# United Nations organization



## cuchuflete

The UN has been praised as a source of hope for peace in the world.
It has been lambasted as a "debating society".

It has provided genuine help in some cases of real need.
It has been a model of inefficiency and waste.

It has been used for political ends by both 'great powers' and small nations.
It has stood by, locked in procedural stalemates, while mass murder continued.

All in all, do you believe this organization is worthy of continuing?
Can you state one highly significant thing it has done to benefit your country during the past 
decade?  Could that have been accomplished by any other national or international organization
in existence at the same time?

What would you do to improve it?


----------



## Etcetera

A good question, Mr Cuchu!
The idea of such an organisation is very noble. But we all know that people are real masters when it comes to destroyng illusions. 
Russia's one of the few countries which have permanent membeshio of the UN Security Council. It seems to me sometimes that for most politicians in this country it's only something of a symbol (look here folks! We're in the Security Council! We're really _important_!). You know, it's so annoying. 
In my opinion, one of the major problems of the UN is its lack of authoritativeness. Quite a few people can be frightened by resolutions... On the other hand, what can the UN do to make everyone stick to its resolutions?
But still, I like the idea of the UN. And we can't say for sure what would be here if there wasn't the UN.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

cuchuflete said:


> The UN has been praised as a source of hope for peace in the world.
> It has been lambasted as a "debating society".
> 
> It has provided genuine help in some cases of real need.
> It has been a model of inefficiency and waste.
> 
> It has been used for political ends by both 'great powers' and small nations.
> It has stood by, locked in procedural stalemates, while mass murder continued.
> 
> All in all, do you believe this organization is worthy of continuing?
> Can you state one highly significant thing it has done to benefit your country during the past
> decade? Could that have been accomplished by any other national or international organization
> in existence at the same time?
> 
> What would you do to improve it?


 
 Now, what do you mean, dear Sir, really? 
 (Hey, is he trying to leave me unemployed??)


----------



## TRG

Etcetera said:


> A good question, Mr Cuchu!
> The idea of such an organisation is very noble. But we all know that people are real masters when it comes to destroyng illusions.
> Russia's one of the few countries which have permanent membeshio of the UN Security Council. It seems to me sometimes that for most politicians in this country it's only something of a symbol (look here folks! We're in the Security Council! We're really _important_!). You know, it's so annoying.
> In my opinion, one of the major problems of the UN is its lack of authority. Quite a few people can be frightened by resolutions... On the other hand, what can the UN do to make everyone stick to its resolutions?
> But still, I like the idea of the UN. And we can't say for sure what would be here if there wasn't the UN.


 
I agree with what you are saying for the most part, but I'm not sure about giving them more authority. Do you mean the ability to levy taxes or to have a standing army or the ability to make law? All of these things are rather frightening to me and they will never come to pass IMO. I appreciate that many feel we need a world government, but we are a long way from being ready for it. The UN can only accomplish that which nations are willing to work on cooperatively. For now, that will have to do.


----------



## Lombard Beige

I think the UN is absolutely necessary, as, apart from the more sectorial Olympic movement and the Red Cross/Crescent, it is the only Universal meeting place. Historically, it is recognized as being an improvement over the League of Nations. and I think that, overall, it has avoided some big problems. Not always, but at least sometimes ... Even my friends and neighbours the Swiss have recently had to acknowledge its usefulness, after remaining aloof for years.

Of course the UN has many good points and many bad points, but so do the courts of law. But neither the UN nor the courts could be abolished without causing further chaos.

I think we are living in interesting times, different from the Cold War period. I don't think the position of the US as the world's leading power will last long (they don't have the manpower and what they do have they are UNDERSTANDLY * hesitant to commit), and I expect China, the Middle Kingdom, to take over soon in that role (I think they have less qualms about using their abundant manpower). In the meantime, I think it would be useful for the rest of us, the non Chinese, to organize ourselves and the UN does provide some sort of framework for that. 

* Because their laid-back "soocialistic" European allies are even more hesitant to commit theirs. The French perhaps less, but have you noticed that it's always the FOREIGN legion that is the first to go. The Spanish army too is full of Latin Americans, etc. 

regards


----------



## Kajjo

cuchuflete said:


> All in all, do you believe this organization is worthy of continuing?


All in all, yes. The UN is a valuable institution to offer a forum for nations to discuss their mutual and common interests. The UN surely was not as successful as one could dream, but it did succeed in several cases -- which is far better than nothing. Personally, I particularly like the efforts and results of the WHO.



