extremist. There is no attempt by the UN to be unbiased and when you are paying members of a terrorist faction with money that at least partly comes from this country, people have a serious problem.

BS touched on keeping Lybia on the human rights commission. I'll go a step forward and say the UN is impotent in matters of human rights and has been for quite a while.

The biggest problem I see is a recent one. Before the collapse of the soviet union there was a deadlock in the security council. With the fall of the USSR, getting a resolution has become an exercise in semantics. An exercise that has lead to real problems, because to get something passed your wording has to be so vague, vague enough that all copuntires can read their own meaning into it. Yet when one country tries to act on their interpretation, those who didn't read it that way are bound to get up in arms. The resolutions calling for military force are prime examples. To the Us and it's government, those were promises. To the French and Germans, they were threats, threats they had no intention of carrying out, arguably under any circumstances.

On a less logical, but just as strong level, all I ever hear from the UN is bitching and moaning about the Us. It gets tiresome and leaves a great gap in credibility that what the UN is pushing is for the good of the world rather than politically motivated to carry out an agenda that seems to me to be strongly anti-american.

I long held the UN to be important in regulating the interactionbetween governments. Of late I find it to be dubiously competant to do so.

Hope this explains my feelings a bit. There is more I could say, but it would just be rehasing I think.

 

[Liar]

Thanks Black and Colly for those replies.

There are a few followups I could get into, but I posted this in a unfortunate hour, as I have to rush off soon, so I'll keep it short.

As far as I know, the United Nations is a congregation of it's members. The members of the UN are the UN. If the UN is malfuntioning, it's the members' fault.

What ambition does the members complaining about the current problems in regards of solving them? What suggestion does the US, for instance, have about renewing the organisation and making it work? Many countries are present and al have loud enough voices to speak up if they only wish to. Black, you mentioned the hypocircy about human rights/vs women's right, and i agree with you. But there is a particulat issue that a large and powerfukl nation like the US could address in the UN, an issue they could put considerable pressure on.

Is this, and other such things happening? Are there outcries for a change from any members of the congregation, other than obstruction of what the UN could be?

I don't exaclty know how the official procedre goes in the council there, but have anyone ever stood up and said "Hey, this is not working. Here is a plan to fix it." Because without that, pointing fingers is just that, pointing fingers. Have anyone, through the porper channels, filed a motion to demand Kofi Annan's resignment, for instance?

Colly, you said that all you see of the UN is America-bashing. All I get to see from the US in United Nations-bashing. I guess your media and mine are showing different sides of the same story. My guess is that there is a rhetoris trench war going on and that noither side is actually 100% right.

Anyway, this could go on and on. And I have to move on.
If there's a thread to come back to tomorrow, I'll find it.

Happy New Year,
#L

 

[rgraham666]

Don't know why, but this thread makes me think of Babylon 5. A particular bit near the beginning of the series in fact.

(Odd electronic noise) So it begins.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Thanks Black and Colly for those replies.

There are a few followups I could get into, but I posted this in a unfortunate hour, as I have to rush off soon, so I'll keep it short.

As far as I know, the United Nations is a congregation of it's members. The members of the UN are the UN. If the UN is malfuntioning, it's the members' fault.

What ambition does the members complaining about the current problems in regards of solving them? What suggestion does the US, for instance, have about renewing the organisation and making it work? Many countries are present and al have loud enough voices to speak up if they only wish to. Black, you mentioned the hypocircy about human rights/vs women's right, and i agree with you. But there is a particulat issue that a large and powerfukl nation like the US could address in the UN, an issue they could put considerable pressure on.

Is this, and other such things happening? Are there outcries for a change from any members of the congregation, other than obstruction of what the UN could be?

I don't exaclty know how the official procedre goes in the council there, but have anyone ever stood up and said "Hey, this is not working. Here is a plan to fix it." Because without that, pointing fingers is just that, pointing fingers. Have anyone, through the porper channels, filed a motion to demand Kofi Annan's resignment, for instance?

Colly, you said that all you see of the UN is America-bashing. All I get to see from the US in United Nations-bashing. I guess your media and mine are showing different sides of the same story. My guess is that there is a rhetoris trench war going on and that noither side is actually 100% right.

Anyway, this could go on and on. And I have to move on.
If there's a thread to come back to tomorrow, I'll find it.

