What and Who Does the U.N. Represent?

[jbg]

One of the things giving legitimacy to the United Nation is that it represents the "community of nations" or the "people of the world". Putting aside the fact that few of these nations are democratic, the question is whether they are truly "independent" or rather creatures of the U.N. themselves.

One of the most serious problems that the politically correct crowd refuses to address is the fact that the great majority of so-called "independent" nations "freed" since 1945 are neither independent nor nations. The governments depend for their funding and existence not on the ability to draw revenue from their own people and resources but their ability to live off the generosity of others. The problem is that the people of these countries then have no stake in ensuring good or competent government since the people are takers of crumbs coming from those governments rather than workers or earners themselves. The people become little more than reproduction machines.

These nations are not and likely will never be "independent" in any relevant sense. Further, the people do not participate in governments. What has happened is that colonial offices are replaced by thugs.

There are exceptions such as Israel, India and Botswana. And one can make an argument for the petro countries. But otherwise not many.

My view is that the U.N. is, at best, two wolves and a sheep voting on the dinner menu.

[jbg]

Quebec as an "independent" country similarly would have no economic viability other than continued explicit and implicit assistance from Canada, the U.S., NL, and the U.N.

[Bonam]

Quebec as an "independent" country similarly would have no economic viability other than continued explicit and implicit assistance from Canada, the U.S., NL, and the U.N.

I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. Certainly, it would not be quite as well off as Canada is, but it would still very likely be within the range that is normal for Western nations. Quebec has good infrastructure, good education, plenty of land and natural resources, a structured and organized government, a tradition and culture of democracy, access to the sea and to the US by land, etc. It might incur some more debt or be forced to cut some programs or whatever but it'd be just fine in the long run.

[jbg]

I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. Certainly, it would not be quite as well off as Canada is, but it would still very likely be within the range that is normal for Western nations. Quebec has good infrastructure, good education, plenty of land and natural resources, a structured and organized government, a tradition and culture of democracy, access to the sea and to the US by land, etc. It might incur some more debt or be forced to cut some programs or whatever but it'd be just fine in the long run.

None of those things equals a cost-efficient manufacturing or agricultural base. From what I've seen of rural Quebec, the areas north and east of Quebec City in particular, the area is frozen in the late 19th or early 20th century. Chickens still run loose on roads. It is charming, but not up to date.

I don't think Quebec would become another Somalia. But the standard of living will necessarily plummet since they won't have the credit that Canada has to incur debt, and I'm not sure the people will take kindly to that. I think they're expecting some sugar daddy to help them.

[Saipan]

Aah, the glorious UN.

http://dotsub.com/media/b5ee5ada-5b37-4b0b-9916-e0896337ec4b/e/m

[Moonlight Graham]

I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. Certainly, it would not be quite as well off as Canada is, but it would still very likely be within the range that is normal for Western nations. Quebec has good infrastructure, good education, plenty of land and natural resources, a structured and organized government, a tradition and culture of democracy, access to the sea and to the US by land, etc. It might incur some more debt or be forced to cut some programs or whatever but it'd be just fine in the long run.

Excellent analysis, Bonam.

[Moonlight Graham]

jdg,

"Creatures of the UN", i don't quite agree with that assessment looking at the developing countries you're referring to. You hit on a good point, but i think these low-development countries are creatures of their circumstance much more so than the UN.

Post-WWII the European colonial empires fell, thus many former colonies became independent. They are independent in that they are their own sovereign states, but certainly the negative effects of colonialism still impact them, even those with many rich natural resources, and what some call "neo-colonialism" still keeps most post-colonial states under the controlling grip of richer developing countries, including their former imperial metropoles. From a Realist or power-politics perspective of international relations, this really comes down to richer, more powerful states exuding their control over weaker states to maximize their own self-interests.

International agreements/policies, whether from international orgs like the UN or WTO, or from bilateral agreements between states, all greatly are controlled by the big players at the expense of the weaker states. The more powerful states control many of the policies that come from the UN, indeed they virtually control the UN. The great powers coming out of WWII were the ones who created UN, its Charter/rules etc., its organs, its concept of "human rights", the UNSC etc.

