Would the world be better off without the UN?
Discussion
The UN was built to keep sovereign nations from invading each other, except the permanent security council members, who can do what they want. In that respect, it does an OK job. The majority of the stuff it gets involved in these days is far beyond it's mandate, which leads to all sorts of ludicrous situations like troops standing by & watching massacres.
I'm guessing you mean the political aspect of the security council.
Well you could argue for all it's faults, and you can argue about it's cost and whether it's quiet fit for purpose and in need of reform, or whether it's effectiveness has either been spoilt by or it'd purpose bent by the permanent security council members' vetos/self interest, which maybe both good or bad, depending on your political point of view, that it has overseen 60+years without a major world or nuclear war and for the most part most borders have remained as stationary as they ever have, and a framework for peaceful resolution/prevention of conflict nation to nation, and the concept of International Law now exists.
Obviously there's more to that than just the UN, but if it didn't exist you'd be trying to invent it.
Well you could argue for all it's faults, and you can argue about it's cost and whether it's quiet fit for purpose and in need of reform, or whether it's effectiveness has either been spoilt by or it'd purpose bent by the permanent security council members' vetos/self interest, which maybe both good or bad, depending on your political point of view, that it has overseen 60+years without a major world or nuclear war and for the most part most borders have remained as stationary as they ever have, and a framework for peaceful resolution/prevention of conflict nation to nation, and the concept of International Law now exists.
Obviously there's more to that than just the UN, but if it didn't exist you'd be trying to invent it.
Having read General Romeo Dalliare's "Shake hands with the devil" - his account of leading the UN mission in Rwanda during the genocide, it was quite clear that the UN was totally unfit for purpose.
Took ages for the UN to act
They were given strict instructions not to engage, unless it was self defence
The only countries willing to supply troops were either ill equipped and unskilled armies looking to be supplied with the latest hardware such as Ghana and Bangladesh, and Belgium, who were there to protect Francophile interests in central Africa.
They had no support from UN headquarters, suggestions from Dalliare were ignored
They had no equipment or money - he had to borrow chairs and tables from schools
The comical thing was, while a million Rwandans were being slaughtered, they could hardly communicate with UN headquarters, as they couldn't get hold of any paper for the fax machine. In fighting and the security council wanting to pull out of Rwanda caused him to use the media to promote his struggle. Seriously, if there is no wealth or interests in a country, the UN is next to useless. After Rwanda they said never again, they quietly ignored Sudan.
Things might have by changed in the last 15 years, though I doubt it.
Took ages for the UN to act
They were given strict instructions not to engage, unless it was self defence
The only countries willing to supply troops were either ill equipped and unskilled armies looking to be supplied with the latest hardware such as Ghana and Bangladesh, and Belgium, who were there to protect Francophile interests in central Africa.
They had no support from UN headquarters, suggestions from Dalliare were ignored
They had no equipment or money - he had to borrow chairs and tables from schools
The comical thing was, while a million Rwandans were being slaughtered, they could hardly communicate with UN headquarters, as they couldn't get hold of any paper for the fax machine. In fighting and the security council wanting to pull out of Rwanda caused him to use the media to promote his struggle. Seriously, if there is no wealth or interests in a country, the UN is next to useless. After Rwanda they said never again, they quietly ignored Sudan.
Things might have by changed in the last 15 years, though I doubt it.
Yes it is. Otherwise we will have no means of concensus, no means to debate outside national self interest. It is not ideal, it is flawed, it is in allegedly corrupt and it appears to be fickle and at time spineless.
but... the organisation concept of a United Nations is I valuable one and it needs to be supported.
but... the organisation concept of a United Nations is I valuable one and it needs to be supported.
VxDuncan said:
Having read General Romeo Dalliare's "Shake hands with the devil" - his account of leading the UN mission in Rwanda during the genocide, it was quite clear that the UN was totally unfit for purpose.
Took ages for the UN to act
They were given strict instructions not to engage, unless it was self defence
The only countries willing to supply troops were either ill equipped and unskilled armies looking to be supplied with the latest hardware such as Ghana and Bangladesh, and Belgium, who were there to protect Francophile interests in central Africa.
They had no support from UN headquarters, suggestions from Dalliare were ignored
They had no equipment or money - he had to borrow chairs and tables from schools
The comical thing was, while a million Rwandans were being slaughtered, they could hardly communicate with UN headquarters, as they couldn't get hold of any paper for the fax machine. In fighting and the security council wanting to pull out of Rwanda caused him to use the media to promote his struggle. Seriously, if there is no wealth or interests in a country, the UN is next to useless. After Rwanda they said never again, they quietly ignored Sudan.
