Is the UN sufficient and reliable?

[Zipangese Star Empire]

Allow me to elaborate in the simplest way of how the UN operates. The UN was originally meant to usher in an era of international cooperation in the middle of an ideological cold war between two of the greatest superpowers coming out of the last war, but it's power greatly diminished after the Korean war and now peacekeepers just have to accept being butchered in africa without being allowed to defend themselves lest they get tried for it as criminals. Nowadays, the UN also has a human rights council ironically with one of the greatest violators of human rights at the head of the table. Then on the security council you have nations that mostly hate each other trying to work together to not nuke each other.

And above all else. If a nation does a >Insert horridly awful thing here< the UN will retaliate by saying "There's serious consequences for what you've done!" But then end up saying afterwards "You shouldn't have done that.". So in my opinion. No. The UN isn't sufficient and reliable.

That is my pessimistic view on the UN. And as per standard protocol of mine. Disclaimer.

This post was not made to flamebait, or be considered trolling. The opinions above are indeed my honest thoughts.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

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.

Yes, indeed. But UN reform is also in the hands of the member states, who will have to change the treaties in order for this to work.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Allow me to elaborate in the simplest way of how the UN operates. The UN was originally meant to usher in an era of international cooperation in the middle of an ideological cold war between two of the greatest superpowers coming out of the last war, but it's power greatly diminished after the Korean war and now peacekeepers just have to accept being butchered in africa without being allowed to defend themselves lest they get tried for it as criminals. Nowadays, the UN also has a human rights council ironically with one of the greatest violators of human rights at the head of the table. Then on the security council you have nations that mostly hate each other trying to work together to not nuke each other.

And above all else. If a nation does a >Insert horridly awful thing here< the UN will retaliate by saying "There's serious consequences for what you've done!" But then end up saying afterwards "You shouldn't have done that.". So in my opinion. No. The UN isn't sufficient and reliable.

That is my pessimistic view on the UN. And as per standard protocol of mine. Disclaimer.

This post was not made to flamebait, or be considered trolling. The opinions above are indeed my honest thoughts.

The problem with this argument is that the logical conclusion one takes from this is that the UN should be given more power, but the only people who say this are the ones who believe that the UN should be given less power.

[Zipangese Star Empire]

Allow me to elaborate in the simplest way of how the UN operates. The UN was originally meant to usher in an era of international cooperation in the middle of an ideological cold war between two of the greatest superpowers coming out of the last war, but it's power greatly diminished after the Korean war and now peacekeepers just have to accept being butchered in africa without being allowed to defend themselves lest they get tried for it as criminals. Nowadays, the UN also has a human rights council ironically with one of the greatest violators of human rights at the head of the table. Then on the security council you have nations that mostly hate each other trying to work together to not nuke each other.

And above all else. If a nation does a >Insert horridly awful thing here< the UN will retaliate by saying "There's serious consequences for what you've done!" But then end up saying afterwards "You shouldn't have done that.". So in my opinion. No. The UN isn't sufficient and reliable.

That is my pessimistic view on the UN. And as per standard protocol of mine. Disclaimer.

This post was not made to flamebait, or be considered trolling. The opinions above are indeed my honest thoughts.

The problem with this argument is that the logical conclusion one takes from this is that the UN should be given more power, but the only people who say this are the ones who believe that the UN should be given less power.

Well in my own honest opinion(Again because I must say that so I'm not considered as being flamebaity or anything with my opinions). Is that the UN shouldn't exist at all if it's so useless and ineffective. And I wouldn't be much sad at all to see it go.

[Andsed]

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.

Yes, indeed. But UN reform is also in the hands of the member states, who will have to change the treaties in order for this to work.

True. Sadly international politics are a major obstacles to UN reforms that I think would be very beneficial. Kind of ironic.

[Alvecia]

The problem with this argument is that the logical conclusion one takes from this is that the UN should be given more power, but the only people who say this are the ones who believe that the UN should be given less power.

Well in my own honest opinion(Again because I must say that so I'm not considered as being flamebaity or anything with my opinions). Is that the UN shouldn't exist at all if it's so useless and ineffective. And I wouldn't be much sad at all to see it go.

Way to be a perfect example of the point they were trying to make.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

The problem with this argument is that the logical conclusion one takes from this is that the UN should be given more power, but the only people who say this are the ones who believe that the UN should be given less power.