In short: the poor developing countries rely on the richer countries for much economic, militarily, political aid etc. so the powerful states have the weaker ones by the balls. Rich states can manipulate weaker states to vote the way they want in the UN GA, or wherever else, just like they can control the weaker states in many matters outside the UN.

It's a all a game, and the big boys are in it to win...and they're up by 40 touchdowns.

Edited May 26, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

[GostHacked]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/world/middleeast/03mideast.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2

JERUSALEM — With revolutionary fervor sweeping the Middle East, Israel is under mounting pressure to make a far-reaching offer to the Palestinians or face a United Nations vote welcoming the State of Palestine as a member whose territory includes all of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.

The Palestinian Authority has been steadily building support for such a resolution in September, a move that could place Israel into a diplomatic vise. Israel would be occupying land belonging to a fellow United Nations member, land it has controlled and settled for more than four decades and some of which it expects to keep in any two-state solution.

Reading this article it really seems like Israel does not want an independant internationally recognized Palestinian state. It really seems to be hinging on the illegal Isreali settlements in the occupied territories.

[Michael Hardner]

Aah, the glorious UN.

http://dotsub.com/media/b5ee5ada-5b37-4b0b-9916-e0896337ec4b/e/m

How is one man's rant against Islam pertinent to this discussion ? The fact that there are backwards countries is an argument in favour of creating a world community, IMO.

[Bob]

How is one man's rant against Islam pertinent to this discussion ? The fact that there are backwards countries is an argument in favour of creating a world community, IMO.

Not when those "backwards countries" make up the balance of power at the UNGA and virtually all of its subsidiaries. The UN isn't just slightly flawed, it is a complete failure. There is no need for such a bureaucracy, anything positive the UN can claim to its credit could have been accomplished through direct dealings between states.

[jacee]

Not when those "backwards countries" make up the balance of power at the UNGA and virtually all of its subsidiaries. The UN isn't just slightly flawed, it is a complete failure. There is no need for such a bureaucracy, anything positive the UN can claim to its credit could have been accomplished through direct dealings between states.

There wouldn't be international conventions on human rights, children's rights, genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, rights of indigenous peoples, etc, nor international courts to back them up. It's the one place where countries come to agreement on issues that might otherwise cause wars.

[Bob]

There wouldn't be international conventions on human rights, children's rights, genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, rights of indigenous peoples, etc, nor international courts to back them up. It's the one place where countries come to agreement on issues that might otherwise cause wars.

And what good have these international conventions delivered? Nothing. The only countries that protect such rights and adhere to basic standards are those that did so beforehand. Canada, for example, doesn't protect human rights within its own borders because of some document it signed under the UN auspices. Canada protects human rights because of our own constitution and charter, as well as our culture and values. Countries don't adhere to standards because they sign documents and treaties at the UN, they do so for internal reasons. On the other hand, many signatories to these conventions and treaties regularly violate them, and the UN ignores them. The UN is a forum which treats all countries as equals, when they most certainly are not.

If anything, this conventions, resolutions, treaties, and everything in between are abused by human rights violators (such as the Organization of Islamic Conference) to conduct political warfare on the West - particularly on Israel. They are politicized and inappropriately used towards these ends (i.e. accusation of "war crimes" being levied against Israel).

"International courts" don't back up anything and are also politicized tools. They didn't protect people anywhere. Darfur and Rwanda being recent and powerful examples of UN ineptitude. The UN not only cannot enforce the standards it claims to stand for, but it doesn't even want to. That's why it was such a struggle to get any movement towards the Libyan issue, and the UN has been almost completely silent on the Syrian issue. The examples of the UN ignoring real human rights and global security issues are endless. Indeed, the UN perpetuates conflict, and doesn't resolve it. Your suggestion that the UN is a forum where countries make agreements instead of war is the opposite of the truth. Do you have any idea how many wars between UN member state there have been since the UN's establishment in 1945? Is that an indictment of the UN, contrary to your assertion that the UN prevents wars?

