Canada should lead a U.N. reform.

[Signals.Cpl]

As I said before you would have to really look at all the stuff the UN does in order to make that judgement, and you simply have not done that, and you dont seem to understand how it works. For the most part its just a place where a bunch of countries can sit down and talk and forge agreements and treaties on hundreds of different types of issues... everything from security, to humanitarianism, conservation, trade and commerse, etc.

Unless you read them all and evaluate what they do all you can do is take a wild guess on whether or not we would be better off without the UN in its current form.

You mean like the EU, G20, G8, and the dozens of other organizations? What good is the UN if the primary reason for its creation is a complete failure?

Article 1

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

1) Complete and undisputed failure. Lets break it down:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace,

They have not done that, nor are they doing that or planning on doing that at some point in the future.

and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace,

Works like a charm...

and to bring about by peaceful means,

Peaceful means=let the innocent die like animals.

and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law,

How can they even write that down when the veto powers are exempt from following ICJ rulings?

adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

We can safely say that this is a fail as well.

I can continue but the point is that there is a primary and most important mission and then there is the secondary and much less important mission of the UN. The UN fails in its most basic mission, and the core reason for its existence, international treaties have existed and been signed for thousands of years before the UN was created.

[carepov]

That wasn't the question, you asked when has the UN hindered "freedom and prosperity".

http://www.monitor.net/monitor/9909a/copyright/timorvote-unstrikeout.html

So in East Timor, Rwanda, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Angola... the UN did not do enough to stop bloodshed - yes it failed. However, did the UN hinder "freedom and prosperity"? No. I would argue that there would have been more bloodshed in these and other places without a UN.

[carepov]

What good is the UN if the primary reason for its creation is a complete failure?

...

I would not be so sure. We know of all the failures of the UN - but what about the successes, i.e. the wars they helped prevent? Perhaps WWIII?

I think that without the UN there would have been more killing, suffering and abuses of human rights in the last 67 years.

[carepov]

I think we can say that with a properly run UN we could see better results. Every successful mission that the UN runs is successful in spite of the UN rather than because of it.

I would argue that most missions run by the UN would not exist without the UN.

[bush_cheney2004]

So in East Timor, Rwanda, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Angola... the UN did not do enough to stop bloodshed - yes it failed. However, did the UN hinder "freedom and prosperity"? No. I would argue that there would have been more bloodshed in these and other places without a UN.

That's great...you didn't live in East Timor, Rwanda, or Kosovo. So called UN "human rights" protocols were actually used to justify arms and riot gear sales to Indonesia. It is a pattern that has now been oft repeated, with and without the UN.

[Signals.Cpl]

I would argue that most missions run by the UN would not exist without the UN.

The missions don't do a damned thing as it is so it change much in the end if the UN were to cease to exist.

[Signals.Cpl]

I would not be so sure. We know of all the failures of the UN - but what about the successes, i.e. the wars they helped prevent? Perhaps WWIII?

Like? The UN send a peacekeeping force to the Middle East in 1956 and that turned out to be a major failure as there were 2 more wars against Israel involving Egypt.

Did they prevent war in Sudan where 750,000 people died?

Did they prevent war in Indonesia where another 400,000 died?

Did they prevent war in Nigeria where 2 million died in 3 years?

Did they prevent war in Burundi where in one year 250,000 people died?

Did they prevent war in Mozambique where another 1million died?

Did they prevent war in Sudan(Round 2) 2 more million dead?

Did they prevent the gassing of 100,000 Kurds in Iraq in 1988?

Did they prevent war in Somalia where 350,000 died?

Did they prevent war in Rwanda where 800,000 died?

Did they prevent war in Burundi(Round 2) where 200,000 died?

Did they prevent war in Zaire/Congo where the low estimates place 3.3million casualties?

Add them up, this are just a small list of all the failures and this adds up to over 11million people keeping in mind this failures are just a few of the long list.

I think that without the UN there would have been more killing, suffering and abuses of human rights in the last 67 years.