> Can you state one highly significant thing it has done to benefit your country during the past decade?


No, I cannot. 



> What would you do to improve it?


In my opinion the permanent security council should better reflect the current distribution of worldwide power, influence and importance, while in fact it does reflect the 1945 situation. Council members like Japan, Germany or India would we desirable.

The bureaucracy should be drastically reduced. Most of the really important decisions are made by direct delegates of the member nations -- no bureaucracy needed here. This would also reduce the amount of necessary financing. The UN burns a lot of money for questionable administration, statistics and embassies worldwide that could almost entirely be replaced by efforts of the member nations.

However, I do not think that the UN should become more powerful -- believing in nations surrendering part of the sovereignty is pure illusion and seeing how bureaucratic giants usually act, I reckon that decentralised decisions ensure better and more effective actions in the long run.

Kajjo


----------



## Athaulf

cuchuflete said:


> The UN has been praised as a source of hope for peace in the world.
> It has been lambasted as a "debating society".
> 
> It has provided genuine help in some cases of real need.
> It has been a model of inefficiency and waste.
> 
> It has been used for political ends by both 'great powers' and small nations.
> It has stood by, locked in procedural stalemates, while mass murder continued.
> 
> All in all, do you believe this organization is worthy of continuing?
> Can you state one highly significant thing it has done to benefit your country during the past
> decade?  Could that have been accomplished by any other national or international organization
> in existence at the same time?



In the corner of the world where I come from, I've had the misfortune to observe the UN "peacekeeping" and other operations more or less directly during the war in 1991-1995.  Regardless of what one might think about this conflict and which sides (if any) one might favor in it, I don't think it can be argued that UN has had any beneficial effect, and most of its efforts and policies have been outright disastrous.  From all I've ever read, the other UN operations have historically been more or less equally bad in practice -- the only exceptions being those where the only practical role of the UN was to give its official endorsement to operations that were in fact conducted by the USA or NATO (such as e.g. the successful peacekeeping in Bosnia after 1995).  This is not to say that I endorse all USA/NATO operations in general -- merely that some of them were the only examples of anything ever done under the UN flag that wasn't an absolute disaster and sham.

Thus, I don't think that this organization has ever done anything substantially good, and the list of its faults is indisputably vast -- from the "human rights commissions" staffed by illustrious humanitarians appointed by the governments of Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, and Cuba, to their noble "peacekeepers" that invariably manage to display both colossal ineptitude when it comes to their primary mission  and the worst possible excesses in every sort of crime and depravity, to the rampant corruption at every level of its hierarchy. This list could easily be expanded indefinitely.



> What would you do to improve it?


Reduce its practical role as much as possible, because it's rotten beyond hopelessness, and has been like that since its very beginning. And before anyone starts yammering about the "noble ideals" supposedly promoted by this institution, please take a look at the portrait of its founders, especially the one with the smoke on the left. It has certainly served well to him and his numerous imitators throughout the recent decades.


----------



## Etcetera

TRG said:


> I agree with what you are saying for the most part, but I'm not sure about giving them more authority. Do you mean the ability to levy taxes or to have a standing army or the ability to make law?


No. I simply confuseв two words, authority and authoritativeness. 
I mean that the UN isn't authoritative enough.

Thank you for drawing my attention to this mistake!


----------



## maxiogee

The UN is a fine idea.
Unfortunately in its first manifestation it hasn't worked as countries used it for petty, point-scoring ends.
The Security Council needs to be abolished and a new format invented.
The use of a veto needs to be seriously re-examined and maybe made only available to those countries directly affected by any topic under discussion.
It needs a standing army of specially trained peace-keepers (and possibly police officers) and humanitarian workers ready to be sent anywhere as soon as the need arises. 

But first of all we seething mass of humanity need to decide do we all pull together or do we all hang separately.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

maxiogee said:


> The UN is a fine idea.
> Unfortunately in its first manifestation it hasn't worked as countries used it for petty, point-scoring ends.
> The Security Council needs to be abolished and a new format invented.
> The use of a veto needs to be seriously re-examined and maybe made only available to those countries directly affected by any topic under discussion.
> It needs a standing army of specially trained peace-keepers (and possibly police officers) and humanitarian workers ready to be sent anywhere as soon as the need arises.
> 
> But first of all we seething mass of humanity need to decide do we all pull together or do we all hang separately.