Happy New Year,
#L

I'm 100% positive I am getting significant media biase. I would speculate you are getting some, but probably not to the extent I am. In any case, I don't think there is an absolute right or wrong here. My perception of the UN is remarkably less positive than it was even ten years ago. How much of that perception is influenced by the news I get is debateable, but I think it is also true to some extent that the UN has fallen down badly enough times in that span to warrant a critical eye being cast at it.

 

[oggbashan]

Trying to figure this one out. I hear this opinion being shouted from the rooftops lately. Suprisingly only by Americans.

#L

No. It is voiced by most Western countries but less obviously. It is also voiced by other countries as well for different reasons.

There is a well argued attack on the UN's disaster response organisations (too many of them stabbing each other in the back) in the UK's newspaper The Times today.

Given the diverse membership of the UN it is surprising that it can agree on anything. Some UN organisations are effective in a slow moving way. Some are just useless talking shops. The organisation needs reform and reorganisation but who is going to tackle it and how will there be agreement on what should be done. There are too many concealed agendas among the membership.

I believe in the UN as a means of enabling countries to discuss their differences. Beyond that it can only be what it is allowed to be and almost all nations, from the largest to the smallest, are unwilling to hand the slightest powers to a supra-national organisation.

Og

 

[BlackShanglan]

As far as I know, the United Nations is a congregation of it's members. The members of the UN are the UN. If the UN is malfuntioning, it's the members' fault.

What ambition does the members complaining about the current problems in regards of solving them? What suggestion does the US, for instance, have about renewing the organisation and making it work? Many countries are present and al have loud enough voices to speak up if they only wish to. Black, you mentioned the hypocircy about human rights/vs women's right, and i agree with you. But there is a particulat issue that a large and powerfukl nation like the US could address in the UN, an issue they could put considerable pressure on.

Actually, without painting the picture too grim, I think that you've hit on the problem, and that it may lack a solution within the structure of the UN as we know it. That is, yes - the UN is indeed made up of its member nations. And if the bulk of them agree to do things that are objectionable, or not to act when terrible events occur - then perhaps what that says is that at the moment, such an organization cannot achieve useful goals, or at least not some of the goals that are most vital. Perhaps it suggests that creating a body in which the only representatives a country can have are the very regimes that are looting and tormenting the populace is a fundamentally flawed principal. Perhaps it indicates that a group of nations working together can be very good at some things - like organizing and delivering aid - and very bad at others, like dealing with rogue states and corrupt governments.

This may possibly be why the US is feeling restive. They may feel that the UN, in attempting to be everything to everyone, has made itself unable to fulfill any of its promises. And this may be true.

Shanglan

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

There are, no doubt, problems at the United Nations. There are problems in the White House, in Congress, the Senate, and in the governing bodies of every government or quasi-government presently in power, or attempting to gain power, in the entire world. This is the nature of institutions that are controlled by human beings.

The important point to remember is that when something malfunctions, you repair it, not abandon it.

In the next little while, we will be urged, as Americans, to leave the United Nations. Further, we will be urged to back a resolution that the United Nations be ousted from United States soil. We will be urged to do this, they will claim, because housing world diplomats here makes Homeland Security more difficult. We will also hear the United Nations reviled as both a useless, and corrupt organization.

In the next few months, we will become the target of an extensive campaign to manipulate public opinion to those ends. The campaign will be at least as pervasive as the WMD campaign to which we were subjected during the run-up to the Invasion of Iraq.

In the next few months, I expect to hear truths, half-truths, and outright falsehoods about the United Nations mixed together, designed for only one purpose — the destruction of the United Nations.

If one looks at the publically stated positions of the Project for the New American Century the reason behind this campaign will become clear.

Two key positions of PNAC are:

* "Main military missions" necessary to "preserve Pax Americana" and a "unipolar 21st century" are the following: "secure and expand zones of democratic peace, deter the rise of a new great-power competitor, defend key regions (Europe, East Asia, Middle East), and exploit transformation of a war."

* Redirecting the US Air Force to move "toward a global first-strike force."

At this time, there is only one power capable of becoming a challenge to the America envisioned by these Neocons, and that is the combined might of the entire world. Further, these Neocons are committed to the employment of an First Strike, be it military or political.

Lest we dismiss these positions as merely the usual paper-shuffling make-work of out-of-power politicians, one should look at another position paper published in 1998.

According to the PNAC report, "The American peace has proven itself peaceful, stable, and durable. Yet no moment in international politics can be frozen in time: even a global Pax Americana will not preserve itself." To preserve this "American peace" through the 21st century, the PNAC report concludes that the global order "must have a secure foundation on unquestioned US military preeminence." The report struck a prescient note when it observed that "the process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalysing event--like a new Pearl Harbor."