The UN is the ultimate example of the epic leftist failure - a mega "international" bureaucracy that blames all of its failures on lack of funding and limited powers. If only the UN's influence was broadened, if only it had more money and more staff... then the world would be perfect!

Less importantly, the UN resolution passed a little while ago (six months or a year ago?) protecting the "rights of indigenous people" was a perfect example of a political weapon. What we need are human rights, not "indigenous rights". It was a transparent attempt by agencies at the UN to elevate the rights of certain groups ("indigenous" people) over others. And as usual, for the leftist and politically correct purposes, most countries bought into it - including Canada.

The UN doesn't just need reform or major modifications - it needs to be completely abolished. Any multinational/multilateral goal worth achieving can be achieved through agreements between states, without a massive and meaningless bureaucracy that only seeks to perpetuate its existence despite its irrelevance.

I would go so far to say that not only is the UN irrelevant, but it has been, on balance, bad for the world and for the causes it claims to advance - human rights and global security.

[Michael Hardner]

Not when those "backwards countries" make up the balance of power at the UNGA and virtually all of its subsidiaries. The UN isn't just slightly flawed, it is a complete failure. There is no need for such a bureaucracy, anything positive the UN can claim to its credit could have been accomplished through direct dealings between states.

Hyperbole. The power is in the security council, if anywhere. The UN has made the lives of many poor people better as well beyond just creating a forum to discuss world affairs.

[Bonam]

There wouldn't be international conventions on human rights, children's rights, genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, rights of indigenous peoples, etc, nor international courts to back them up. It's the one place where countries come to agreement on issues that might otherwise cause wars.

You might wanna check your history. The Geneva Conventions were signed long before the UN came into existence, for example.

Edited June 21, 2011 by Bonam

[Bob]

Hyperbole. The power is in the security council, if anywhere. The UN has made the lives of many poor people better as well beyond just creating a forum to discuss world affairs.

There was nothing hyperbolic about my post, at all. Although the UNSC is "the power" at the UN, there is still plenty of influence held the the UNGA and all its subsidiaries. The UN, unfortunately, is still reflexively respect by many people (such as yourself) who are completely ignorant of its politicization and endemic flaws. The UN and its subsidiaries are still regularly quoted by media, academics, and politicians in a context of respect. I fear that the UN and its subsidiaries have the power to influence people, because people ignorantly trust their resolutions, statements, proclamations, and investigations.

Your assertion that the UN can be credited with the betterment of the lives of "many poor people" is so laughable as not to warrant a serious response. I will say this, however - in the same vein that all accomplishments the UN takes credit for could have been more successfully achieved without the UN, that economies that rise or fall do so despite the UN. Any "poor people" that have seen their circumstances improved owe nothing to the UN, despite the UN uniforms worn by the folks dispensing aid and UN-branding on the aid parcels. As I've already said, anything worthwhile that the UN tries to take credit for could more easily have been achieved without the UN.

The idea that we need such a "forum to discuss world affairs" is absurd. There is an invention called a telephone. There is a more recent invention called email. There are also such things as conference centres. We don't need a UN to provide a "forum" for world leaders to do anything. You'd have been accurate if you had described the UN as a forum where dictators and human rights abusers are granted a strange form of legitimacy, where countries like Iran and Libya stand alongside Canada and the USA as equals. A forum where Holocaust denial is given a platform to be espoused through Ahmedinejad and his supporters in the OIC, and the Durban "anti-racism" conference which is actually a festival of anti-Semitism. I could go on and on, but I'll leave it there. Only someone completely oblivious about the UN and its subsidiaries could support such an institution.

The UN, on balance, is a negative force in this world. I know it bothers someone like you to read this, because you're of the ideological persuasion that supports more centralization of power in the "international community".

[Michael Hardner]

There was nothing hyperbolic about my post, at all. Although the UNSC is "the power" at the UN, there is still plenty of influence held the the UNGA and all its subsidiaries.

