United Nations: Useless or Essential??

[Lord Mhoram]

There seems to be some debate about the UN. Is it useless because it is almost impossible to unite so many quarelling nations and cultures? Or is it effecient enough to handle tough crises like the current West vs. Iraq situation? imo, I think the UN is held back by nations who are gettin' in the way, or 'evil' countries like Iraq.

[Fist and Faith]

What, exactly, should an organization like the UN do? Should it prevent one country from invading another? It is incapable of this. Sure, it takes action when a country that has no chance against our combined might gets nasty. Maybe other little countries will think twice before invading someone else. But what if it's a big country, like China invading Tibet and doing its best to destroy the culture? Or the USSR taking over various countries? What if the Muslim nations decide they've had enough, and want to get rid of Isreal? There's no way to stop any of these folks without HUGE loss of life, possibly to all nations involved. Should we do that, hoping that the next big country with such ideas thinks twice?

Should the UN's job be to stop the world's governments from hurting their people? Heck, enough men of the world think it's ok to treat women like slaves to make that job undoable. And we usually don't have advance warning of things like Saddam wiping out towns of Kurds. And if we did, would we get involved in an "internal matter"?

What about when one ethnic group of a country wants to wipe out another? How many civil wars has the UN prevented?

Like I said before, the countries that don't want to look bad in the world's eyes do what the UN says. The countries that don't give a damn about world opinion, and just want what they want, aren't under any obligation to do what the UN says. And if they should fall on bad times, we'll help them out anyway, sending food and stuff. It's very difficult for an organization that wants to promote peace and cooperation to force their will on those who don't value those things.

[[Syl]]

Guess what I voted for. Actually, tho, I would have prefered an option of "we need a governing world body like the UN, but not the UN cuz the UN doesn't have the stones or authority to do what needs to be done (including forcing the US to do things... like, say, abandoning the death penalty which is against international law... or at least stopping texas from executing foreign nationals, but i ramble)"

[Fist and Faith]

I didn't vote at all, because I wanted the option that Sylvanus just described.

However, there <I>isn't</I> any such thing as having the "authority to do what needs to be done." Who gives such authority?

And how does something become an "international law"? If the US, China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and I can't imagine how many others, practice the death penalty, who made it an international law that you can't do it?

[Damelon]

There are agencies of the U.N. that are very useful in setting international standards for for safety (International Maritime Organization), relief efforts, etc.

It works and it fails in a larger political contest. It works because it provides a forum for airing grievances and blowing off steam. It fails because it has only a small ability to enforce its decisions. Since no state wants, or ever will want, to increase what little power it has, it will never be effective in preventing conflict by force.

[[Syl]]

I think all participating countries would need to allocate resources and elect representatives and then expatriate them. Call me a fascist, but I've always felt Heinlein was onto something with his model of government in 'Troopers. In order to belong you have to serve, but while you serve you don't belong (as we say in the military, we're here to defend democracy; not to practice it). The problem with the UN is that each delegate serves his own country's purpose (some more than others) rather than a specific world purpose.

slightly OT, was looking up "chasuble" today and saw the definition of "chauvinism" : 1. excessive or blind patriotism. thought that was interesting considering the most common use of the word today.

[Fist and Faith]

The problem with the UN is that each delegate serves his own country's purpose (some more than others) rather than a specific world purpose.

That's a good way of putting it. "If others in the world come out ahead, but my country loses in the deal, why should we make the sacrifice? We'll help whenever we can, but not at our own expense." There is no possible authority, nobody that any should bow down to in such a situation, and accept the loss.

[Skyweir]

Thats an interesting comment .. 'evil governments' .. and most assume the states which render such an international body as the UN less-effective .. are those rogue regimes .. which are so glibbly called 'evil' .. most of them are not even signatories to UN protocols let alone members .. but there are many that are. 'Evil governments' which frequently defy the UN are not only the smaller rogue states.

The nations which need to abide by the UN .. are those that should be setting the example .. the wealthier western powers predominately .. US .. UK .. Australia .. Canada .. NZ .. [more wealthy democracies of the Commonwealth] France .. Germany .. etc [more wealthy European states] .. but all too often the most powerful are guilty of snubbing their noses in defiance of the UN .. whenever it is not in their interest to comply .. or are when these states are criticised about their own poor performance re: Environment, Human rights, International agendas .. etc..etc..