 

[BlackShanglan]

The important point to remember is that when something malfunctions, you repair it, not abandon it.

I dunno. Seemed to work pretty well for Skylab, prohibition, and the Third Reich. Some things are better off abandoned than fixed, either because they were never a good idea in the first place or because they've outlived their usefulness.

We will be urged to do this, they will claim, because housing world diplomats here makes Homeland Security more difficult.

Interesting. I've never heard that one.

We will also hear the United Nations reviled as both a useless, and corrupt organization.

That one's a good deal more familiar.

In the next few months, I expect to hear truths, half-truths, and outright falsehoods about the United Nations mixed together, designed for only one purpose — the destruction of the United Nations.

Any suggestions on why this is happening now, and not, say, under Reagan?


Shanglan

 

[rgraham666]

Any suggestions on why this is happening now, and not, say, under Reagan?


Shanglan

Because back then the U.S. still needed friends to face down the Soviet Union.

The people currently in The White House no longer think they need friends, only acolytes and slaves.

 

[thebullet]

I hope I'm not being glib. But in my opinion the anti-UN sentiment that permiates the right wing in this country has nothing to do with the UN itself and everything to do with even a modicum of a hint that the US might give up some soverenty to a foreign body.

I'm pretty sure I'm right on this one, guys.

The right wing in America has a time-honored history of chauvanism and racism (of course not across the board, no insult intended, just speaking historically). and of course the right wing is historically anti-foreign going back to the early 19th century.

We are a very insular people who want to run things our own way. We want to be part of the world, but the part we want is top dog. We don't want to be just another pack member.

and rg is right, of course. When we needed the UN card we played it. But the neocons look at all foreigners as beneath them. They need no one.

And the UN was founded by the center-left in this country. Eleanor Roosevelt was an early proponent. The Rockefellers donated the land. The concept goes back to Woodrow Wilson.

No there is no love lost between right wing America and the United Nations

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I don't think the right wing is anti-UN, nor that it somehow hates foreign people or has a significantly greater history of chauvanism or racism than left-wing. I think it a great lack of fairness to confuse some ignorances with conservatism... the two aren't synonymous, nor is the practice of the former limited to the people who participate in the latter.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I hope I'm not being glib. But in my opinion the anti-UN sentiment that permiates the right wing in this country has nothing to do with the UN itself and everything to do with even a modicum of a hint that the US might give up some soverenty to a foreign body.

I'm pretty sure I'm right on this one, guys.

The right wing in America has a time-honored history of chauvanism and racism (of course not across the board, no insult intended, just speaking historically). and of course the right wing is historically anti-foreign going back to the early 19th century.

We are a very insular people who want to run things our own way. We want to be part of the world, but the part we want is top dog. We don't want to be just another pack member.

and rg is right, of course. When we needed the UN card we played it. But the neocons look at all foreigners as beneath them. They need no one.

And the UN was founded by the center-left in this country. Eleanor Roosevelt was an early proponent. The Rockefellers donated the land. The concept goes back to Woodrow Wilson.

No there is no love lost between right wing America and the United Nations

Thank goodness for the tolerance and anti-chauvanism (in the oldest sense) of the left.

Shanglan

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Thank goodness for the tolerance and anti-chauvanism (in the oldest sense) of the left.

Shanglan

BS, love you.

 

[amicus]

If their is one unspoken truth about the United Nations, it is this: There is and has been since the inception in the late 1940's a collectivist desire for a 'one world government', promulgated by the United Nations.

That is the driving force behind the top echelons of the UN, a homogeneity of nations under an egalitarian government with no nation excercising national sovreignty.

The old Comintern with a different facade, is there any wonder the US is recalcitrant?

The UN could be useful in supplying aid in natural disasters and perhaps world health issues, but cannot be trusted to do anything more.

I would suggest the headquarters be moved to Brussels and the United States remain a paying member at the average of all other paying members, no more, no less.

amicus

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

If their is one unspoken truth about the United Nations, it is this: There is and has been since the inception in the late 1940's a collectivist desire for a 'one world government', promulgated by the United Nations.

That is the driving force behind the top echelons of the UN, a homogeneity of nations under an egalitarian government with no nation excercising national sovreignty.

The old Comintern with a different facade, is there any wonder the US is recalcitrant?

