NationStates

Hell no, they are letting Russia walk all over Ukraine just because they are on the SC.

Earl of Sandwich IV wrote:No. They're doing about as good of a job as you'd expect from a bunch of anti-semitic dipshits.

I know they tried to investigate Israel's military, the nerve! How could anyone submit a peaceful nation to such a thing!

Great Confederacy Of Commonwealth States wrote:

Risottia wrote:No, the UN sucks a lot at most of what it tries to do.
Two of the roots of those problems are the UNDHR being legally non-binding and not being enforced via, let's say, suspension or expulsion from the UN; and the veto power of the permanent members of the SC.

Well, the UNDHR is legally binding. The problem is not with the UN, but with national sovereignty as a whole. Countries can't be put on trial against their will, ...

That tantamounts to not being binding.
Take the ECHR instead: it's binding and the countries can and are put on trial against their will - if they refuse, they face expulsion from the CoE. The UN should do the same with the UNDHR, and institute an international Human Rights Court with powers to overrule any national ruling or law.

Earl of Sandwich IV wrote:No. They're doing about as good of a job as you'd expect from a bunch of anti-semitic dipshits.

Considering how Israel is a full-fledged UN member, you just called Israel an "anti-semitic dipshit".

Risottia wrote:

Great Confederacy Of Commonwealth States wrote:Well, the UNDHR is legally binding. The problem is not with the UN, but with national sovereignty as a whole. Countries can't be put on trial against their will, ...

That tantamounts to not being binding.
Take the ECHR instead: it's binding and the countries can and are put on trial against their will - if they refuse, they face expulsion from the CoE. The UN should do the same with the UNDHR, and institute an international Human Rights Court with powers to overrule any national ruling or law.

Nations will just start leaving the UN by then. Believe me, I have thought about this possibility myself, and if I can do anything to make it a working reality, I will. But if the UN declares such a court, nations with poor human right records will just leave the UN. The UN will shrink to NATO size. Besides, it would require a change in the statutes of the UN, and that requires an impressive vote. I hope all nations on Earth can one day submit themselves to such a court, but the UN is not to blame for not being able to institute such a court.

Great Confederacy Of Commonwealth States wrote:

Risottia wrote:That tantamounts to not being binding.
Take the ECHR instead: it's binding and the countries can and are put on trial against their will - if they refuse, they face expulsion from the CoE. The UN should do the same with the UNDHR, and institute an international Human Rights Court with powers to overrule any national ruling or law.

Nations will just start leaving the UN by then. Believe me, I have thought about this possibility myself, and if I can do anything to make it a working reality, I will. But if the UN declares such a court, nations with poor human right records will just leave the UN.

You know, I wouldn't exactly weep if it happened. I'm rather pissed at the idea that the vote of, let's say, Sudan, Belarus and North Korea weighs exactly as much as the vote of Norway, Canada and New Zealand about, dunno, the actions to be taken about refugees from ethnical cleansing policies.

Better start with a small, compact set of countries with decent human rights ratings, and then work to have the other countries better their own ratings before joining. See the CoE and EU enlargement policies.

Risottia wrote:

Great Confederacy Of Commonwealth States wrote:Nations will just start leaving the UN by then. Believe me, I have thought about this possibility myself, and if I can do anything to make it a working reality, I will. But if the UN declares such a court, nations with poor human right records will just leave the UN.

You know, I wouldn't exactly weep if it happened. I'm rather pissed at the idea that the vote of, let's say, Sudan, Belarus and North Korea weighs exactly as much as the vote of Norway, Canada and New Zealand about, dunno, the actions to be taken about refugees from ethnical cleansing policies.

Oh, yeah, it's horrifying that nations use their 'national sovereignty', a right given by international law, to disobey all other bases of law altogether. It is rightly disgusting that a nation like North Korea can claim their sovereignty to keep their bloody grip over their country. But the UN is, right now, a good way to keep conversation at least at a minor level, making complete breakdown of discussion nigh impossible. The system is unfair and favours countries that do not play by the rules, but less so than the world would have done without the UN. Right now, the UN is doing what she can, which just isn't a terrible lot. It'll change, eventually. The UN will keep expanding, until she can make the International Court of Justice in The Hague binding for all. Until then, she will have to make do.

The U needs heavy reform to be able to do it's job better.