Things might have by changed in the last 15 years, though I doubt it.
You might "enjoy" We Did Nothing by Linda Polman- a Dutch journalist who was in Rwanda, Haiti & other UN clusterfTook ages for the UN to act
They were given strict instructions not to engage, unless it was self defence
The only countries willing to supply troops were either ill equipped and unskilled armies looking to be supplied with the latest hardware such as Ghana and Bangladesh, and Belgium, who were there to protect Francophile interests in central Africa.
They had no support from UN headquarters, suggestions from Dalliare were ignored
They had no equipment or money - he had to borrow chairs and tables from schools
The comical thing was, while a million Rwandans were being slaughtered, they could hardly communicate with UN headquarters, as they couldn't get hold of any paper for the fax machine. In fighting and the security council wanting to pull out of Rwanda caused him to use the media to promote his struggle. Seriously, if there is no wealth or interests in a country, the UN is next to useless. After Rwanda they said never again, they quietly ignored Sudan.
Things might have by changed in the last 15 years, though I doubt it.
ks like Somalia. It's actually a very funny book, considering all the murder & political hijinks going on. But sounds like it has many paralells- the western SC countries see the UN as a way of getting soldiers on the cheap, the poorer nations see it as a way of earning cash from their armies, resulting in poorly managed forces who are unable to act, anyway, since they're under the UN banner and are thus there by invitation of the "government". IMHO, the UN could be a powerful force for good, but only if the permanent SC membership was disbanded and it was given more powers. Which will never happen.
glazbagun said:
VxDuncan said:
Having read General Romeo Dalliare's "Shake hands with the devil" - his account of leading the UN mission in Rwanda during the genocide, it was quite clear that the UN was totally unfit for purpose.
Took ages for the UN to act
They were given strict instructions not to engage, unless it was self defence
The only countries willing to supply troops were either ill equipped and unskilled armies looking to be supplied with the latest hardware such as Ghana and Bangladesh, and Belgium, who were there to protect Francophile interests in central Africa.
They had no support from UN headquarters, suggestions from Dalliare were ignored
They had no equipment or money - he had to borrow chairs and tables from schools
The comical thing was, while a million Rwandans were being slaughtered, they could hardly communicate with UN headquarters, as they couldn't get hold of any paper for the fax machine. In fighting and the security council wanting to pull out of Rwanda caused him to use the media to promote his struggle. Seriously, if there is no wealth or interests in a country, the UN is next to useless. After Rwanda they said never again, they quietly ignored Sudan.
Things might have by changed in the last 15 years, though I doubt it.
You might "enjoy" We Did Nothing by Linda Polman- a Dutch journalist who was in Rwanda, Haiti & other UN clusterfTook ages for the UN to act
They were given strict instructions not to engage, unless it was self defence
The only countries willing to supply troops were either ill equipped and unskilled armies looking to be supplied with the latest hardware such as Ghana and Bangladesh, and Belgium, who were there to protect Francophile interests in central Africa.
They had no support from UN headquarters, suggestions from Dalliare were ignored
They had no equipment or money - he had to borrow chairs and tables from schools
The comical thing was, while a million Rwandans were being slaughtered, they could hardly communicate with UN headquarters, as they couldn't get hold of any paper for the fax machine. In fighting and the security council wanting to pull out of Rwanda caused him to use the media to promote his struggle. Seriously, if there is no wealth or interests in a country, the UN is next to useless. After Rwanda they said never again, they quietly ignored Sudan.
Things might have by changed in the last 15 years, though I doubt it.
ks like Somalia. It's actually a very funny book, considering all the murder & political hijinks going on. But sounds like it has many paralells- the western SC countries see the UN as a way of getting soldiers on the cheap, the poorer nations see it as a way of earning cash from their armies, resulting in poorly managed forces who are unable to act, anyway, since they're under the UN banner and are thus there by invitation of the "government". IMHO, the UN could be a powerful force for good, but only if the permanent SC membership was disbanded and it was given more powers. Which will never happen.
A total waste of space and money. I saw huge bonecrusher squaddies reduced to tears of frustration at Banja Luka airport because of the way they just had to stand by and watch various militias just pounce on people and drag them away to what was a certain death. I keep my NATO medal for the former Yugoslavia separate from my others because I'm ashamed of what we let go on there.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff