I'm Off The UN Bandwagon

[acropolis]

i think. but I'm perfectly open to someone convincing me to stay aboard.

It's not because of the corruption, or the pointless resolutions, the Israel hating, the America hating, or the expense, or the dominance by tinpot dictators, or any of the other bile that the right is constantly spewing about the organization.

It's that there doesn't seem to be anything other than that stuff anymore. Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like the UN used to intervene when intervention was needed; I was in favor of involvement in Somalia, and in the Balkans (yes, I realize they were ~NATO), perhaps the first gulf war, whatever.

Today, however, it seems like when their some major need for intervention, it doesn't happen, and doesn't appear like it ever will. Now, it might be fair to argue that the reason we used to see interventions where needed is that the USA was ~leading them, and the reason we don't now is that the US government is...well, anyway. I don't see that as a valid argument in favor of the UN, however.

So that's my thought.

[Dante Hicks]

It depends what you're suggesting. Abandon the whole thing?

The UN as a supernational political organisations always seemed like a fairly ridiculous notion. However, I'm sure you could put up a case that UNICEF, WHO and the like all do good work.

[Nodrog]

It's the fundamental idea behind that UN that is broken - that all nations equally deserve to be involved in diplomatic processes regardless of (eg) their domestic policies and suchlike. Its not clear what the UN offers over and above more exclusive organisations such as NATO, which dont extend membership to totalitarian states like China. Of course, supporters will claim that involving backwards nations in diplomacy will increase the likliehood of them changing, but theres seems to be very little evidence of this actually happening in practice.

[JonnyBGood]

The UN has reverted to Cold-War-style blocking tactics as regards security council decisions which essentially paralyses its interventionist arm. I mean, imagine trying to run anything the way the UN is run. It's mind-bogglingly inefficient.

[Dante Hicks]

In saying all of this, it's very rare that we'd actually want UN (military) adventures.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

It depends what you're suggesting. Abandon the whole thing?

Works for me!

The UN as a supernational political organisations always seemed like a fairly ridiculous notion. However, I'm sure you could put up a case that UNICEF, WHO and the like all do good work.

If by "good work" you mean that some of the money actually gets to where it's intended, then sure. But compared to most private agencies the UN is shockingly inefficient. An investigation by Financial Times into the first year of tsunami relief for example found that the UN was spending up to 35% of the money it raised on salaries and administration. Relief organizations like Oxfam or the International Red Cross have about 10% overhead. The same report pegged overhead at WHO at 32%. The American Institute of Philanthropy claims that only 54% of the public’s UNICEF donations actually reach children. :/

The biggest problem with the UN is a structural lack of accountability. Entrusting even humanitarian projects to such an organization is a very bad idea.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

It depends what you're suggesting. Abandon the whole thing?

i was thinking about having us all form something i think i'll call "A League of Countries," but I'm interested in input.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

The UN as a supernational political organisations always seemed like a fairly ridiculous notion. However, I'm sure you could put up a case that UNICEF, WHO and the like all do good work.

I'd be interested in hearing that case made; especially in terms of the long-term successes of those programs.

In the first approximation, the most efficient way to reduce the number of people on earth dying of disease and hunger is to not feed the hungry and not treat the diseased. Obviously I consider that to be a very bad option, but it does lead to the following significant corollary: the least efficient way to reduce the number of hungry and diseased people in the world is to feed the hungry and treat the diseased.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

In saying all of this, it's very rare that we'd actually want UN (military) adventures.

why is that?

[Deepflow]

I'd have to say that the idea of an organisation of which all countries are members is worth keeping up for that reason alone. (I'm not sure if all countries are or not actually, id be interested if someone were to tell me I'm wrong )

Of course it could be a massive waste of money and actually affect very little change, but that certainly doesn't make it useless.

[Phang]

letting the tinpot dictators/negroes have a say/the vote lends legitimacy to anything said about/done to the dictators/negroes.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

"Since 1945, when the United Nations was founded, the Soviet Union and Russia have used their veto at the Security Council 120 times, the United States 76 times, Britain 32, France 18 and China only five. . . .

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the veto has been used by Russia only twice -- once to block a resolution criticising Bosnian Serb forces for denying the UNHCR access to Bihac in Bosnia and once to block a resolution on the finances of UN operations on Cyprus.

Seven of the last nine vetoes at the Security Council have been by the United States, and six of these have been of draft resolutions criticising the Israeli Government in some way. . . .

In total, the US has blocked 35 draft resolutions on Israel. . . ."

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2003/0312-Veto.html

Did we really need this post again?

[furball]

Let's not forget the Ghana peacekeepers raping little girls in Liberia

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by furball

Let's not forget the Ghana peacekeepers raping little girls in Liberia

those girls were dressed so slutty they were asking for it.

[ChubbyChecker]

Originally Posted by acropolis

i was thinking about having us all form something i think i'll call "A League of Countries," but I'm interested in input.