Here I composed this detailed response in my head last night .... and Tony beat me to it almost word for word.

What he said.


----------



## ernest_

Sorry, but I think you all got the stick by the wrong end. The UN is not a humanitarian organisation and it was never meant to be.  Mind you, the only purpose for which the UN was concieved was to handle the balance of powers resulting from the World War II. It wasn't about making this world a better place to live in, it was all about setting up a number of rules so that the most powerful powers could proceed to parcel out the world among themselves without disturbing each other too much. And that was it.

Of course, now that the former Soviet Empire has sunk and the European nations have given up on imperialism, the UN is just a drag to the only remaining imperialistic power, the US, though they have learnt to circumvent it, as we all have seen. So, yes, after Iraq it is clearer than ever that the UN do not serve to any useful purpose any more. It should be dismantled and replaced with a true “democratic” world government that takes care of international business, ensures that international law is respected and so on. Just like any decent state already does inside its borders, but to an international level.


----------



## Kajjo

ernest_ said:


> It should be dismantled and replaced with a true “democratic” world government that takes care of international business, ensures that international law is respected and so on. Just like any decent state already does inside its borders, but to an international level.


And you would really like that?

Seeing what the coloss of European Union does, particularly how far away from real life and the desires of normal people the bureaucrats decide most often, I never would agree to a _world-wide government_. I believe that people and nations are different and need and desire different attitudes and policies. A world-wide government would drown in political correctness, in all-are equal no matter how different we really are, in one-fits-all policies that are absolutely unsuitable for some members in any single case.

No, we need an institution, a forum, to negotiate mutual and common interestes, but we need to offer nations and their people the liberty to lead their particular life. 

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

maxiogee said:


> But first of all we seething mass of humanity need to decide do we all pull together or do we all hang separately.


Seeing the extreme diversity of beliefs, policies and interests, pulling together is only a dream, an illusion, but no real possibility and not even a sensible aim. We need to find compromises that enable all nations to peacefully live together, to prevent trespassing of theses few common goals, and possibly to punish nations that do not behave properly. 

Sovereignty is a valuable asset of countries and the equivalent of individual liberty. We should not surrender such central values to a gigantic, one-policy-fits-all world-wide organization.

Kajjo


----------



## maxiogee

Kajjo said:


> Seeing the extreme diversity of beliefs, policies and interests, pulling together is only a dream, an illusion, but no real possibility and not even a sensible aim. We need to find compromises that enable all nations to peacefully live together, to prevent trespassing of theses few common goals, and possibly to punish nations that do not behave properly.
> 
> Sovereignty is a valuable asset of countries and the equivalent of individual liberty. We should not surrender such central values to a gigantic, one-policy-fits-all world-wide organization.
> 
> Kajjo



I suppose that our two views on this represent the dichotomy on human existence.
I chose to see the possibility of the United Nations as a place where all nations work together for the good of mankind.
You appear to choose to see it as a place where this is not possible and maybe not even desirable, but where instead we all compromise, and defend our individual sovereignties (... against ?)


----------



## cuchuflete

For consideration, these are the stated purposes of the UN, in Chapter I of its charter:



> * The Purposes of the United Nations are:*
> 
> 
> 
> [*]*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; *
> [*]*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; *
> [*]*To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and *
> [*]*To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends. *
> *The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
> 
> 
> **Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.  *


My reading of that material is that the UN founders, some 51 countries, believed firmly in their individual sovereignty, and had no interest in considering the UN to be an international government.


----------



## Kajjo

maxiogee said:


> I chose to see the possibility of the United Nations as a place where all nations work together for the good of mankind.


Right. Nothing against this dream, but, simply put, the UN were not even necessary if all nations were willing to work together peacefully.


> You appear to choose to see it as a place where this is not possible and maybe not even desirable, but where instead we all compromise, and defend our individual sovereignties


A global government is not at all desirable. The world is diverse, people are different. Just have a look at the EU and you know what I mean...

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

cuchuflete said:


> My reading of that material is that the UN founders, some 51 countries, believed firmly in their individual sovereignty, and had no interest in considering the UN to be an international government.


I agree. And as far as the desire to stay sovereign is concerned, I cannot detect any change. The UN should supervise, organise and host discussions that need an international cooperation of many nations. The UN are not meant or suited to replace nations' governments.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

maxiogee said:


> The use of a veto needs to be seriously re-examined and maybe made only available to those countries directly affected by any topic under discussion.


