Has the UN Failed?

[Disserbia]

consequences.

And do you have proof that if the UN never existed, the world would be better off? No, you don't, but there is quite a large amount of evidence that the world is better off with the UN.

Proof the world would be better off without the un?
Syria.
Rwanda.
Iran

Proof the world is better off with the un
Ccitt,
Laws of navigation.

A list of countries proves nothing, additionally the political situations which have arisen in those countries or the events that transpired there were not the fault of the UN.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Proof the world would be better off without the un?
Syria.
Rwanda.
Iran

How are those countries proof of anything?

It proves that client states, genocides and conflicting interests between powerful countries would not exist without the U.N. The world has gone to shit since 1945.

Woe upon the United Nations.

[Disserbia]

How are those countries proof of anything?

It proves that client states, genocides and conflicting interests between powerful countries would not exist without the U.N. The world has gone to shit since 1945.

Woe upon the United Nations.

That's not the UNs fault, the League of Nations didn't do much better. It doesn't prove that the world would be better off without the UN, it just proves the UN isn't perfect.

[EnragedMaldivians]

It proves that client states, genocides and conflicting interests between powerful countries would not exist without the U.N. The world has gone to shit since 1945.

Woe upon the United Nations.

That's not the UNs fault, the League of Nations didn't do much better. It doesn't prove that the world would be better off without the UN, it just proves the UN isn't perfect.

...I was being sarcastic.

[Disserbia]

That's not the UNs fault, the League of Nations didn't do much better. It doesn't prove that the world would be better off without the UN, it just proves the UN isn't perfect.

...I was being sarcastic.

Sorry I've been up all night, and sometimes its hard to tell on here. I forgot you're one of the smarter ones on here.

[Eleutheria]

Well, has it? Is the UN really that global force for peace and equality that it was meant to be? Or is it just The United States' pawn? Or is it just a general laughing stock?
Let's go nationstates! Let's see some good arguments! (And possibly nationalistic flame wars...)

It is hardly the United States pawn, but like the League of Nations lack of legitimacy due to the fact that the US wasn't a member, whenever the US doesn't agree with a UN decision the UN becomes impotent. For instance the UN opposed Iraq but noone took any notice.

[Anacasppia]

Not really, as much as the UN is US-UK-France-Russia-China dominated, it has been useful in aiding people in need and improving standards of living in numerous nations.

[The United union of Rossana]

They failed when they made that rule " war declared on one is war declared on all"! They knew they where dragging themselves into world war 3. Since they started they accomplished three things. Stopped ww3 from going public. Stopped iran from nuking isreal. and stopped america and russia from bombing each other to kingdom come during the cold war.

[Big Jim P]

Not really, as much as the UN is US-UK-France-Russia-China dominated, it has been useful in aiding people in need and improving standards of living in numerous nations.

splitting the veto among three opposing power-blocks wasn't the smartest idea.

[Jetan]

In part. As long as PRC holds ROC's seat and Russia is given access to the defunct USSR seat, UN is practically teethless.

[Samuraikoku]

Better than the League of Nations, but still not as it was intended to work.

[Purpelia]

The UN is seriously messed up in its conception. The parts where it regulates the laws of international trade are fine and indeed needed but the UN should newer have been given the power to impose sanctions let alone to recruit troops in any way, shape or form. It just opens up so much opportunity for abuse that it is silly. That much should have been obvious even without the benifit of hindsight.

[Ethel mermania]

Proof the world would be better off without the un?
Syria.
Rwanda.
Iran

How are those countries proof of anything?

Other nations would have taken action, if the UN was not in place, and in the case of rwanda, and syria, mass slaughter would have been adverted.

Also add. WHO, to the good side.

[Gigaverse]

Not yet.

[Muckistania]

Well, has it? Is the UN really that global force for peace and equality that it was meant to be? Or is it just The United States' pawn? Or is it just a general laughing stock?
Let's go nationstates! Let's see some good arguments! (And possibly nationalistic flame wars...)