We could call it The League of Nations and not let the US join.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Yes.

A plague on your house.















I mean one further than whatever the hell is living in dante's pile of unwashed clothes.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

I'd have to say that the idea of an organisation of which all countries are members is worth keeping up for that reason alone. (I'm not sure if all countries are or not actually, id be interested if someone were to tell me I'm wrong )

Taiwan was a (founding) member of the UN but was kicked out (in violation of the UNs own charter). The Vatican is also not a member, but that is apparently by their own choice. Palestine is a not a full member (they'll probably get a seat when Israel is kicked out).

Of course it could be a massive waste of money and actually affect very little change, but that certainly doesn't make it useless.

What pray tell would make it useless?

Originally Posted by acropolis

those girls were dressed so slutty they were asking for it.

Four years later and they're still asking for it. You'd think they'd learn... :/

[Miliukov]

Assuming the United Nations remains for the time being, I'd be interested to see the opinions of the assorted board-users here with regards to it having a standing army? This idea seems to surface every now and again (and more recently the idea of a European standing army as well). I initially dismissed the concept as pure madness, but more recently I've been inclined to re-consider. With Westernised training and pay-rates (and thus - with any luck - morale and calibre of soldier), for example, I'd wager there'd be rather less of that whole somewhat unpleasant 'soliciting sex from refugee girls in Africa' business.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Four years later and they're still asking for it. You'd think they'd learn... :/

said it before, and i'll say it again. If school girls want to avoid getting raped by reluctant aid workers, they have to stop dressing up like hot young school girls. That's just unfair.

[dda]

America invented the veto for the security council and have bitched because others have used it ever since. We are teh funny lot.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by acropolis

the least efficient way to reduce the number of hungry and diseased people in the world is to feed the hungry and treat the diseased.
why is that?

That sort of argument might work for hunger (I don't think it stacks up, morally speaking but bleh) but even working on pure utility the best course action on contageous diseases is rarely "do nothing". (Relative) success against polio or smallpox would seem to indicate that taking a pro-active stance (especially internationally) can reap some rewards. When you're talking about massive population movements, annually, dealing with medical issues on a national basis will sometimes seem retarded.

On the morality of action; undoubtedly there are people who think we shouldn't bother trying to build new housing for the homeless, treat preventable diseases or feed the hungry. More often than not though I hear those arguments from people who are suspiciously not lacking housing/food/medicene whatever.

In response to Tact's point, of course maybe WHO or UNICEF (or whatever) aren't the most efficient way of delivering these services/carryingout these activities. And undoubteldy there is some sort of opportunity cost argument one can make, but it's not clear that if the UN didn't exist we wouldn't be spunking the money away on something else rather than it all going to the Red Cross or whoever.

why is that?

Invading countries is generally a bad idea. There are a few cases here and there, but usually there are preferable alternatives. Even with (seemingly) clear cut cases like Darfur there are good arguments against and the picture we are given seems slightly distorted anyway. Regional political pressure in most cases is probably preferable anyway.

On that note, it seems that we would be better served by more co-ordination on a continental basis (for want of a better term). What was it Malcolm X said about black and white unity? That it can only happen after black unity? Yeah, something like that.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Miliukov

Assuming the United Nations remains for the time being, I'd be interested to see the opinions of the assorted board-users here with regards to it having a standing army? This idea seems to surface every now and again (and more recently the idea of a European standing army as well). I initially dismissed the concept as pure madness, but more recently I've been inclined to re-consider. With Westernised training and pay-rates (and thus - with any luck - morale and calibre of soldier), for example, I'd wager there'd be rather less of that whole somewhat unpleasant 'soliciting sex from refugee girls in Africa' business.

speaking as someone from Britain, what could I possibly gain from funding a UN army (which will partially be controlled by countries such as China and Russia), rather than having the same money spent on the British military?

Similarly, what would a UN army provide over and above what we already have in NATO? Most powerful non-totalitarian countries are in that anyway, so spending money on a UN army would just increase the number of dubious nations which have potential control over military resources.

[pig]

Essentially the UN is an idea nothing more in my opinion. It does a lot of good work though and it shouldnt be disregarded as an organisation but the idea is what bounds the states.

I remember reading an article on post war japan. The then Japanese pm was rambling on about had there not been a UN he couldnt see Japan being able to participate in an international system. Instead it would have been an outsider and perhaps would return to its ways post failure of the League of Nations etc.

I think Japans dealings with the UN arent unique. For many countries the UN puts them in the international system. The perfect UN would be the EU but of course that could never work.

Criticisms of the UN? I could write a book on that so wouldnt bother. But some are its lack of forward thinking and clinging onto the end of World War II (UN Security Council an example) There should be permenant seats for Germany, Brazil, India and Japan but alas only one of them will get that in the next 10 years (most likely Brazil)