First, _veto_ sounds very negative, but if you interpret it as necessary _unanimous _decision of the world's dominant powers, then it makes a lot more sense. However, I mentioned before that the Security Council members need to be reconfigured to reflect the current situation of power and importance.

Kajjo


----------



## maxiogee

Kajjo said:


> Right. Nothing against this dream, but, simply put, the UN were not even necessary if all nations were willing to work together peacefully.





If all nations were willing to work together peacefully, wouldn't they need a body through which to do so?
One ought to aim for perfection, that way one will aways have a target towards which to strive. If we say "It's a dream" and do nothing, pretty soon it won't even be a dream.


----------



## cuchuflete

maxiogee said:


> One ought to aim for perfection, that way one will aways have a target towards which to strive. If we say "It's a dream" and do nothing, pretty soon it won't even be a dream.


I agree about aiming for perfection, which is a nice dream.  Then I look at organizations working at cross purposes with themselves, with piles of bureaucrats seemingly working for the preservation of bureaucracy, and wonder if large, powerful international organizations are a step towards the realization of dreams or of nightmares.


----------



## Kajjo

cuchuflete said:


> with piles of bureaucrats seemingly working for the preservation of bureaucracy, and wonder if large, powerful international organizations are a step towards the realization of dreams or of nightmares.


Exactly my thoughts. Huge bureaucracies never solved any important issues to my knowledge. The more people are involved, the less is done -- at least that is my experience over and over again.

Kajjo


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:


> I agree about aiming for perfection, which is a nice dream. Then I look at organizations working at cross purposes with themselves, with piles of bureaucrats seemingly working for the preservation of bureaucracy, and wonder if large, powerful international organizations are a step towards the realization of dreams or of nightmares.


 



Kajjo said:


> Exactly my thoughts. Huge bureaucracies never solved any important issues to my knowledge. The more people are involved, the less is done -- at least that is my experience over and over again.
> 
> Kajjo


 

I thought the topic was how to improve the UN.
This surely means that things do not have to remain as they are.
You guys write as if they must remain tied up in their existing administrative red-tape.

The bureaucracy could be eliminated quite easily, as could much of the financial waste associated with it. All that needs to be done is for a carefully worded mandate to be drawn up.
I presume the starting point for this would be for each country to instigate internal debate about what role it sees the new-UN fulfilling, (and what roles it might need to drop) and then what powers it should be given towards fulfilling those roles.
This would then lead to an international conference on the roles and mandates.


----------



## Etcetera

maxiogee said:


> I presume the starting point for this would be for each country to instigate internal debate about what role it sees the new-UN fulfilling, (and what roles it might need to drop) and then what powers it should be given towards fulfilling those roles.
> This would then lead to an international conference on the roles and mandates.


It would be really great, but... 
I tried to imagine such an internal debate in Russia, and I failed completely.


----------



## cuchuflete

maxiogee said:


> I thought the topic was how to improve the UN.


That was a piece of it.  The other piece, mostly ignored, included a request for mentions of worthwhile things the UN has done for your country in the past decade, and whether this thing or these things might have been done by other existing means.

Organizations are far better at maintaining themselves than reforming themselves to meet current realities.  That is especially true for those that don't feel any market pressures.  British Leyland no longer exists, nor does Studebaker.  They had competition.  They had incentives to adapt.  What incentive does the UN have to evolve towards something more useful?

In the past week, the head of the Food and Agricultural Organization gave a retirement speech, in which he stated that 18 000 children die every day from malnutrition and starvation.  That same week, another UN organization showed what happens to UN funding, by publishing a report (let's assume for purposes of discussion that it was statistically accurate) which pointed out that in the richest countries in the world, some children came from families that had less than 50% of the mean household income, and were thus 'victims of childhood poverty'.  These rich country impoverished kids are described as generally having adequate food, housing and clothing.  Their relative poverty is thus a matter of suffering the horrendous indignities of having fewer non-essential material goods than some other people in their countries.  How many of the 18 000 dead each day might have been fed with the costs of the report writers?

What has the UN done for my country in the past ten years?  It has injected something into the economy of New York City.  That economic contribution may or may not exceed the potential tax revenues that could be realized by converting its real estate to alternative uses.  