Great Confederacy Of Commonwealth States wrote:

Risottia wrote:
You know, I wouldn't exactly weep if it happened. I'm rather pissed at the idea that the vote of, let's say, Sudan, Belarus and North Korea weighs exactly as much as the vote of Norway, Canada and New Zealand about, dunno, the actions to be taken about refugees from ethnical cleansing policies.

Oh, yeah, it's horrifying that nations use their 'national sovereignty', a right given by international law, to disobey all other bases of law altogether. It is rightly disgusting that a nation like North Korea can claim their sovereignty to keep their bloody grip over their country. But the UN is, right now, a good way to keep conversation at least at a minor level,

Eh, that's right. It's still better than a kick in the gonads. But I would like to see something more.

Gardocia wrote:Well, Australia's PM is still imprisoning refugees, so I'd say no.

It is terrible that the UN has not intervened in a country like Australia.

The only thing the U.N. does a good job at is being a charity. It pretty much sucks at trying to maintain world peace.

The UN is a good organisation but it seriously needs to grow some balls. We must allow the UN to have much greater powers when it comes to intervening in countries and it must use those powers when given to them.

The UN is stuck in the shitty middle ground.

It has some power, but not enough -- much like the US government, in a sense.

If they had more power, they could actually take care of their responsibilities, and get shit done the way it should be. However, that ruins the idea of national sovereignty.
If they had their power limited even further, then people would expect less of them, and they could complete their very short list of responsibilities.

I will speak in regards to African politics because that is what I usually spend my time reading the most, in regards to politics.

Let us look at this from an African, such as myself.

From what I have seen, we the African people, at least some people I have seen while I was in Africa seem to feel that the African Union serves as a better organization than the UN. Yes, Robert Mugabe is now AU president, and I have expressed my distaste of Mugabe in the thread. Yes, we have massive corruption, but their is a large amount of that in developing countries across the world, not only in Africa. Yes, we have massiven issues like Ebola, Boko Haram, and Al Shaabab. That however does not mean that Africa is not growing, and while most of the group seems to be concentrated on a few individuals, the continent is still growing, but that isn't what I am going to talk about. Let us see what the AU is doing for Africa shall we not?

Firstly, the African Union has come up with new ways of raising taxes in order for it to fund the projects it has on the continent such as taxes on air plane tickets, and hotels. They plan on raising 2.5 billion dollars in order to deal with the Ebola Crisis, and other continental issues, therefore proving that not much will stall itself just because Mugabe sadly got elected. That target of 2.5 billion dollars however, won't me met, considering the fact that the taxes are voluntary, instead of being mandatory.

When we look further into how much the AU can cover its budget, it is estimated that by 2016, it will cover nearly two thirds of its budget, which is a pretty significant achievement. My source is this This goes to show that it is gaining financial means, and it is therefore progressing quickly.

Secondly, they have created a regional force to fight Boko Haram. Boko Haram, as you know is a terrible terrorist group, and deserves to be eradicated from the face of the earth. The fact that the AU is creating a regional force, with various countries coming in to help the crisis goes to show that they wish to have this group eradicated, and I am more than happy to state that it will have more success than a USA military intervention. My reasoning is that will most likely have more people want to join the group, than an African intervetion, and judging from our colonial history, it is safe to state that a few may see it as an attempt to 'colonize' us in a new way, when that is actually wrong.

To evalute more on the fact that an AU stabilizing force will be better than an USA military intervetion, let us look at Somalia which is honestly a credible example, considering the fact that it has been wartorn for many decades. According to the UN, and my source is an article from the UN website. This is a direct paragraph from the article.

Once labelled “the most dangerous city in the world,” Mogadishu is now bustling with activity. Cars and people fill the streets and the sound of hammers has replaced that of guns, Augustine Mahiga, the UN special representative to Somalia, told reporters in Nairobi. When he first visited the city in 2010, it was a ghost town, he said. The only vehicles he could see on the roads were military trucks and an occasional donkey cart. “There wasn’t a single building that didn’t have bullet holes, and most had been destroyed.” While he was meeting with a Somali leader, for two or three hours “it was just the sounds of guns, guns of different calibres, small guns, big guns and big booms.…”

Mogadishu has been free from the iron grip of the Al-Shabaab rebel group since August 2011, when it was flushed out by forces of the Somalia Transitional Federal Government with the help of troops from the 9,000-strong African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM).