I think without the UN we would have figured out that something needed to be done and found a productive and efficient Organization that could have accomplished much more, what we have here is a failure of an organization that people think functions properly thus we are not working on the core problem.

[carepov]

Like? The UN send a peacekeeping force to the Middle East in 1956 and that turned out to be a major failure as there were 2 more wars against Israel involving Egypt.

Did they prevent war in Sudan where 750,000 people died?

Did they prevent war in Indonesia where another 400,000 died?

Did they prevent war in Nigeria where 2 million died in 3 years?

Did they prevent war in Burundi where in one year 250,000 people died?

Did they prevent war in Mozambique where another 1million died?

Did they prevent war in Sudan(Round 2) 2 more million dead?

Did they prevent the gassing of 100,000 Kurds in Iraq in 1988?

Did they prevent war in Somalia where 350,000 died?

Did they prevent war in Rwanda where 800,000 died?

Did they prevent war in Burundi(Round 2) where 200,000 died?

Did they prevent war in Zaire/Congo where the low estimates place 3.3million casualties?

Add them up, this are just a small list of all the failures and this adds up to over 11million people keeping in mind this failures are just a few of the long list.

You are correct in pointing out the failures - the numbers of deaths are gut-wrenching. I still say that without the UN these numbers would have been highrer and there would have been more wars.

I think without the UN we would have figured out that something needed to be done and found a productive and efficient Organization that could have accomplished much more, what we have here is a failure of an organization that people think functions properly thus we are not working on the core problem.

Who is the "we" you are referring to?

[carepov]

The missions don't do a damned thing as it is so it change much in the end if the UN were to cease to exist.

While there is no such thing as a perfect peacekeeping mission, some on the list surely must be considered "successful".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_peacekeeping_missions

Also, what about the eradication of Smallpox and control of other diseases through the WHO?

Yes, an improved UN would help - but entirely scrapping the UN would be very regressive.

[Signals.Cpl]

You are correct in pointing out the failures - the numbers of deaths are gut-wrenching. I still say that without the UN these numbers would have been highrer and there would have been more wars.

In most of those cases the UN (1)Stood by and watched the war/genocides (2)waited until one side had won a resounding victory and thus the conflict had run its course and then move in with "peacekeepers" when they are no longer needed (3) Or downright ignored the conflict all together.

You can try to justify it, but to me the problem lies within the UN structure and the fact that the UN does not have its own assets to use in order to respond to needs in the field. What I have a problem with is that the UN cannot do much because of the way the SC is structured and then they cannot do much in the field because of the ROE's handed out to different missions essentially state that violence is to be reserved for a last resort in order to protect yourself which means that if a child is being murdered in front of you and you as a peacekeeper intervene with force the Peacekeeper is going to be held responsible for his actions and thus punished for his "crimes". We need a force that is not afraid of casualties like the Belgians in Rwanda were where the Extremist forces knew that to remove the Belgian contingent from the picture they had to kill a few of them, we need an organization that will not be daunted by the indigenous people's use of force, and an organization that will be willing to use force as well in order to get the mission done.

Who is the "we" you are referring to?

we=man kind

[Signals.Cpl]

While there is no such thing as a perfect peacekeeping mission, some on the list surely must be considered "successful".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_peacekeeping_missions

Also, what about the eradication of Smallpox and control of other diseases through the WHO?

Yes, an improved UN would help - but entirely scrapping the UN would be very regressive.

Name some of those "successful" missions.

And yes we will save a few of you from diseases and let the whole lot of you die in an easily preventable wars... sure sounds like the UN is doing a good job don't you agree?

[carepov]

Name some of those "successful" missions.

And yes we will save a few of you from diseases and let the whole lot of you die in an easily preventable wars... sure sounds like the UN is doing a good job don't you agree?