That depends on what critea we use to judge success and failure. You have not laid anything out so making a good argument becomes difficult.

[United Marxist Nations]

The UN should have acted in Rwanda (real action, not that pussyfooting).

[Mad hatters in jeans]

They have an active copyright protection division that's for sure.

[The UK in Exile]

So basically what I just said.

Except your saying it as if it's the UN's only goal.

Whic is ridiculous, and if it is, the UN cannot do anything about it.

the UN ensures an international consensus and response to diplomatic crisis's involving world super-powers. in cases such as afghanistan, georgia and syria it prevents russia and the Us from being drawn into open confrontation which could then escalate into outright conflict.

[Zionale]

How are those countries proof of anything?

Other nations would have taken action, if the UN was not in place, and in the case of rwanda, and syria, mass slaughter would have been adverted.

Also add. WHO, to the good side.

uh... No. Those countries would have been fucked up anyway. Take Rwanda for example, the UN peacekeeping force was grossly undermanned and requested help from the UN (most of the world is part of the UN keep this in mind because no one in the UN did anything). What did some of the most developed nations in the worls do? Nothing, heck when things got really nasty and a few peacekeepers got killed the UN withdrew more peacekeepers. The most developed nations in the world thought the endeavor wasn't that important to waste their money and effort on. So if the most powerful countries in the world didn't want to help Rwanda because they thought it wasn't important enough to waste almost any money or effort on, what countries would have come to Rwanda to stop the genocide? Plus, have you looked up the "Suez Crisis"? that might make up for a few of the crapshoots the UN has done.

[Shrillland]

Well, the UN's original purpose was to keep a third world war from erupting and engulfing the wrold. If we use that criterion, than I would say the UN has succeeded tremendously. That's not to say it hasn't disappointed many that wanted to see it as some form of world police force. Even so, the UN has done many great things through UNICEF, UNESCO, WHO, and many other organisations under its umbrella. We often think of the UN as the Security Council and its competing egos among the permanent members, and the truth is that's simply not the case.

So yes, it has its shortcomings, but it has done much good since its inception, and will continue to do so.

[Gravlen]

How are those countries proof of anything?

Other nations would have taken action, if the UN was not in place, and in the case of rwanda, and syria, mass slaughter would have been adverted.

Simply not true, and I'd like to see you try to prove this hypothetical alternate reality.

I don't see anything to suggest that nations would be more willing to directly intervene in the internal affairs of other nations if the UN wasn't there. To be brutally honest, nobody cared about Rwanda and nobody would have intervened there. And nobody would intervene in Syria against our old friend Assad and go against the wishes of Russia and China.

[Alaje]

Yes it has failed, it isn't the world government yet.

[Muckistania]

The UN should have acted in Rwanda (real action, not that pussyfooting).

Rwanda seems to be brought up a lot on this thread. We do have to remember that Rwanda is a land locked nation with poor transportation infrastructure surrounded by countries with again poor transportation infrastructure. Mobilizing a significant ground force there would be politically difficult and expensive. Then there is the danger of the peacekeeping army being drawn into a protracted fight with sections of the populace. The Rwandan conflict saw a civil war between two half of the population. There was never going to be a painless out come from something like that.

[Blakk Metal]

Agreed. Each nation should have the same level of voting power and veto power, otherwise it becomes monopolized and nothing gets done (i.e Syria).

Of course, this also means the powerful nations can get swarmed by the not-so-well-off nations, getting economic sanctions for simply being rich.

It's a bad system either way.

Add a countries' bill 'o rights then.

[Chestaan]

No the UN has not failed. It's main aim was to prevent any major wars breaking out and I believe that it has succeeded in this. Sure, there has been some wars since its foundation but nothing like the scale of the two world wars. I do, however, disagree with the UN granting veto powers to certain nations.