These powers are guilty of double standards .. calling on the UN power and authority for moral/legitimacy when they want it .. and rejecting UN power and authority when inconvenient or too demanding economically/geo-politically.

The only way the UN .. or any international body in the future .. can function .. is for member states to respect its power and authority to act and fulfill its regulatory and intermediary function.


Who should be responsible for world peace and safety if not a United Federation of Nations?

It is an impossible job for any one nation .. not only impossible but steeped with political uncertainties .. and imho .. more importantly moral/ethical ambiguities. Managing world safety is not the job of any one nation .. nor should it be ... this is an international responsibiltiy .. that must be handled through an international body empowered by international consensus and law ..

The UN for now .. cos thats all we have .. but who knows what the future will hold .. the UN Security Council is insufficient for a mission of such magnitude .. particularly because of the limit on permanent members [with right of veto] ~ [being the select victors of WW2]

If one nation assumes this role .. then how can they divorce their own independant agenda from this role? If its for the benefit of 'international/global interest' .. then it needs to be under the lead of an international body .. which is representative .. imho .. unlike the UN ..

but as I say .. thats all we got .. so it has to suffice .. at least in the short term.

The question 'Do we really need the UN? .. is better answered .. 'Do we need a UN? and to this question I would answer in the affirmative .. yes and todays political climate attests to the need imho.
_________________

[Brinn]

I did not vote because I also agree with Sylvanus’ choice. However I do agree that defying the UN does not make a nation being evil. The reasons for defying it must be examined before that judgment can be made.

The problem with the UN is that it has become an anachronism. Like Fist, Mhoram, Sylvanus and Damelon stated, the problem is the self-serving decisions rendered by the security council and more specifically the vetoes so freely enacted by the five permanent members. If just one of the big five enacts its veto power a resolution cannot be passed even if supported by the all the remaining members of the council. The Soviet Union was notorious for use of its veto power during the cold war, effectively stymieing any meaningful peace resolutions. Now, China has blocked the security council from even meeting to address the North Korea situation. Why? Now France and Germany, for a variety of reasons (some assuredly economic) have decided to veto any US proposal that called for meaningful repercussions (or in the language of resolution 1441, “severe consequences”) for 12 years of willful disobedience by the ruler of Iraq. Why? With all due respect, I don’t believe that it’s due to French and German experience with war. The irony of being lectured by Germany on the evils of aggression and by France on hubris is too much.

On Sept. 12th 2002 President Bush informed the United Nations that "action will be unavoidable" if world leaders do not force Iraq's Saddam Hussein to disarm. It was a fair test and the UN failed miserably. If the UN is unwilling to enact consequences for it’s actions than it has sounded it’s own death knell.

[Vain]

I found it quite intriguing that the UN has only sanctioned war on 3 occassions during its entire existence. I forget the first but the first Iraq war and the Afghan war were the last two. Considering all the conflicts that UN countries have been involved in, it's probably just a bit too weird to expect them to control the war aspects of global politics as well.

[Damelon]

I found it quite intriguing that the UN has only sanctioned war on 3 occassions during its entire existence. I forget the first but the first Iraq war and the Afghan war were the last two.

The first time was Korea in 1950. The Soviets were boycotting the U.N. at the time of the vote.

[Ryzel]

The irony of being lectured by Germany on the evils of aggression and by France on hubris is too much.

If you want advice go to the experts I always say.

[Vain]

The first time was Korea in 1950. The Soviets were boycotting the U.N. at the time of the vote.

That's it - Korea. I personally figure that the UN as a figurehead for human rights is something they missed the boat on.

[Skyweir]

I'm surprised that you would be intrigued by that fact Vain .. bearing in mind that the UN was established for the keeping of the peace .. and spare succeeding generations from the scourge of war.