The UN could be useful in supplying aid in natural disasters and perhaps world health issues, but cannot be trusted to do anything more.

I would suggest the headquarters be moved to Brussels and the United States remain a paying member at the average of all other paying members, no more, no less.

amicus

I always thought that the prime job of the UN was originally as a forum by which disagreements could be settled without resorting to war. For this a modicum of neutrality must be maintained. Similarily in the distribution of aid a modicum of neutrality must be maintained, so that it proves that all disasters are aided by the UN in proportion to their need.

So, that brings up an intriguing idea that you nearly reach: What if the UN was moved to Zurich, Switzerland?

Neutrality in symbolism.

 

[BlackShanglan]

BS, love you.

Delighted to have obliged.

 

[BlackShanglan]

If their is one unspoken truth about the United Nations, it is this: There is and has been since the inception in the late 1940's a collectivist desire for a 'one world government', promulgated by the United Nations.

That is the driving force behind the top echelons of the UN, a homogeneity of nations under an egalitarian government with no nation excercising national sovreignty.

The old Comintern with a different facade, is there any wonder the US is recalcitrant?

The UN could be useful in supplying aid in natural disasters and perhaps world health issues, but cannot be trusted to do anything more.

I would suggest the headquarters be moved to Brussels and the United States remain a paying member at the average of all other paying members, no more, no less.

amicus

Hmmm. I can see the "everyone pays the same" theory if the UN is only to be there to negotiate in attempts to avert war. But if the UN is, as you suggest, still to play a role in distributing aid, I can't see that it makes sense for one of the largest and wealthiest countries in the world to contibute the same amount as smaller, more resource-poor, or less developed areas.

Shanglan

 

[amicus]

As has been stated, the United Nations was the brainchild of Eleanor Roosevelt, even more left wing than Franklin D. Resolving conflicts between nations with diplomacy instead of war is a fine goal. But when the table is tilted to socialism over democracy and the votes are there to enforce it, it becomes an enigma.

The crux is that one cannot remain neutral when the aggression of an Arab state (1948-49) or a communist state North Korea/Communist China, 1950, or Dien Bien Phu, French and Vietnamese Communists, or Hungary or Czeckoslovakia, or Quemoy and Matsu, or Suez, all examples of aggression that the United Nations failed to meet.

When it happens time and time again, and resolutions within the UN fail to support democratic goals and reward socialist or communist ventures, it is little wonder the United States and western civilization in general, casts a jaundiced eye upon the United Nations.

I have been to Zurich, I think that would be a fine place for UN Headquarters, but I doubt the Swiss could afford them and it would take years for the EU to make a decision.


amicus....the ogre that like an onion has many layers...

 

[BlackShanglan]

As has been stated, the United Nations was the brainchild of Eleanor Roosevelt, even more left wing than Franklin D. Resolving conflicts between nations with diplomacy instead of war is a fine goal. But when the table is tilted to socialism over democracy and the votes are there to enforce it, it becomes an enigma.

The crux is that one cannot remain neutral when the aggression of an Arab state (1948-49) or a communist state North Korea/Communist China, 1950, or Dien Bien Phu, French and Vietnamese Communists, or Hungary or Czeckoslovakia, or Quemoy and Matsu, or Suez, all examples of aggression that the United Nations failed to meet.

When it happens time and time again, and resolutions within the UN fail to support democratic goals and reward socialist or communist ventures, it is little wonder the United States and western civilization in general, casts a jaundiced eye upon the United Nations.

I have been to Zurich, I think that would be a fine place for UN Headquarters, but I doubt the Swiss could afford them and it would take years for the EU to make a decision.


amicus....the ogre that like an onion has many layers...

Ahhhhh ... was this addressing my post? Its position suggests that it is, but I don't see that it actually touches on the topic of funding.

Shanglan

 

[amicus]

Did I not say that all nations should pay an equal amount, regardless of ability to pay? That is to say if there are 220 nations in the United Nations then the US should pay 1/220th of the budget?

Seems fair and egalitarian to me.

amicus

 

[BlackShanglan]

Did I not say that all nations should pay an equal amount, regardless of ability to pay? That is to say if there are 220 nations in the United Nations then the US should pay 1/220th of the budget?

Seems fair and egalitarian to me.

amicus

My point was that whether this was fair or not depends on what one expects the UN to do. If it's just there as a convenient place for people to talk to each other, that might be reasonable. However, if it's there to distribute aid, it seems a bit silly to expect Andorra to make the same contribution as China.

Shanglan