'Plenty of influence' is a mealy-mouthed term, whereas balance of power - your original claim - is pretty specific.

The UN, unfortunately, is still reflexively respect by many people (such as yourself) who are completely ignorant of its politicization and endemic flaws. The UN and its subsidiaries are still regularly quoted by media, academics, and politicians in a context of respect. I fear that the UN and its subsidiaries have the power to influence people, because people ignorantly trust their resolutions, statements, proclamations, and investigations.

You dodge my apt criticism of your hyperbole, then stuff me with straw and start arguing against nothing I've ever said. Of course it has flaws, but your hyperbole was what I jumped on, not this new fake argument you're starting.

Your assertion that the UN can be credited with the betterment of the lives of "many poor people" is so laughable as not to warrant a serious response. I will say this, however - in the same vein that all accomplishments the UN takes credit for could have been more successfully achieved without the UN, that economies that rise or fall do so despite the UN.

So did the UN help or not ? The first sentence says 'no' and the last sentence says "could have been more successfully achieved"... Case closed.

The idea that we need such a "forum to discuss world affairs" is absurd. There is an invention called a telephone. There is a more recent invention called email.

These media are not conducive to public discussion.

The UN, on balance, is a negative force in this world. I know it bothers someone like you to read this, because you're of the ideological persuasion that supports more centralization of power in the "international community".

Go ahead and make it about my persuasions, it's probably a better approach than to argue with the contradictory statements you made in your post.

[Bob]

You might wanna check your history. The Geneva Conventions were signed long before the UN came into existence, for example.

And what have those conventions actually delivered to us? Are the terrorists adhering to them and treating our POWs properly? Are they wearing uniforms when in combat? Are they making reasonable efforts to reduce harm to civilians? The obvious answer is no, and the Geneva Conventions have delivered nothing to us except flaunting our moral superiority over our enemies.

The Geneva Conventions only apply to us, not the enemy. And the West's adherence to such principles and values isn't a function of the Geneva Conventions, either. Our morality isn't dependent on that document. Our morality transcends the document. It's not as if our soldiers would be going around cutting the heads off of Joe Muhammad and posting the videos online had it not been for us being signatories to these conventions. People who tout the Geneva Conventions (and I'm not saying you're doing this, Bonam) as some sort of moral accomplishment seem to think that the only way you can get someone to conduct themselves in a certain way is through coercive legislation. We are the way we are because of our values and culture, not because the UN forces us into compliance. If anything, the Geneva Conventions have benefited the enemy, not us. There are many absurd examples of Western soldiers because prosecuted for "war crimes", for doing what they had to do to survive.

[Michael Hardner]

And what have those conventions actually delivered to us? Are the terrorists adhering to them and treating our POWs properly? Are they wearing uniforms when in combat?

It's such an odd perspective on living by principles: "What's in it for us ?".

[Bob]

'Plenty of influence' is a mealy-mouthed term, whereas balance of power - your original claim - is pretty specific.

You dodge my apt criticism of your hyperbole, then stuff me with straw and start arguing against nothing I've ever said. Of course it has flaws, but your hyperbole was what I jumped on, not this new fake argument you're starting.

So did the UN help or not ? The first sentence says 'no' and the last sentence says "could have been more successfully achieved"... Case closed.

These media are not conducive to public discussion.

Go ahead and make it about my persuasions, it's probably a better approach than to argue with the contradictory statements you made in your post.

In indicated that the UN's influence is in part a product of the reflexive respect many people feel towards it. This respect, of course, is misplaced. The UN deserves contempt, not respect. Unfortunately, since the UN is still respected by many and viewed as an institution that operates in goodwill towards its mandate, its operations influence public opinion in negative ways.

None of my statements were contradictory. I've clearly stated that the UN cannot claim credit for any accomplishments, as these accomplishments (which you're yet to flesh out) would have been more successfully achieved outside of the UN with direct relations between states and other stakeholders. And if you want to get into a conversation about supposed UN achievements, we must certainly also discuss certain UN failures.

