Is the UN sufficient and reliable?

[AhmadiMuslim1889]

Personally, I love the UN in theory. It definitely did help the world prevent itself from getting into another catastrophic war. It was very sufficient in the Korean War. However, i do believe corrupt nations prevent the UN from passing resolutions needed to better the world. Especially those founding members who have the power to veto resolutions. This thread was made to continue an off topic discussion on the US military spending thread.

Yeah, like I said, it shouldn't be our responsibility alone to manage world affairs, but all of the world through the UN had it not been so corrupt.

This is off topic, but the UN's problem isn't corruption so much as it's people who say it's corrupt.
To rephrase, the UN isn't more corrupt than any other government, but there are so many people who try their best to stop it from doing anything, and then use the fact that it doesn't do anything as justification for not letting it do anything, that it can't do anything. Very few of the problems with the UN are actually the UN's fault, and while it definitely does have problems, corruption isn't really one of them.

I'm not saying the UN in itself is evil and corrupt. What I'm saying is, is that corrupt people who go to the UN from various countries, who are paid by companies and wealthy families, prevent certain resolutions from getting across. That's what I meant by corruption in the UN.

[Slovenya]

The UN is a useless circus, it's only there to condemn nations without taking any action.

[Alvecia]

Which part of the UN. Clearly the WHO has made great strides over the years.

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

The UN is a useless circus, it's only there to condemn nations without taking any action.

I do somewhat agree with this statement, but there’s stll the Peacekeeping force, the aid agencies and UNESCO. There’s still a lot more to argue about.

[Andsed]

I think the UN have had good intentions but have failed to follow through with them. I mean just look at how useless they were at stopping war crimes during the Bosnian war or the Rwandan genocide for examples of this. The UN is just to corrupt and does not have any real power to actually help enforce peace.

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

Which part of the UN. Clearly the WHO has made great strides over the years.

Oh, yes. I also forgot about WHO and their quarantining of recent diseases.

[Brightlake]

No since a "nation" may veto some a resolutions that agreed by most of other nations across the world.

[Sanctum and Ultima]

No. UN Delenda Est!
Remember the Rwandan genocide? Even though I wasn't even born in that time, my parents told me about how horrible it is and how the UN didn't take action. They only "condemn blah blah blah" without taking action. What a crappy supranational organization.

[Kowani]

No. UN Delenda Est!
Remember the Rwandan genocide? Even though I wasn't even born in that time, my parents told me about how horrible it is and how the UN didn't take action. They only "condemn blah blah blah" without taking action. What a crappy supranational organization.

There are actually parts of the UN that work, just not in the spotlight.

[AhmadiMuslim1889]

No. UN Delenda Est!
Remember the Rwandan genocide? Even though I wasn't even born in that time, my parents told me about how horrible it is and how the UN didn't take action. They only "condemn blah blah blah" without taking action. What a crappy supranational organization.

There are actually parts of the UN that work, just not in the spotlight.

I don't deny this.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

The UN is very often misunderstood. The UN does not really take actions on its own. It is primarily a forum for discussion. All decisions it takes, apart from the actions by the Secretary-General, are actions proposed and voted on by nations. All positions are elected by nations too. The problem with the UN is not really the UN itself, but the nations that take part in it.

Regardless, the UN has been extremely effective. Of course, there are a lot of problems in the world, still a lot of conflicts going on, and poverty is still rampant. However, there would have been much more of that if the UN wasn't there, simply because it gives nations an arena to fight in verbally instead of fighting it out in proxy wars and economic battles. Those things still happen, but less than if the UN had not existed at all.

There has been a lot of successful peace keeping, the Millennium Development Goals have all nearly been reached, the ICTY and ICTR have convicted numerous war criminals, and the UN provides indispensable help for refugees. It's easy to blame the UN for everything that's wrong in the world, but we should rather congratulate the UN on the jobs it did well than blame them for not creating a perfect world.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

No. UN Delenda Est!
Remember the Rwandan genocide? Even though I wasn't even born in that time, my parents told me about how horrible it is and how the UN didn't take action. They only "condemn blah blah blah" without taking action. What a crappy supranational organization.

Only because action was vetoed by the US. The majority of the UN wanted to take action. The US vetoed. You should blame the US instead.

Also, it's an international organisation, not a supranational one.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Personally, I love the UN in theory. It definitely did help the world prevent itself from getting into another catastrophic war. It was very sufficient in the Korean War. However, i do believe corrupt nations prevent the UN from passing resolutions needed to better the world. Especially those founding members who have the power to veto resolutions. This thread was made to continue an off topic discussion on the US military spending thread.

This is off topic, but the UN's problem isn't corruption so much as it's people who say it's corrupt.
To rephrase, the UN isn't more corrupt than any other government, but there are so many people who try their best to stop it from doing anything, and then use the fact that it doesn't do anything as justification for not letting it do anything, that it can't do anything. Very few of the problems with the UN are actually the UN's fault, and while it definitely does have problems, corruption isn't really one of them.

I'm not saying the UN in itself is evil and corrupt. What I'm saying is, is that corrupt people who go to the UN from various countries, who are paid by companies and wealthy families, prevent certain resolutions from getting across. That's what I meant by corruption in the UN.

Everything you wrote here is something I already believe to some extent. The UN has proven again and again that, if it's allowed to function, it can do great things, but there are so many people that have both the power to stop it from doing things and a vested interest in it not functioning that it ends up being ineffective.
What really bothers me is that people take the fact that it doesn't have enough power to make good on its promises or threats and use it to argue that the UN should be given even less power, because we don't approach any other issue that way.
If you're hungry, then you usually think that you should eat something, not that past food has been ineffective (as evidenced by the fact that you're hungry despite the fact that you ate something several hours ago) and therefore you should skip dinner, right?

