The United Nations... formed to be the ultimate peace keeping agency to promote peacefull methods through influence.

So has the UN's influence waned in recent times to the [point when no-one really gives a damn about what they have to say.

Put Iraq as an example - but then again with the CAR and Zaire - people listened to them!

So heads or tails! Get the Opinions In!!!

Yes- Weak

Who really cares though?

None at all. If a country can veto a decision what is the point? Either accept the majority vote or do away with the UN, its a joke

I think that the UN should be more forceful in the event of a war. I think that the UN has o influence on bush. I think that as nd canadian I see Bush as a bad person. I think that he is putting american lifes and Canadian lives in risk for what? Oil, Money, Power. He has no right entering a country for thouse reasons. If he really cares about the world he would be in Africa Fighting the Cival war that is going on.

Matt

It has been my experience that people who criticize the UN have no real knowledge of how it functions. What you have to understand is that the UN is not a COUNTRY or a GOVERNMENT, it derives its power from what the MEMBER states cede to it, UN peacekeeping "forces" are military personnel supplied by member states, the UN has no military, so it has to rely on what member states are willing to provide. So if you say the UN has failed, what you can almost say is that it is the WORLD that has failed.

Unfortunately the biggest problem with the UN is the Security Council; this was an organ of the UN which was set up after WWII which made the most powerful countries at THAT time the deciding factor in all peace-keeping and international security matters. These countries have a veto power, all that is required is for ONE of the members of the Security Council to veto a decision, and the UN is powerless to do anything. It is important to bear in mind that the reasons for the UN's cumbersome, bureaucratic and inefficient operation lies not with the UN, the UN charter or the institution itself, but results from the deep-seated political and ideological differences, resentments, and distrust between its member states, and therein lies the real challenge to effecting change and reform.

As I said, problems with the UN is not necessarily issues within the organization itself, thought critics of the UN are quick to lay blame for the worlds problems at the feet of the UN, this is neither fair nor accurate. Of course, there are several catastrophic failures in international relations which were a direct result of the members of the Security Council using their veto power to prevent intervention that could have saved thousands of lives, a prime an very tragic example is the genocide in Rwanda, where UN intervention was prevented due to a security council veto by the United States, but this is by no means the only example. Yes, all the Americans who yell at the UN for failing in Rwanda are not even AWARE that it was THEIR government who vetoed military intervention!
The UN inability to act on what is currently taking place in the Sudan is largely due to the fact that China, a member of the Security Council, will not take action against the government of Al-Bashir, because Sudan is China's largest overseas oil project. China is Sudan's largest supplier of arms, and in return, according to a former Sudan government minister, Chinese-made tanks, fighter planes, bombers, helicopters, machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades have intensified Sudan's two-decade-old north-south civil war.

The Security Council has played a much bigger role in modern times than it has ever done in the past, and therefore its failures have been far more obvious, which makes it all the more important for a major overhaul of not only the UN as a whole, but the Security Council in particular, as it wields the most power to effect change in the world.

Major reforms of the UN would require changes to the UN charter which would require a two thirds majority vote in the General Assembly, but what becomes painfully obvious is that reforms will be stalled before they even reach that point. When Secretary Annan presented his report "In Larger Freedom" in March 2005 in which he addressed issues like "terrorism, financing for development, enlarging the Security Council and replacing the Human Rights Commission" (UN.org) he had stressed that he wanted all Member States to adopt his proposals as a package. However, it was the United States, which is ironically the country who has been most vocal about the need for reform of the UN, who thwarted his attempts at making reforms, by insisting that hundreds of revisions be made, which, of course, led to other member states insisting on their own revisions, which in turn meant that very little was attained and reforms yet again remain words on paper which fail to become reality.

The most important change that needs to happen is a change in the Security Council veto system. I believe in democracy and the definition of democracy as being "the tyranny of the majority" and I would want to uphold democracy in the UN as espoused by the "one country one vote" system in the General Assembly. The veto right of the Security Council members makes a mockery of the UN and retains power in the hands of autocrats who have only their own interests at heart, not the interests of the whole world.

Just remember, that in pointing out everything that is wrong with the UN, though, so much of the good work that the UN has done over the years in terms of humanitarian aid, bringing food and medicine to those most in need, the UN Aids, Malaria and TB campaigns and so many other great successes, are overlooked and marginalized. I think it is safe to say that, had it not been for the UN, the world would be a lot worse off and many more lives lost. People like Bill Gates fund the entire UN AIDS program, if there was not an organization like the UN already in operation, already in place, with the know-how and experience to deal with humanitarian aid, this money would not be effectively used.

Yes, the UN requires MAJOR reforms, that is perfectly obvious, I am not denying that for a minute, it is far from perfect, but it is the only international institution we HAVE for States to use as a platform for diplomatic resolution of their issues with each other, otherwise we will be left with finding solutions down the barrel of a gun.



This post has been edited by HannaHanna: Jun 15 2007, 01:29 PM

Wow Hanna Hanna

That was an excellent post!

Veyr much an astute knowledge of how the Un works, its problems and possible solutions!

BTW: are you Ban Ki-Moon by any chance

Hee hee, no, I am not Ban-Ki Moon, , although I think I could probably do a better job than him when I become secretary general one day! I will also actually speak better French than him, (http://www.cbc.ca/news/reportsfromabroad/h...d/20061214.html) and being South African, I think I would have a different reaction to a bomb explosion during a press conference in Iraq! I am not sure if I consider him to be particularly effective or up to the job, but it is hard to fill the shoes of Kofi Annan and, I guess, time will tell if he proves himself. He was appointed because he was the most inoffensive candidate, and frankly, there was also quite a bit of political conniving going on by South Korea to get him elected, which always makes me very mad, because it just offends my sense of justice and, once again, having grown up in South Africa, I am SO keenly aware of political conniving...

Here's an interesting link about the whole election process:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6092801765.html

http://www.globalpolicy.org/secgen/ban/2006/0222tussle.htm

I am hoping to work for the UN one day and I am currently studying very hard to prepare myself for a career in International Relations/Politics, so that is the reason why I was able to post the response I did. I have made it my business to know as much as I possibly can about the FAILINGS of the UN, as I spend so much time explaining to people WHY things went wrong and defending the UN, because most Americans think the UN is a complete waste of time; they have the arrogant attitude espoused by the current US administration, which basically considers itself beyond anything and anybody in the world. It is the "hegemon" and therefore feels it can do anything and cannot be controlled by the UN or any other states or individual in the world.
I have been lucky enough to study with very smart professors who have also worked for the UN and other NGO's, Human Rights Lawyers, etc. in addition to having tremendous book smarts, so that gives you a better education than mere theoretical knowledge.

That being said, I hope I can make a career of being a diplomat, but, I also know that the endless talk and nothing getting done, money wasting and bureaucracy might make me change my mind once I get there.
I attribute that to my South African upbringing too, South Africans, after all, are people who want to get things DONE, now, not just talk about it!

So, I guess, I'll see, I am still hopeful and idealistic and want to try my damnedest to make a difference in the world, I hope the UN DOES turn out to be the place that will allow me to do so.

Thanks for the Kudos, it made me realize that all these years of university IS paying off!

Oh yeah, and thanks, BTW, for creating this post, it made made me realize WHY I joined this forum, with intelligent people debating issues of the day in intelligent and insightful ways...

where? :-p

If the shoe fits, man...