"These media are not conducive to public discussion"? Did you not read the rest of that paragraph? Politicians and other stakeholders can have public conferences and release press statements, or be compelled to release information in accordance with their laws on public disclosure. There is no need for a "world forum" within which to grant legitimacy to so many dictatorships, failed states, and inferior societies and cultures. In the UN, we establish a parity between Sudan and Canada.

And what "apt criticism" did I dodge? You wrote two or three lines. I elaborated on how your statement that only the UNSC has "power" was simplistic, by explaining how the UN has the ability to mobilize public opinion and provide a stage and grant legitimacy to reprehensible views.

Good luck explaining how the UN has bettered the lives of "many poor people". If anything, UN aid programs perpetuate poverty.

[Bonam]

And what have those conventions actually delivered to us? Are the terrorists adhering to them and treating our POWs properly? Are they wearing uniforms when in combat? Are they making reasonable efforts to reduce harm to civilians? The obvious answer is no, and the Geneva Conventions have delivered nothing to us except flaunting our moral superiority over our enemies.

I was merely pointing out the blatant incorrectness of the statement that I quoted, which said that international conventions would not have existed without the UN. In fact, the most famous example of such conventions, the Geneva Conventions, existed prior to the UN. If one places value on having such conventions, it still lends no legitimacy or value to the UN.

[Bob]

It's such an odd perspective on living by principles: "What's in it for us ?".

Our adherence to such principles exists despite being signatories to those conventions. In other words, Canada's morality and conduct in war isn't dependent on being a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. Our morality and conduct is a product of who were are. I made that clear in my post. You're mischaracterizing my position. We represent morality, anyways. Generally speaking, what's good for us is what's good for morality.

Edited June 21, 2011 by Bob

[Bob]

I was merely pointing out the blatant incorrectness of the statement that I quoted, which said that international conventions would not have existed without the UN. In fact, the most famous example of such conventions, the Geneva Conventions, existed prior to the UN. If one places value on having such conventions, it still lends no legitimacy or value to the UN.

I understood that and I agree 100%. We don't need a mega-bureaucracy in order to establish such things.

[Michael Hardner]

In indicated that the UN's influence is in part a product of the reflexive respect many people feel towards it. This respect, of course, is misplaced. The UN deserves contempt, not respect.

That's a personal choice. I certainly wouldn't claim that it's perfect, or even that it achieves all of its stated goals.

None of my statements were contradictory. I've clearly stated that the UN cannot claim credit for any accomplishments, as these accomplishments (which you're yet to flesh out) would have been more successfully achieved outside of the UN with direct relations between states and other stakeholders.

Pure speculation.

And if you want to get into a conversation about supposed UN achievements, we must certainly also discuss certain UN failures.

I concur with a lot of the points that you made, but you go overboard when you ignore the baby and just focus on the dirty bathwater.

"These media are not conducive to public discussion"? Did you not read the rest of that paragraph? Politicians and other stakeholders can have public conferences and release press statements, or be compelled to release information in accordance with their laws on public disclosure. There is no need for a "world forum" within which to grant legitimacy to so many dictatorships, failed states, and inferior societies and cultures. In the UN, we establish a parity between Sudan and Canada.

World forums (fora?) happen in many aspects of world affairs, so clearly there is a need.

And what "apt criticism" did I dodge? You wrote two or three lines. I elaborated on how your statement that only the UNSC has "power" was simplistic, by explaining how the UN has the ability to mobilize public opinion and provide a stage and grant legitimacy to reprehensible views.

I stated that it has the real power, as opposed to your 'balance of power' statement.

Good luck explaining how the UN has bettered the lives of "many poor people".

You acknowledged that yourself. Saying that somebody else might have done better doesn't negate the work that was done. As I often do with MapleLeaf and his proposals for utopian society, I say: put forward something better and let's discuss it.

[Bob]

That's a personal choice. I certainly wouldn't claim that it's perfect, or even that it achieves all of its stated goals.

Pure speculation.

