Why the United Nations?

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

Something I noticed in past posts is a belief that UN sanctioned missions are either more honest or honourable than Nato missions. I would like to know why that is. Is there a perception that the United Nations is an honest broker when it comes to world affairs?

Is it the American connection to Nato that makes people think that a Nato action is dishonest on some level? I remember reading recently an argument between to posters, one was dead against the mission in Afghanistan while the other thought that by turning control of the mission over to the United Nations would gove it more integrity.

I have my own views, both on the UN and Nato, but I am going to withhold them for now. I really would like to hear reasons for or against.

How bout it folks. Love the UN or Hate them? Why? What are your reasons?

Cheers
M

 

[Said1]

I dislike the UN, mainly becuase it provides a false sense of security - in a way. I've said it once, I"ll say it again: institutions are only as effective as their governing body allows them to be. They heavily influenced by the heirarichal power structure of state systems, not by what is right, in many cases.

 

[FiveParadox]

United Nations / North America Treaty Organizations

:arrow: The United Nations

I like the premise of the United Nations — in exemplia, that the nations of the world should have a forum whereby they can assemble and discuss issues of international pertinence, and to resolve themselves to take some action, or to take some position, from time to time (and to administer whatever international institutions, such as Courts, that happen to be created under their authority).

However, I think that serious reforms are needed in order to turn the United Nations into something that can be respected and acknowledged on a larger scale. I think that the Security Council of the United Nations, first and foremost, needs serious reform. The fact that permanent members have an all-powerful veto over decisions made by hundreds of nations is not, in my opinion, an appropriate feature of the assembly. I think that the subordinate committees of the United Nations (such as the Human Rights Council of the United Nations) need serious reforms in order to be effective, and more selective of appropriate membership.

:arrow: The North American Treaty Organization

I think that the North American Treaty Organization serves a purpose, but should perhaps be amended in order to better reflect the interests of the nations composing the treaty; for example, member nations should each have prominent representation in the command structure of the organization, and each nation should have equal control over the resources of the organization (as opposed to now, where there is a common perception that the United States of America exercises a higher degree of control over the activities of the organization than the treaty's other members).

Those are my two cents.

 

[Said1]

Re: United Nations / North America Treaty Organizations

: I think that the subordinate committees of the United Nations (such as the Human Rights Council of the United Nations) need serious reforms in order to be effective, and more selective of appropriate membership.

:

Aside from appropriate membership, I find many things that fall under the realm of the General Assembly's decisions and recommendations i.e: Human Rights, to be far more effective and decisive than the Security Counsil. The only possible way for them to be more effective (IMHO) is to give them the ability to somehow act. But again, they can only be as effective as member states allow them to be. That is largely where the problems stem from, in the international sphere, there really is no final authority.

 

[EagleSmack]

RCS I think you are on the right track.

Somehow people think all UN Missions are honorable and should be the only ones that are LEGAL. NATO missions because of the US seem to be illegal save the Yugoslavian Mission because that was mostly an EU mission under the NATO umbrella. It was only because of heavy pressure that Clinton finally sent US airpower to help finish the job.

That is one mission that most people like to ignore... the bombing of Yugolslavia. My friend is a Marine pilot and he told me that when he was there they bombed Yugolslavia unmercifully. He said the raids on Yugoslavia were just as intense as in Iraq but not a word was said about it.

And he has a point. During that time the US was involved in a mission that was not sanctioned by the UN. The NATO Air Forces rained bombs on the Yugoslavia. I do not recall one protest here in the US. Not one! No one bashed Clinton and Gore or the Dems.

Is it OK for the US to bomb countries when a Democrat is in office?

That seems to be the case.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

Actually I remember the early days of the mission. The UN was really unprepared for the Former Yugoslavia (FY for short) there was a great deal oof bureacracy. For instance, UN soldiers attempted to evacuate Croat civilians from a village because Serbian Force were closing in and they would be slaughtered.

On the twisted logic that evacuating the civilians was in effect assisting the Serbs in ethnic cleansing, the contingent was told not to evacuate the civilians and to pull back. The civilians were slaughtered.

This and many other tragedies would not have occurred had the UN allowed the commanders in the field make decisioms based on theater evaluation. Unfortunately, the UN has not turned that corner and while they do many good things they are definitely in need of an overhaul.

Enough Said.
M

 

[Finder]

The United nations may not be perfect, but it is the only thing which is even closely related as a international government we currently has. I'm sure the USA would love to replace it with NATO though. lol

 

[EagleSmack]

That is a good story RCS. It just goes to show you how the UN as a whole is so inept when it comes to executing missions that have legitimate opposition.

It also goes to show that at least in that area that the presence of UN soldiers meant nothing to the Serbs. The Serbs were coming so the option that the UN came up with was

RETREAT! RUN AWAY!

Not many nations are willing to risk their soldiers being killed under that Light Blue Flag. The UN knows this.

Then to make it worse they left the villagers to the mercy of the Serbs. WHat a disgrace.

 

[EagleSmack]

The United nations may not be perfect, but it is the only thing which is even closely related as a international government we currently has. I'm sure the USA would love to replace it with NATO though. lol

I do not think any country wants to be ruled by the UN.

I do not think that NATO could replace the UN. How is that even possible? Are we going to let Lybia (for example) into NATO?

NATO is a gun club. An international (for selected countries) army.