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom

[Brinn]

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom

In my opinion there are two primary reasons for this campaign. First, Saddam's Iraq poses a clear and immenent danger to his neighbors and to the US. The policy of containment instituted over 12 years ago with UN cooperation is splintering and is no longer viable for many reasons. Second is the liberation of the Iraqi people from the hands of a brutal and murderous dictator.

The rights and the freedoms that the UN espouses have been nonexistent in Iraq during Saddam's reign. UN sanctions, inspections and the Oil-for-Food program have failed to achieve the goals for which they were intended....to relieve the suffering of the Iraqi people. The UN resolutions were right-minded and humane and designed to weaken Saddam's hold. They failed. What the UN did not realize is that Saddam was not concerned with his own people's suffering except to the extent that it could be leveraged to support his political gains and consolidate his power. As UN resolutions were adopted, he manipulated each to his benefit and strengthened his hold on the country through a campaign of fear, murder, torture and deprivation.

I would argue that a succesful war to remove the current regime will be a much more humane response and more in line with the UN's goals (if not their preferred methods) than to allow the Iraqi people to continue to suffer the atrocities that they are subjected to on a daily basis.

[Vain]

I'm surprised that you would be intrigued by that fact Vain .. bearing in mind that the UN was established for the keeping of the peace .. and spare succeeding generations from the scourge of war.

I am surprised because so many other wars have taken place without UN sanction yet the current Iraq one seems to have people all riled up.

And if that really is what the UN aspires to, then they need to reconsider their stance in the light of the many conflicts in Africa.

[Skyweir]

n my opinion there are two primary reasons for this campaign. First, Saddam's Iraq poses a clear and immenent danger to his neighbors and to the US.

There is no evidence that Hussein presents any clear or especially 'imminent' danger to the US or his neighbours. The danger Hussein represents is this .. 'possible threat' .. not actual threat .. but possible threat.

Second is the liberation of the Iraqi people from the hands of a brutal and murderous dictator.

This reason is a valid reason .. had it been handled rightly. Yet even in the current situation it still remains a positive outcome .. albeit it is realised.

The rights and the freedoms that the UN espouses have been nonexistent in Iraq during Saddam's reign. UN sanctions, inspections and the Oil-for-Food program have failed to achieve the goals for which they were intended....to relieve the suffering of the Iraqi people.

UN sanctions were never about relieving the suffering of the Iraqi people.

I would argue that a succesful war to remove the current regime will be a much more humane response and more in line with the UN's goals (if not their preferred methods) than to allow the Iraqi people to continue to suffer the atrocities that they are subjected to on a daily basis.

Well that remains to be seen .. I hope you are right.

[Lord Mhoram]

the UN's the only forum the world community has right now for international relationships. An improvement must be made.

I'm as pissed at the French as the next American, but they're very astute..they know they can't compete with the US globally, militarily or economically, yet they are still contesting our foreign policy. Through the United Nations. Using the UN, they have made good, so far that is, on their claim to be the US's 'counter-weight'. That wasn't a very diplomatic remark by Chirac, btw.

[Brinn]

You're correct Sky. The sanctions were not intended to ease the suffering of the Iraqi people but were instead designed to repudiate Saddam for his invasion of Kuwait. However, a vast number of the UN Security Council Resolutions that followed such as UNSCR 706, 986, 1284 etc... were intended to provide humanitarian relief to the people of the country.

There is no evidence that Hussein presents any clear or especially 'imminent' danger to the US or his neighbours. The danger Hussein represents is this .. 'possible threat' .. not actual threat .. but possible threat.

I would argue this point.

1973 - The October War: Syria and Egypt launch a surprise attack on Israel and most Arab nations follow suit and send token forces in support. Saddam send an entire armored corp and about 100 combat aircraft. The Iraqi forces were butchered when they finally reached the Golan Heights.

1974 - Saddam repeals the March Manifesto and seeks to restore Kurdistan to Baghdad's control through military means. This operation is mostly succesful until Iran intervenes on behalf of the Kurds.

1975 - In response to the Syrian invasion of Lebanon and Syrian threats to dam the Euphrates Saddam moves Several Iraqi divisions to the Syrian border without assessment of risks or costs. The Arab league defuses the situation and allows Saddam to save face and back down from his threats.

