UN for Dummies

[JR]

i dont think that its fair to call it a clusterfuck.

http://www.unsystem.org/
this gives a list of the programs that operate under the UN. The UN does a lot more than people realize or consider. They do a lot of good.

its important to make the distinction between all the other functions of the UN and conflict resolution/Security council actions.

The UN also is responsible for peace keeping operations all over the world, for massive humanitarian efforts including education, distributing food and medicine, education and training, environmental issues, trade relations and development, economic development of poor countries, World Bank/International Monetary Fund financing, fighting for basic human rights issues... to the establishment of international courts - namely those for war crimes and the list continues.

today, it seems to be more of a humanitarian organization than it is a security organization.

When it comes to conflict resolution, i agree it’s sorely lacking in effectiveness.

The UN was formed right after WWII to make sure that WW3 does not happen. It has since become a shining example of how the democratic process can be completely ineffective and how decisions through consensus of its members when its members have such diverse interests will always lead either to the lowest common denominator or inaction and often both. Resolution 1441 regarding Iraq is a good example. The 4th or 5th "final warning" in a string of 17 Resolutions. Though the language is clear in that he must comply "fully, immediately and unconditionally" and all parties agree that he has not... few countries have the will, ability or intention to go further than sabre rattling on the world stage.

To fulfill its original mission, they had to bring everyone into the fold and make them a part of the UN and a part of the processes the UN represents. Though it seems fair, kind, compassionate and democratic on the surface, the reality was that they had more than a few rogue dictators, terrorists and terrorist states as well as members with massive and wide array of irreconcilable ideological, religious, cultural differences and economic and political interests. It’s a little like having a political system with almost 200 different parties. 200 different political parties all fighting for something different cannot ever represent the majority opinion in a democratic process.

I think people should be careful to separate the “UN” and all of its effective and helpful functions and the Security Council.

The “UN” itself is not ineffective as a whole. It does a lot of good either directly or indirectly through organizations working with or under the UN.

The Security Council can probably be said to be ineffective… as should be expected to be when you throw Communist, Socialist, Capitalist, decaying and weak, Middle Eastern Monarchies, African basket case countries and places no ones ever heard of together in a room and expect them to reach a common consensus on a course of action. They cannot even reach a common consensus or agreement on the problem.

For small countries, the UN is a lot like a company website. Just as the Internet can level the playing field by allowing anyone to look like a big company... the UN gives every backwards religious fundanmentalist, brutal dictator, terrorist or country with the GDP the size of that of the State of Arkansas an equal voice on the world political stage. Most use it as such... as their one chance to assert its limited influence in global politics to make a statement.

The UN historically has a horrible track record of appeasing murderers, dictators and terrorists. Arafat is a shining example where right after the group Black September (under his leadership) took 11 hostages in the 1972 Olympics where they were all killed. After walked later walked into a UN session without invitation or right to be there, making veiled threats to the rest of the world in an inpromtu speech.. he was rewarded with “observer status” Palestin in the UN. UN Message to the world: "terrorism pays off"

Syria sits on the UN Security Council right now and they are classified as a terrorist state by the US. The list is long... and the general idea of modifying the behavior of countries by bringing them into the fold seems to often be obstructed by those same people who were given political credibility, yet have horrible intentions, histories and track records.

I think that the UN Security Council is a necessary evil. I only believe that because there is nothing to take its place and provide a system of checks and balances on international military powers... though i understand it can be argued that it does that poorly to begin with.

The Iraqi issue has taught me one thing above all others...

That true leadership cannot happen through the consensus of a wide range of interests. It never will.



Last edited by JR at Mar 17 2003, 01:41 AM