The UN is a good forum to get for countries to get out their gripes and talk. But in the end must countries will act on their own behalf as the UN has no teeth.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

I would not want to see it replaced, but definitely fixed. They are far from an international government. It does beg the question though Finder.

In a war abroad would you entrust Canadian troops to Nato or the UN. Before you answer that remember this. These soldiers are the sons and daughters of Canadians. Who is looking out best for them?

M

 

[I think not]

Does anyone remember the League of Nations? It draws many parallels with today's United Nations. Look closely, th eUN is heading in the same direction the League of Nations did, and low and behold, the US wasn't even part of it.

WWII effectively ended the League of Nations(LoN), but there were underlying problems that would have eventually led to the same ending.

The LoN didn't have its own forces, it relied heavily on the two powers of the era, France and Britain. Both of which, did not want to give their forces under LoN command. Any of this sound familiar?

The LoN neutrality made it essentially undecisive, something along the lines Said1 said, it was only as good as its members. Sound familiar?

Another issue was it tried to represent all nations, and nations put their own interests before the interests of everyone. Sound familiar?

Another issue was they wanted France and the UK to disarm, effectively eliminating their forces to zero, while empowering smaller states. Sound familiar?

History is repeating itself right before our very eyes.

Aside from all this, the UN should be overhauled with stricter rules of enforcement.

NATO can stay the way it is.

 

[EagleSmack]

I would not want to see it replaced, but definitely fixed. They are far from an international government. It does beg the question though Finder.

In a war abroad would you entrust Canadian troops to Nato or the UN. Before you answer that remember this. These soldiers are the sons and daughters of Canadians. Who is looking out best for them?

M

I would entrust US Soldiers and Marines to a NATO mission.

A UN Mission? Not a chance.

You Canadians must answer for your own troops as I am not Canadian.

 

[EagleSmack]

Does anyone remember the League of Nations? It draws many parallels with today's United Nations. Look closely, th eUN is heading in the same direction the League of Nations did, and low and behold, the US wasn't even part of it.

WWII effectively ended the League of Nations(LoN), but there were underlying problems that would have eventually led to the same ending.

The LoN didn't have its own forces, it relied heavily on the two powers of the era, France and Britain. Both of which, did not want to give their forces under LoN command. Any of this sound familiar?

The LoN neutrality made it essentially undecisive, something along the lines Said1 said, it was only as good as its members. Sound familiar?

Another issue was it tried to represent all nations, and nations put their own interests before the interests of everyone. Sound familiar?

Another issue was they wanted France and the UK to disarm, effectively eliminating their forces to zero, while empowering smaller states. Sound familiar?

History is repeating itself right before our very eyes.

Aside from all this, the UN should be overhauled with stricter rules of enforcement.

NATO can stay the way it is.

Actually, France and the UK wanted other nations to disarm OR keep their troop levels and warships to a point to where the UK and France could handle them. Take for example the Japanese to UK warship ratio. It was set up to where the the Japanese had to keep their capital ships (battleships, heavy cruisers) and smaller ships below the Royal Navy. The Japanese actually agreed but eventually they ignored it and built away.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Ideally, the UN is an attempt to create an international organization that can put an end to wars between nations. That's a multi-generation project that, in my view, has been disastrously undermined by the refusal of the world's only super power to take it seriously. The United States' move to unilateralism under George Dubya's administration may prove to be a fatal blow to it. Too bad; it was a nice idea that might have worked otherwise.

 

[jimmoyer]

That's a simplistic view.

It certainly does not explain half of it.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Re: RE: Why the United Nations?

That's a simplistic view.

Agreed, there's much more to be said, but what do you want on a message board, a 20 page essay? Nobody'd read it. And am I wrong in any fundamental sense?

 

[#juan]

The UN has serious, probably fatal flaws, in that five member countries have a dictatorial power of refusal. An other problem is the extreme antipathy of the U.S., under Bush, towards the UN who see it as a threat to their corporate interests. These problems are not likely to be solved while the current U.S. administration is in power.

 

[MMMike]

Yes, the vetoes wielded by the permanent five are a problem. Another problem is giving a vote to brutal dictatorships answerable to no one. Please.... Syria on the Security Council? Next... North Korea on Human Rights?

 

[Curiosity]

The organization's corruption has far exceeded any attempt by good people to point out their positives.

Take a good look at them - and stop blaming George Bush for heaven's sake...that is limited and wholly uninformed thought...they have been corrupt for many administrations of the U.S. political machine - and their days were over years ago...Their last "moment" I believe was during the Cold War.

Now they function for themselves only - to increase power and wealth for their individual nations on the world stage.

Disband them - reorganize human rights groups functioning regionally and remove them from the U.S.

As a taxpayer I am tired of funding them.... and yes we do pay their outrageous annual commitments - even though we have to continually supply their military "interventions" ad infinitum.

 

[Jersay]

Now I support the United Nations, and I will point out that the United Nations is just as corrupt as the United States, and I see no point to have the United Nations to a higher standard than the superpower of the world. It just doesn't make sense at all.

I support the United Nations, and I believe that reforms should not be committed to just the Security Council but to other reforms as well.

Creating a U.N army that would respond to genocidal conflict or wars between two neighbors by bypassing the Security Council and its politics whenever necessary.

Also make it illegal to do crimes against civilians, for example the sex abuse in several U.N missions in Africa and allow the United Nations to punish these soldiers or diplomats because the nation may not.

And I have a few more ideas.