1976 - Iraq purchases a reactor from Paris that is intended to be used to create nuclear weapons. Israeli air force destroys the reactor in 1981.

1980 - Saddam invades Iran in an attempt to eliminate the Ayatollah's regime. Six weeks later the troops are halted by Iranian forces. Saddam launches missile strikes at Iranian population centers in 1982, '83, '84, '85, and '87. Chemical weapons are used indiscriminately throughout the war against Iranian infantry. Cease fire declared in 1988.

1982 - Saddam instigates the assasination of Israel's ambassador to Great Britain in an attempt to spark an Israeli invasion of Lebanon and precipaitate a new Arab-Israeli war.

1990 - Invasion of Kuwait. Saddam's then Chief of Intelligence later told an interviewer that he believed that Saddam would not have been satisfied with only Kuwait. He went on to say that had Saddam's invasion of Kuwait not been met with massive military reprisals he would have continued to take the eastern portion of Saudi Arabia.

1990 - Saddam orders a crash program to construct a singular nuclear weapon that could be placed in a missile warhead and used against Tel Aviv if his regime was at risk.

1991 - Saddam begins to put down the Iraqi Intifadah using massive and lethal force.

1994 - Saddam once again masses at the Kuwaiti border and threatens to reinvade Kuwait if sanctions are not lifted. The Us responds with an immediate build-up of forces in Kuwait and Saddam is deterred.

1995 - Jordan intercepts 115 missile gyroscopes and materials for making chemical weapons being smuggled into Iraq.

1995 - Saddam announces that he will cease all cooperation with UNSCOM unless sanctions are lifted. Senior Iraqi personnel threaten that if the US responds with military strikes Saddam would tie UN inspectors to the machinery that they expect the US to attack.

1998 - UNSCOM inspectors discover VX nerve gas on the fragments of missile warheads that Iraq had cleaned and destroyed. Baghdad categorically denies that it had ever loaded VX gas into a warhead after having categorically denying ever producing VX and then categorically denying having produced large quantities of it after the first lie was exposed.

1998 - With US and British warplanes in the air, Tariq Aziz announces that expelled inspection teams will be allowed back into the country and avoids another military conflict.

One final caveat; It is estimated that approximately 200,000 to 225,000 Iraqi's have died prematurely between 1990 and 1998 due to Saddam's various wars, the Intifadah, and the aftermath of sanctions. I for one am not willing to place the safety of the world in the hands of a man so willing to absorb such greivous losses to his own people.

The sanctions have eroded to a point where all manner of items and equipment are being smuggled into Iraq quite openly. Inspections are no longer viable and deterrence is a risky proposition at best. If allowed to continue in this manner Iraq would almost certainly possess a nuclear device within years (Saddam has readily admitted this as a goal for his country). Jerrold Post, a longtime US Govt expert on Saddam offers the following analysis on whether Saddam could be deterred: "He (Saddam) is psychologically but not politically in touch with reality. His worldview is narrow and distorted and he has scant experience outside the Arab world."

On the eve of the Gulf war one Israeli senior Iraq analyst concluded that "Saddam has a tendency to run risks and take surprising steps without considering the inherent dangers. An example is the war with Iran."

In addition his behavior is completely unrestrained by Iraqi political structure. There is little dissent or debate in Iraqi decision making. The advisors Saddam does have are sycophants who tell him what he wants to hear.

For these reasons it has been concluded that Saddam and his regime are the polar opposite of almost every single one of the traits considered desireable, if not essential, for nuclear or WMD deterrence.

That is why I have decided that Saddam presents a clear and imminent threat to the US and his neighboring countries and not just a "possible threat". In a similar vein, I cannot offer you "evidence" that the sun will rise tomorrow but I'm pretty sure it will.

P.S.

This reason is a valid reason .. had it been handled rightly.

By implication you seem to suggest that this situation is not being handled in an appropriate manner. What would you recommend?

P.P.S. I respect your views and the thoughtful manner in which you present them even though we may disagree. I look forward to your posts!

[[Syl]]

Brinn, allow me to quote the great Ben Stein and say, "I am humbled by your superior knowledge." That was some serious-azz fact-backing.