2011 Independence of Southern Sudan

2011 Libya

2004 Côte d’Ivoire

2003 Liberia (Round 2)

1999 East Timor

1999 Kosovo

1998-99 Sierra Leone

1991-93 Cambodia

1991 United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara

Cyprus

Prevention of major war between India and Pakistan

Prevention of another major war in North Korea

Most missions in Haiti and the rest of the Americas

Again, I agree that the UN is far from perfect and there are massive failures. Your ideas on UN reform are mostly good but your statement:

... no UN is better than what we have right now.

is what I strongly disagree with.

[Guest Peeves]

is what I strongly disagree with.

One might ask just whose interests does the UN serve. Certainly not Human Rights given the choices of

member states. Certainly not Civil rights given it's history that lacks any real proactive effort.

PART 1

Article 1

All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.

The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

PART II

Article 2

Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps. in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.

Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:

To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity; to ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his rights thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;

To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.

Article 3

The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant.

Article 4

In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.

No derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs 1 and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 may be made under this provision.

Any State Party to the present Covenant availing itself of the right of derogation shall immediately inform the other States Parties to the present Covenant, through the intermediary of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, of the provisions from which it has derogated and of the reasons by which it was actuated. A further communication shall be made, through the same intermediary, on the date on which it terminates such derogation.

Article 5 (cont'd)

Other than the (usually) ineffective trade restrictions that are violated by some member states even to the degree of the IRAQ fraud in the food for oil scheme, what effect has the UN had on say Darfur etc.?

Article 2 set the body to complain about Canada's violations!!!

I suggest Canada get behind the formation of a new democratic union that could really impose meaningful sanctions or military intervention.

THE NDA.

Now along with that might go the obligation to DO things some member might not like.

For instance, IF Russia/China were propping up a Assad in Syria, just what would member democracies do?

I suggest nada, zilch, let the Arab or Islamic block worry about the consequences.

The fly in the ointment to any UN alternative...OIL! and/or Nukes.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Peeves

[carepov]

One might ask just whose interests does the UN serve. Certainly not Human Rights given the choices of

member states. Certainly not Civil rights given it's history that lacks any real proactive effort.

Other than the (usually) ineffective trade restrictions that are violated by some member states even to the degree of the IRAQ fraud in the food for oil scheme, what effect has the UN had on say Darfur etc.?

Article 2 set the body to complain about Canada's violations!!!

I suggest Canada get behind the formation of a new democratic union that could really impose meaningful sanctions or military intervention.

THE NDA.

Now along with that might go the obligation to DO things some member might not like.

For instance, IF Russia/China were propping up a Assad in Syria, just what would member democracies do?

I suggest nada, zilch, let the Arab or Islamic block worry about the consequences.

The fly in the ointment to any UN alternative...OIL! and/or Nukes.

I don't understand what you are saying. If you could, would you eliminate the UN today? How do you think that that freedom and prosperity would increase with your NDA?

[Guest Peeves]

I don't understand what you are saying. If you could, would you eliminate the UN today? How do you think that that freedom and prosperity would increase with your NDA?

I'll get back to you, wine and dinner calls.... in that order.

[bush_cheney2004]

1999 Kosovo

Most missions in Haiti and the rest of the Americas

NO...the UN specifically did not approve NATO action in the Kosovo War (Operation Allied Force). And the UN did nothing to prevent a plot hatched in Canada to overthrow the democratically elected president of Haiti.

No credit there....failure instead.

[Signals.Cpl]

2011 Independence of Southern Sudan

Yeah, I wouldn’t call it a victory when they couldn’t prevent a slaughter, typical UN move, go in when the need is removed.

2011 Libya

Who did the leg work?

2004 Côte d’Ivoire

What exactly did the UN do?

2003 Liberia (Round 2)

What exactly did the UN do? It moved in when both sides were exausted.

1999 East Timor

Could go either way.

1999 Kosovo

KFOR which is NATO led...

1998-99 Sierra Leone

?

1991-93 Cambodia

The UN did not prevent war here; it just rapidly expanded prostitution and introduced an AIDS problem to the country...

1991 United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara

Where exactly did that lead them?

