Time to "Call it a Day" for the United Nations

[Michael Hardner]

What war or atrocity has the UN ever stopped, other than preventing Israel or other Western democracies from finishing the job?

jbg,

I think you're setting the bar pretty high. There are examples of skirmishes and conflicts that they've stopped, but perhaps the visibility hasn't been high enough. Does that mean they should be dismantled ? Seeing how internation relations have been put in the hands of relatively inexperienced statesmen, of late, I think it would be negligent to eliminate one line of security altogether.

[jbg]

What war or atrocity has the UN ever stopped, other than preventing Israel or other Western democracies from finishing the job?

jbg,

I think you're setting the bar pretty high. There are examples of skirmishes and conflicts that they've stopped, but perhaps the visibility hasn't been high enough. Does that mean they should be dismantled ? Seeing how internation relations have been put in the hands of relatively inexperienced statesmen, of late, I think it would be negligent to eliminate one line of security altogether.

One line of security, at what cost to taxpayers of corruption? More importantly, it creates a bogus "world opinion" that is shared by the chattering classes of diplomats.

[Machinations]

What war or atrocity has the UN ever stopped, other than preventing Israel or other Western democracies from finishing the job?

jbg,

I think you're setting the bar pretty high. There are examples of skirmishes and conflicts that they've stopped, but perhaps the visibility hasn't been high enough. Does that mean they should be dismantled ? Seeing how internation relations have been put in the hands of relatively inexperienced statesmen, of late, I think it would be negligent to eliminate one line of security altogether.

One line of security, at what cost to taxpayers of corruption? More importantly, it creates a bogus "world opinion" that is shared by the chattering classes of diplomats.

All I can say is - thankfully you have no say - thinking people around the world support the UN. Abolitionists are few and far between and usually, as in this case, poorly informed. If the uneducated and ignorant ever have their hands on the reins of power, they can do untold damage. Look south for a good example.

[jbg]

What war or atrocity has the UN ever stopped, other than preventing Israel or other Western democracies from finishing the job?

jbg,

I think you're setting the bar pretty high. There are examples of skirmishes and conflicts that they've stopped, but perhaps the visibility hasn't been high enough. Does that mean they should be dismantled ? Seeing how internation relations have been put in the hands of relatively inexperienced statesmen, of late, I think it would be negligent to eliminate one line of security altogether.

One line of security, at what cost to taxpayers of corruption? More importantly, it creates a bogus "world opinion" that is shared by the chattering classes of diplomats.

All I can say is - thankfully you have no say - thinking people around the world support the UN. Abolitionists are few and far between and usually, as in this case, poorly informed. If the uneducated and ignorant ever have their hands on the reins of power, they can do untold damage. Look south for a good example.

South? To New Jersey? Or to Mexico?

[Charles Anthony]

You have some good points, which is why I would say reform, not abolition, is needed.

What is it in the bureaucracy that makes the "good" active?

Bureaucracy has a bad reputation, but it is required sometimes.

I disagree. I believe that its bad reputation is often deserved.

It eliminates redundancy, it allows for central planning, for coordination, and for prioritization.

I disagree. However, even if you are correct, how righteous is it to spend other people's money to do good in your own name?

CAVEAT TROLLUM: I am on this anti-multiple-thread kick. I am having fun tying threads together!

If you can not close them, then join them!

Annan has also presented a report about the UN which suggests a larger permanent Security Council.

Let's be serious. On what authority does the Chinese rep sit on the Security Council? How did the Kenyan or Burmese rep get their vote in the UN?

Are any of these guys any different from 'Mom' Boucher and the Hell's?

We've got the UN, the Sec-Gen, the G-8 and now PM PM has suggested the L-20. (Huh?)

Correct.

Where is the redundancy eliminated????

I observe all of the above organizations and naturally say: "They make sense! If you can not convince enough people in the UN, form a different collective! If you can not twist enough arms in NATO, form a different collective! If you can not bribe enough people among the G8, form a different collective!" All of these organizations are masks and covers. They will eventually disintegrate until we see obvious collusions between heads of state acting with absolutely no regard for the people they represent. I believe that it is natural.

[Michael Hardner]

I disagree. However, even if you are correct, how righteous is it to spend other people's money to do good in your own name?

If they ask you to do it, then what's wrong with it ? United Way, for example, is an umbrella organization for a host of charities that don't want to expend the effort to raise funds.

[Charles Anthony]

You are confusing two different things when it comes to personal responsibility: charities and "governments".

how righteous is it to spend other people's money to do good in your own name?

If they ask you to do it, then what's wrong with it ?

You as an individual can not claim any credit for what the United Nations does. In fact, you can not claim any credit for what "Canada" does either because you have no voice and you have no power. You can not opt out of your taxes going to fund either organization.

United Way, for example, is an umbrella organization for a host of charities that don't want to expend the effort to raise funds.

Yes. This is a charity and their funding is through free donations. If you contribute to the United Way, you deserve credit (and possibly blame) for what they do. That is not the case with "governments" such as the United Nations.

I would rather the United Nations operated more as a charity.

[Michael Hardner]

We're talking about the benefits of bureaucracy, for what there are of them, and that's an organizational issue that applies across the board.