Why has the UN been next to useless in stopping the rapes and murders and dislocations in Darfur?  It's only partly the fault of the international organization.  Mostly its because most member nations don't give a damn, and will not contribute funds and military forces to do some genuine peace-keeping.  It's not all on the heads of the "major powers".  If enough small nations
cared enough to send 500 peace-keepers each...  The existence of a large organization may provide 'cover' for smaller nations to expect that all the world's problems are the responsibility of the Big Institution and its Big Members.  

Suppose the Security Council were redefined to include the ten or twelve largest countries, measured by GDP (with one vote each), and votes to commit peacekeeping forces were to require consent by 80% of its members?  Suppose that other than peacekeeping, the UN were to focus on no more than two tightly defined issues, such as food and education?  Suppose that the UN were to have a permanent commitment from each member state to contribute some number of troops to a peacekeeping force?

Suppose the UN were to pass a resolution acknowledging that its current charter is far more broad than realistic, and that it will keep the entire charter for spiritual guidance, and create a new one, of no more than one page, stating specifically what it will attempt to do?


----------



## Etcetera

cuchuflete said:


> The other piece, mostly ignored, included a request for mentions of worthwhile things the UN has done for your country in the past decade, and whether this thing or these things might have been done by other existing means.


If the UN has done something for my country (apart from giving it this unique sense of importance for the whole world), I'm not aware of it.


----------



## Kajjo

cuchuflete said:


> The other piece, mostly ignored, included a request for mentions of worthwhile things the UN has done for your country in the past decade, and whether this thing or these things might have been done by other existing means.


Thanks for reminding us of this theme. I did answer. I also did note that there was a lack of other replies. I really would like to read some answers of UN proponents.

Kajjo


----------



## cuchuflete

"Global Issues on the UN Agenda"

Africa
                        Ageing
                        Agriculture
                        AIDS
Atomic Energy
Children
Climate Change
Culture
                              Decolonization
Demining
                              Development Cooperation
                              Persons with Disabilities
                              Disarmament
                              Drugs & Crime
                              Education
Elections
Energy 
Environment
Family
                        Food
                        Governance
                        Health
                        Human RightsHuman Settlements
Humanitarian and Disaster Relief Assistance
                              Indigenous People
                              Information Communications Technology
                              Intellectual Property
                              International Finance
                              Iraq
                              Labour
                              International Law
                              Law of the Sea & Antarctica
Least Developed Countries
The Millennium UN General Assembly
      -  The Goals  -
      Question of Palestine
Peace & Security
                              Population
                              Refugees
                              Science and Technology
                              Social Development
                              Outer Space
                              Statistics
                              Sustainable Development
Terrorism
                              Trade & Development
                              Volunteerism
Water
                              Women
                              Youth

Each of these items, from the UN web page, has a multitude of subsets.


----------



## maxiogee

I don't think of the UN in terms of what it contributes to Ireland (whatever that may be) but rather in terms of what Ireland contributes to the UN, which in terms of our size as a nation, has been a long list of peace-keeping and police service in many of the troubled places in the world since 1958.


----------



## Kajjo

cuchuflete said:


> UN goals and issues


Cuchuflete, many thanks for the UN lists! The UN scope is quite astonishing. 

In my personal view the UN should only be involved with issues that can not be dealt with on a national scale (subsidiary principle). I consider Peace, Health and Environment as being the dominant three issues at the moment.
​ I quickly and roughly sorted your list according to my very personal opinion:
​ reasonable: Health issues (includes AIDS, vaccination), Atomic Energy, Environment (includes: Climate Change), Drugs & Crime (as far as international co-operation is necessary), Human Rights (as far as definitions do any good), Humanitarian and Disaster Relief Assistance (as far as this cannot be dealt with locally), International Law (includes Law of the Sea & Antarctica), Peace & Security (includes: Question of Palestine, Terrorism), Outer Space (not much to do here)​
no UN specific issues: Africa, Ageing, Agriculture, Children, Culture, Demining, Development Cooperation, Persons with Disabilities, Decolonization, Disarmament, Elections, Energy, Family, Food (apart of disaster relief), Governance, Human Settlements, Indigenous People, Information Communications Technology, Intellectual Property, International finance (as this probably regulates itself well), Labour, Least Developed Countries, Population, Science and Technology, Social Development, Trade & Development, Sustainable Development, Volunteerism, Water, Women, Youth

Kajjo


----------



## Etcetera

Something I've forgotten when I wrote my post #25.
If UNESCO will make Gazprom to abandon their plans to build a skyscraper in St. Petersburg's historical center, we'll be mostly grateful to this organisation.


----------