[Sanctum and Ultima]

No. UN Delenda Est!
Remember the Rwandan genocide? Even though I wasn't even born in that time, my parents told me about how horrible it is and how the UN didn't take action. They only "condemn blah blah blah" without taking action. What a crappy supranational organization.

There are actually parts of the UN that work, just not in the spotlight.

Yeah, like the WHO, which works.

[Andsed]

No. UN Delenda Est!
Remember the Rwandan genocide? Even though I wasn't even born in that time, my parents told me about how horrible it is and how the UN didn't take action. They only "condemn blah blah blah" without taking action. What a crappy supranational organization.

Only because action was vetoed by the US. The majority of the UN wanted to take action. The US vetoed. You should blame the US instead.

Also, it's an international organisation, not a supranational one.

Yes blame the US and the structure of the UN that allows one nation to veto and stop something majority wanted. I mean the UN has good intentions and parts that work but there are parts that seriously need reform.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The problem a lot of people have with the UN isn't really a good reason to dislike it. The UN was never meant to go into countries and make them change their governments, it's not a world government. the UN is there to be a discussion forum for international politics, to give a neutral place where every country can express its grievances with the international order.

[Alvecia]

Only because action was vetoed by the US. The majority of the UN wanted to take action. The US vetoed. You should blame the US instead.

Also, it's an international organisation, not a supranational one.

Yes blame the US and the structure of the UN that allows one nation to veto and stop something majority wanted. I mean the UN has good intentions and parts that work but there are parts that seriously need reform.

If the UN reformed in such a way that it could enforce the decisions it makes, the same people calling it useless would be the first to complain about its overreach.

[Valkalan]

I once saw a UNESCO notebook being used as ledger for illicit narcotics trafficking by the Taliban in Paktiya Province, Afghanistan. The UN gives aid to people without consideration of the consequences. A lot of that aid ends up in the hands of corrupt officials and dangerous militants, which isn't helpful for regular people. And even if that weren't a factor, free food and medicine make it unprofitable to be doctor or farmer, for the obvious reason that it's hard to compete against free goods and services. This has the effect of causing skilled professions to emigrate, while stunting the development of indigenous industry. Finally, the provision of foreign aid keeps inept and corrupt governments in the developing world in power when they shouldn't be. Normally, a failure to provide adequate food and medicine should lead to the government being unelected or overthrown, but the reign of mediocrity is extended when foreign aid is given, and the native government no longer has to solve its problems.

Moral of the story, the UN is waste of resources. I'm sure that New Yorkers can find more productive uses for their HQ.

[United Massachusetts]

I love how there are so many people in this thread blaming the US when America is the largest financial contributor to UN operations by far.

[Page]

Yes blame the US and the structure of the UN that allows one nation to veto and stop something majority wanted. I mean the UN has good intentions and parts that work but there are parts that seriously need reform.

If the UN reformed in such a way that it could enforce the decisions it makes, the same people calling it useless would be the first to complain about its overreach.

It's not that the UN can't enforce it's decisions, it's more so a matter of the Security Council nations often having conflicting goals and spheres of influence, so sanctions will often be vetoed by one member or another. Russia protects Syria, China protects North Korea, America protects Israel.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

I once saw a UNESCO notebook being used as ledger for illicit narcotics trafficking by the Taliban in Paktiya Province, Afghanistan. The UN gives aid to people without consideration of the consequences. A lot of that aid ends up in the hands of corrupt officials and dangerous militants, which isn't helpful for regular people. And even if that weren't a factor, free food and medicine make it unprofitable to be doctor or farmer, for the obvious reason that it's hard to compete against free goods and services. This has the effect of causing skilled professions to emigrate, while stunting the development of indigenous industry. Finally, the provision of foreign aid keeps inept and corrupt governments in the developing world in power when they shouldn't be. Normally, a failure to provide adequate food and medicine should lead to the government being unelected or overthrown, but the reign of mediocrity is extended when foreign aid is given, and the native government no longer has to solve its problems.

Moral of the story, the UN is waste of resources. I'm sure that New Yorkers can find more productive uses for their HQ.

I'm pretty sure that a notebook falling into the wrong hands is hardly grounds to argue that the UN is evil. I'm pretty sure that I can get some paper from the US government and write out communist propaganda on it, but that doesn't mean much of anything.

[Tsuki]

NO

[United Massachusetts]

If the UN reformed in such a way that it could enforce the decisions it makes, the same people calling it useless would be the first to complain about its overreach.

It's not that the UN can't enforce it's decisions, it's more so a matter of the Security Council nations often having conflicting goals and spheres of influence, so sanctions will often be vetoed by one member or another. Russia protects Syria, China protects North Korea, America protects Israel.

Just a note: two of those countries engage in widespread human rights abuses. The other is the only democracy in the Middle East.

I'd actually say a huge problem with the UN is its stance towards Israel-Palestine. The HRC talks about nothing else.

[Andsed]

If the UN reformed in such a way that it could enforce the decisions it makes, the same people calling it useless would be the first to complain about its overreach.

It's not that the UN can't enforce it's decisions, it's more so a matter of the Security Council nations often having conflicting goals and spheres of influence, so sanctions will often be vetoed by one member or another. Russia protects Syria, China protects North Korea, America protects Israel.

Which is exactly the problem. A single nation should not be able to veto a decision that a majority wants.

Edit: Though to be honest the security council is a problem as well. A handful of nations should not be making decisions for the entire UN.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

NO

I'm not sure what this is in reference to, but I feel like you should elaborate.