That goes to show the fact that it is doing well, when the USA intervetion force sadly did not do well. Yes their are still problems in Africa, yes I am aware the article date is old but we don't hear a lot of news about Somalia being a shitty place anymore. Of course the nation won't change in a day. After all, the Roman Empire was not built in a day. That doesn't mean progress hasn't been achieved and despite the fact that the AU still needs to make a lot of more progress, that doesn't mean progress hasn't been achieved.

Sklavinia wrote:The only thing the U.N. does a good job at is being a charity. It pretty much sucks at trying to maintain world peace.

So you would support the UN being granted the powers to maintain peace?

It's doing well with humanitarian aid, but the rivalry between the West and Russia & between the West & China prevents it from carrying out successful peacekeeping operations in recent times.

Even when they are able to carry out peacekeeping missions, they have a very high failure rate. Just look at Africa - Mali is going through a religious civil war with Azawad, South Sudan is experiencing violent ethnic conflicts, and the CAR is undergoing a genocide of Muslims perpetuated by radical Christian militias. The UN has been directly involved in peacekeeping missions in all of these conflicts, and have failed to make a significant lasting impact in any of them.

Then there are the conflicts in which UN intervention is being stifled by politics & veto power, such as the Syrian civil war.

U.N. is doing a ok job. Needs to be more militaristic, but in other hand we don't need that, since we have NATO.

Skappola wrote:It's doing well with humanitarian aid, but the rivalry between the West and Russia & between the West & China prevents it from carrying out successful peacekeeping operations in recent times.

Even when they are able to carry out peacekeeping missions, they have a very high failure rate. Just look at Africa - Mali is going through a religious civil war with Azawad, South Sudan is experiencing violent ethnic conflicts, and the CAR is undergoing a genocide of Muslims perpetuated by radical Christian militias. The UN has been directly involved in peacekeeping missions in all of these conflicts, and have failed to make a significant lasting impact in any of them.

Then there are the conflicts in which UN intervention is being stifled by politics & veto power, such as the Syrian civil war.

And that is why we require the AU to intervene.

Gardocia wrote:Well, Australia's PM is still imprisoning refugees, so I'd say no.

Eh, I'd argue that the UN has more important priorities to deal with. If I were a UN bureaucrat, I'd focus more on the atrocities in Syria and the near genocide in Mali rather than Tony Abott's remarkable lack of intelligence. That being said, Australia's imprisonment of refugees is horrible, but it shouldn't be the UN's top priority,

Earl of Sandwich IV wrote:No. They're doing about as good of a job as you'd expect from a bunch of anti-semitic dipshits.

Israel is in the UN, and there are numerous high ranking UN bureaucrats that are Jewish. But, clearly, the UN is anti Semitic because they give a flying fuck about the thousands of dead Palestinian children, amiright?

I think that they've been competent, but that would be barely competent. Capable but not impressive by any means. Simply, I think they've been mediocre at best.

Kalifati Arab shqiptar wrote:U.N. is doing a ok job. Needs to be more militaristic, but in other hand we don't need that, since we have NATO.

I'd say NATO should be tied to the UN and the Security Council should be upon a majority vote, not upon an unanimous decision.

Soldati senza confini wrote:

Kalifati Arab shqiptar wrote:U.N. is doing a ok job. Needs to be more militaristic, but in other hand we don't need that, since we have NATO.

I'd say NATO should be tied to the UN and the Security Council should be upon a majority vote, not upon an unanimous decision.

Well, it can't because NATO has enemies even in the Security Council so NATO is better alone.

Edit: If a resolution is 9 pro, it is passed.

Soldati senza confini wrote:

Kalifati Arab shqiptar wrote:U.N. is doing a ok job. Needs to be more militaristic, but in other hand we don't need that, since we have NATO.

I'd say NATO should be tied to the UN and the Security Council should be upon a majority vote, not upon an unanimous decision.

NATO is not a neutral actor, and isn't meant for the entire world. And the UN Charter makes it so any permanent member can veto any resolution.

United Marxist Nations wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:
I'd say NATO should be tied to the UN and the Security Council should be upon a majority vote, not upon an unanimous decision.

NATO is not a neutral actor, and isn't meant for the entire world. And the UN Charter makes it so any permanent member can veto any resolution.

Its a wonder we got anything done at all.