Cyprus

1) The reason that war was averted was because of the US not the UN, if the US had let Turkey and Greece duke it out over Cyprus that would have compromised the entire southern flank of NATO so I think it had more to do with US pressure than UN skill...

2) UN has had a presence there for what 40-50 years? And the UN will probably have a presence there for another 40-50 years because nothing is being done to end the problem.

Prevention of major war between India and Pakistan

How?

Prevention of another major war in North Korea

1) They are still at war.

2) I would say that China has more to do with preventing another Korean War than the UN.

Most missions in Haiti and the rest of the Americas

Too general and false all the same.

Again, I agree that the UN is far from perfect and there are massive failures. Your ideas on UN reform are mostly good but your statement:

Those missions that were a "success" could have been run by a regional organization to a much greater level of success than the UN has managed.

is what I strongly disagree with.

The UN has the potential but it is structured in such a way that even when they deploy with enough forces to do something positive they cannot do so due to lack of will to use force when necessary. If we didn’t have the UN maybe just maybe we would have nations that find a way to create a more productive organization as long as we have the UN, money and lives will be lost for honorable yet inefficient and hopeless missions.

[carepov]

Those missions that were a "success" could have been run by a regional organization to a much greater level of success than the UN has managed.

The UN has the potential but it is structured in such a way that even when they deploy with enough forces to do something positive they cannot do so due to lack of will to use force when necessary. If we didn’t have the UN maybe just maybe we would have nations that find a way to create a more productive organization as long as we have the UN, money and lives will be lost for honorable yet inefficient and hopeless missions.

Sometimes 100,000 deaths is a "success" when there could have been 1,000,000 deaths - we will never know...

OK, we all aim to eliminate war and suffering and to increase freedom and prosperity.

My proposal is to work with the current UN and make incremental improvements (such as the new R2P). The worst case scenario is the status quo - relative to the last 200 years of history a relatively acceptable situation.

If I understand you, Peeves and bush_cheney2004 correctly, you would prefer to scrap the UN entirely. Then you think that some "regional organizations", the "NDA" or other brand new world organization, or maybe powers like the US, Russia and China can manage their respective spheres of influence more effectively than the UN. Firstly, you are all unrealistic dreamers - this is completely impractical. Second, what if you are wrong, what is the worst case scenario that you can envision?

[DogOnPorch]

Second, what if you are wrong, what is the worst case scenario that you can envision?

Pakistan getting nuclear weapons...oh, wait.

NATO seems to be the horse to watch rather than the UN. The soldiers are better paid, for one. Besides, the average UN force is incapable of fighting an Arab army let alone something dangerous.

[bush_cheney2004]

OK, we all aim to eliminate war and suffering and to increase freedom and prosperity.

No "we" don't....sometimes wars are necessary with lots of pain and suffering.

My proposal is to work with the current UN and make incremental improvements (such as the new R2P). The worst case scenario is the status quo - relative to the last 200 years of history a relatively acceptable situation.

How are you going to pay for it? More of my Yankee dollars?

If I understand you, Peeves and bush_cheney2004 correctly, you would prefer to scrap the UN entirely.

I never said to scrap the UN.....the world needs a very expensive debating club.

...Firstly, you are all unrealistic dreamers - this is completely impractical. Second, what if you are wrong, what is the worst case scenario that you can envision?

[Signals.Cpl]

Sometimes 100,000 deaths is a "success" when there could have been 1,000,000 deaths - we will never know...

Not when those 100,000 people could have been saved. We deal with what is and not what if, playing the what if game is going to get us nowhere because everyone could interpret events differently in order to suit their view of history.

OK, we all aim to eliminate war and suffering and to increase freedom and prosperity.

I can name a few people who don't aim for that... I personally wish to see world peace in my lifetime or my children's lifetime but I am not naive to believe that such a thing will happen, at least not voluntarily.

My proposal is to work with the current UN and make incremental improvements (such as the new R2P). The worst case scenario is the status quo - relative to the last 200 years of history a relatively acceptable situation.

How do you plan on doing that? The world has already lost any faith they had in the UN, only a radical change could potentially change the situation.