Canada still provides individual aid to nations as well, so I'm not sure what the problem is. The UN provides coordination for areas that need coordination.

[jbg]

While the U.N. is getting busy admitting the Palestinian Authority to its constituent organizations, where are they in Yemen with mosques exploding?

[Rue]

Enjoyed Dobbin's point and August's comment.

I personally always believed in the idea of a United Nations and from an idealistic point of view still crave it. Unfortunately

to date in practice it has been rendered ineffective by partisanship and out and out corruption. It is a testament to corruption,

bribery and partisanship and that is sad.

I think it has failed miserably for these reasons:

1-its permanent security council members all were the original nuclear powers

and all depend on their military industrial complexes and the sale of weapons

as their no. 1 financial activity and so these built in biases have impacted on all nations'

foreign policies;

2-third world countries in particular but many other nations as well have misappropriated funding

and allowed it to get into the hands of corrupt leaders' personal bank accounts;

3-the UN has never been able to properly control its finances including auditing and maintaining

proper transparency s to where funds have gone;

4-the UN has allowed partisanship to render obsolete its role as a neutral mediator, the

most vivid example, placing on committees, certain country representatives whose

nations violate and engage in the very practices they criticize in other nations;

5-the UN has become an open arena for countries to gather intelligence on one another

not to enhance world peace, but individual partisan advantage.

I think the UN as it is, is so corrupt it can not be saved. On the other hand,I do believe a UN

with a clear and precise mandate to be a neutral mediator and operate charities of a non political

nature to preserve wild life and the environment, develop basic infrastructure needs and operate

in times of crisis for refugees and victims of famine, war, natural catastrophe and to provide a

network to exchange knowledge and technology would be an ideal thing.

Its interesting because just the concept, has been tainted. Today we hear the dreaded reference to

one world conspiracy government. The very idea of humans being unified in one government and

not remaining decentralized scares people. That is too bad.

I mean I understand the fear and agree with it but I also think unified cooperation and learning to

work together is the only thing that can save this planet.

As a child I remember going to the UN and think what could be a better idea. I thought the best thing

a person could so is win the Nobel Peace Prize and I thought wow, here comes the UN Commissioner

to make peace.

Those naïve expectations and thoughts are rudely over, but I still hope we could evolve to a higher level

of cooperation as the world continues to shrink.

[jbg]

Those naïve expectations and thoughts are rudely over, but I still hope we could evolve to a higher level

of cooperation as the world continues to shrink.

I am all for cooperation. I am all against squandering my hard-earned money.

[Rue]

Well JBG spare yourself reading about the few audits done at the UN. You want to see a bottomless pit of disappearing money donated by well intentioned countries and people to corrupt sob's look no further.

I applaud to the purpose for example of UNICEF but I would not pay a penny to it because of its politically compromised practices choosing only certain nations to help and the amount of money missing. I would instead at this point give it to other charities.

I believe the bigger a charity, the more likely it loses the ability to keep proper control over its financing and so I would argue and God Bless them because their intent is genune, huge organizations like CARE and the RED CROSS have their aid intercepted by corrupt regimes and terror units and the food and aid often does not get to the people-but when it does, its a lifesaver yes and Lord knows what would happen if th Red Cross was not responding to disasters or CARE food did not get through, but even they have problems,not because they are corrupt as much as their size paralyzes their ability to avoid attracting sob parasites. That's the problem with the UN its a huge cash cow with thousands of mosquitoes clouding it to suck it.

I love its intent, I question its practical operations weighed down by both financial and political corruption.

Some would argue, its better flawed then not at all. It still does more good than bad. If such an argument is done well, I listen.i am just cynical about it these days for many reasons. For me the last straw was allowing genocide in Sudan, Rwanda,Mali,Burundi.The information released now makes it clear

Koffi Annan had options and deliberately did not follow them to placate his friends in African high offices.

I believe the current leader is as useless as tits on a male.

[Charles Anthony]

We have had several threads on this topic.

Here

Here

Here

I suppose there's no harme in having another thread but when I once asked whether we should close threads, the general response was that we should just leave them open.

All of the threads have been merged.

[Argus]

The United Nations is an unfortunate reflection of its membership. It's ability to function in anything like an intelligent fashion has diminished in concert with the expansion of its membership to include every banana republic dictator and illiterate, fist shaking religious nutbar the world over. Add in the fact that two of its five major controlling powers are ruthless, amoral, kleptocracies without a shred of human decency and you get the current messed up collection of humanity.

Someone should start another world body, made up solely of free, democratic nations. All aid could be redirected towards third world countries which aspire to be something more than the personal fiefdom of whatever corrupt dictator is currently in charge of them.

[eyeball]

All aid could be redirected towards third world countries which aspire to be something more than the personal fiefdom of whatever corrupt dictator is currently in charge of them.

Good luck getting that past the 3 freedom-loving democracies and worst offenders currently in charge at the UN.

[Argus]

Good luck getting that past the 3 freedom-loving democracies and worst offenders currently in charge at the UN.

You don't need the agreement of the UN to set up a separate world body made up of democracies. And clearly, neither Russia nor China will be members.