I concur with a lot of the points that you made, but you go overboard when you ignore the baby and just focus on the dirty bathwater.

World forums (fora?) happen in many aspects of world affairs, so clearly there is a need.

I stated that it has the real power, as opposed to your 'balance of power' statement.

You acknowledged that yourself. Saying that somebody else might have done better doesn't negate the work that was done. As I often do with MapleLeaf and his proposals for utopian society, I say: put forward something better and let's discuss it.

It's not pure speculation, we can examine all humanitarian catastrophes over the past near-century, and the best work has always been accomplished outside of the auspices of the UN and its subsidiaries. We can compare historical examples of how catastrophes were addressed by states and non-UN organizations, to the response from the UN.

There is no need for a "world forum". This is your fatal assumption to justify the existence of an irrelevant and harmful institution. I've already explained that states can and do communicate with one another outside of the auspices of the UN, and that such communications can and are "conducive to public discussion" - they can be made public, and generally are in transparent societies. You also seem to think that all conduct in the UN is somehow open to the public. And if you do think that, you're wrong again. Your argument that the UN is justified on these grounds simply doesn't hold up to basic scrutiny.

My comment about the "balance of power" was with respect to the UNGA. I stated that specifically. It is becoming clearer that having a conversation with you is a waste of time.

Lastly, I never acknowledged that the UN has led to the betterment of the circumstances of "many poor people". That was YOUR false assertion, not mine. I specifically stated otherwise. Don't feel alone, though, it is a typical ignorant assumption of people from your ideological persuasion that the UN improves the lives of the poor, when indeed the opposite is true - that the UN and its aid programs perpetuate poverty and crises. Without having one fact to fall back on, you just assume the the UN is crucial in alleviating the hardships of poverty around the world. After all, if the UN doesn't do that, then what does it do besides being a "world forum"? Keep pretending to be familiar with the UN, its structure, and its operations. You might fool someone.

Edited June 21, 2011 by Bob

[Michael Hardner]

It's not pure speculation, we can examine all humanitarian catastrophes over the past near-century, and the best work has always been accomplished outside of the auspices of the UN and its subsidiaries.

We can compare historical examples of how catastrophes were addressed by states and non-UN organizations, to the response from the UN.

I don't see how you'd ever be able to prove that claim. How could you say how failed states would fare without a UN ? Saying that certain countries did better in specific examples is an apples-and-oranges comparison at best.

There is no need for a "world forum". This is your fatal assumption to justify the existence of an irrelevant and harmful institution. I've already explained that states can and do communicate with one another outside of the auspices of the UN, and that such communications can and are "conducive to public discussion" - they can be made public, and generally are in transparent societies. You also seem to think that all conduct in the UN is somehow open to the public. And if you do think that, you're wrong again. Your argument that the UN is justified on these grounds simply doesn't hold up to basic scrutiny.

No, I don't think it's all open to the public. There are aspects of government that are best not left to nation states alone, such as global security, finance and environmental discussions.

My comment about the "balance of power" was with respect to the UNGA. I stated that specifically. It is becoming clearer that having a conversation with you is a waste of time.

I'm sorry to spoil your time here by squishing your hyperboles.

Lastly, I never acknowledged that the UN has led to the betterment of the circumstances of "many poor people".

No, but it's implied in your response that others could do "better".

Don't feel alone, though, it is a typical ignorant assumption of people from your ideological persuasion that the UN improves the lives of the poor, when indeed the opposite is true - that the UN and its aid programs perpetuate poverty and crises.

Again, you're out of ammo so you try to paint me with an 'ideology' even though I have said that your assertions about the UN include many that are correct.

Without having one fact to fall back on, you just assume the the UN is crucial in alleviating the hardships of poverty around the world.

Actually, in my last post I challenged you to propose something new, but you want to waste your posts trying to paint me as an idealogue instead. Who's the idealogue, the person with a fringe view (i.e. 'Abolish the UN') or the person who agrees with many of the criticisms, but points out the hyperboles ?

Most will know the answer.