If I understand you, Peeves and bush_cheney2004 correctly, you would prefer to scrap the UN entirely. Then you think that some "regional organizations", the "NDA" or other brand new world organization, or maybe powers like the US, Russia and China can manage their respective spheres of influence more effectively than the UN. Firstly, you are all unrealistic dreamers - this is completely impractical.

I would like to scrap and improve on the design and build a much better more effective organization, right now a regional organization like NATO has much more power because it can deal with force when necessary while the UN has 81,500 armed soldiers and they are useless, actually worse than useless even if they were Canadian or American soldiers because they are and likely will never be used in the proper way that will ensure success.

Second, what if you are wrong, what is the worst case scenario that you can envision?

Not much of a difference between now and a future with no world organization. Likely if the UN were to be disbanded than we would have to see the real culprits in the mess we call Africa, those being the colonial powers that drew up maps based on random and downright illogical lines to create nations that shouldn't exist at least not in their current forms.

[waldo]

I would like to scrap and improve on the design and build a much better more effective organization, right now a regional organization like NATO has much more power because it can deal with force when necessary while the UN has 81,500 armed soldiers and they are useless, actually worse than useless even if they were Canadian or American soldiers because they are and likely will never be used in the proper way that will ensure success.

not to be misconstrued as personal support for particular NATO engagements... as you continue to flog your 'regional' alternate world police force, you've never actually spoken to the practical aspects of just how your alternate might distinguish itself from, uhhh... say a NATO, for instance. You've never actually spoken to the realities of your 'regional' alternate that would, by practical extension, be missing key member world states. You could speak to those practicalities now, right?

in any case, what provides the legal foundation for NATO? What framework does NATO operate within? What provided the mandate for NATO operations in the Balkans?... in Afghanistan? Under what mandate did NATO engage in regards the Libyan 'no fly zone'? Since you took pains to highlight what you termed 'failures', most notably several UN endorsed peace-keeping initiatives, what 'regional' entity provided logistical assistance to several of those operations?

[Signals.Cpl]

not to be misconstrued as personal support for particular NATO engagements... as you continue to flog your 'regional' alternate world police force, you've never actually spoken to the practical aspects of just how your alternate might distinguish itself from, uhhh... say a NATO, for instance. You've never actually spoken to the realities of your 'regional' alternate that would, by practical extension, be missing key member world states. You could speak to those practicalities now, right?

in any case, what provides the legal foundation for NATO? What framework does NATO operate within? What provided the mandate for NATO operations in the Balkans?... in Afghanistan? Under what mandate did NATO engage in regards the Libyan 'no fly zone'? Since you took pains to highlight what you termed 'failures', most notably several UN endorsed peace-keeping initiatives, what 'regional' entity provided logistical assistance to several of those operations?

If you turned your selective reading mode off you would see I have answered those questions already.

[carepov]

"what is the worst case scenario that you can envision?"

Pakistan getting nuclear weapons...oh, wait.

Well there is at least one worse scenario: a country USING a nuclear weapon. Do you think the possibility of this happening would increase or decrease if the UN was eliminated?

[carepov]

...

How do you plan on doing that? The world has already lost any faith they had in the UN, only a radical change could potentially change the situation.

I disagree.

I would like to scrap and improve on the design and build a much better more effective organization, right now a regional organization like NATO has much more power because it can deal with force when necessary while the UN has 81,500 armed soldiers and they are useless, actually worse than useless even if they were Canadian or American soldiers because they are and likely will never be used in the proper way that will ensure success.

Not much of a difference between now and a future with no world organization. Likely if the UN were to be disbanded than we would have to see the real culprits in the mess we call Africa, those being the colonial powers that drew up maps based on random and downright illogical lines to create nations that shouldn't exist at least not in their current forms.

What you and Peeves seem to be grossly underestimating is the effort required to form and build an organization like the UN. To get the world powers to compromise it took two world wars within 30 years - there were 100,000,000 people dead and the world population was a third of what it is today.