Well in my own honest opinion(Again because I must say that so I'm not considered as being flamebaity or anything with my opinions). Is that the UN shouldn't exist at all if it's so useless and ineffective. And I wouldn't be much sad at all to see it go.

Please tell me which part of "the UN doesn't have enough power to do everything it should" means "the UN should have less power". Tbh, if I didn't have experience with your exact argument (look at the previous page for several other people saying literally the exact same thing), I would have assumed that you think we should give the UN more power, since your argument is based entirely on the idea that the UN doesn't have enough power.

[Slovenya]

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.

yea you're right, I guess in a way it's a way of keeping the world free of the most serious evils. But I don't think we'll honestly see a world body that is the humanist side of things in all circumstances. Just look at most of africa and SE asia, its sad.

[Valkalan]

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.

I didn't say that UN was evil. That would be giving it too much credit. I said that it was useless, and a waste of resources.

The UNESCO notebook is an example of cases where UN aid has ended up in the wrong hands, often to the benefit of insurgent groups. This is common in the Middle East and African nations. It seems that you've missed the point. That aid can include food, medical supplies, water, batteries, ect. Insurgents either use these for themselves or sell them. The fact that the Taliban had that notebook leads me to believe that they likely made good on other UN-provided items.

[Heloin]

I really like the UN and think they do alot of good work, and for an organisation who's main goal is stopping World War III I think there doing a much better job then there predecessor. They do leave alot to be desired however and I think Max Berry put it well saying "they tend to specialize in demands backed by the threat of further, even more stridently voiced demands."

[Battlion]

Abolish the P5 Veto, I bet then we’ll see a more publicly active UN that can do something.

[Andsed]

I really like the UN and think they do alot of good work, and for an organisation who's main goal is stopping World War III I think there doing a much better job then there predecessor. They do leave alot to be desired however and I think Max Berry put it well saying "they tend to specialize in demands backed by the threat of further, even more stridently voiced demands."

Actually speaking of our lord and savior Max didn't the UN try to sue him for copyright infringement because the World Assembly was called the United Nations back in the day?

[Proctopeo]

On paper it's an amazing idea.
In practice, it's... eh.

The most visible parts (the GA, SC, and HRC) need to be seriously rethought; the peacekeepers need more accountability and some rethinking as well (reminder).
The WHO is fine, just needs various reforms, and UNICEF really just needs improvements to efficiency and to keep its goals realistic.

Anyone I missed?

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

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.

I didn't say that UN was evil. That would be giving it too much credit. I said that it was useless, and a waste of resources.

The UNESCO notebook is an example of cases where UN aid has ended up in the wrong hands, often to the benefit of insurgent groups. This is common in the Middle East and African nations. It seems that you've missed the point. That aid can include food, medical supplies, water, batteries, ect. Insurgents either use these for themselves or sell them. The fact that the Taliban had that notebook leads me to believe that they likely made good on other UN-provided items.

Okay, fine, "useless and a waste of resources". Potato, potahto.

And why should we focus on all the times that UN aid ended up in the wrong place as an example of why it's worthless instead of examining why that aid got to the wrong place or looking at all the times it ended up in the right place?

[Chan Island]

No.

The UN needs to be empowered to be able to carry out their mission goals more effectively and without member state interference.

[Heloin]

I really like the UN and think they do alot of good work, and for an organisation who's main goal is stopping World War III I think there doing a much better job then there predecessor. They do leave alot to be desired however and I think Max Berry put it well saying "they tend to specialize in demands backed by the threat of further, even more stridently voiced demands."

Actually speaking of our lord and savior Max didn't the UN try to sue him for copyright infringement because the World Assembly was called the United Nations back in the day?

Tis' where the quote comes from.

https://maxbarry.com/2008/04/02/news.html

[Proctopeo]

No.

The UN needs to be empowered to be able to carry out their mission goals more effectively and without member state interference.

That's the opposite of a good idea.

[North German Realm]

Sufficient? Yes. It is sufficient for the role it was designed for (acting as a "forum" for nations to interact in), and for that it is anything but reliable. But if I expand any more on that, I'll have to get into why creating a "United Nations" and not an Assembly with legislative, judicial, and military powers capable of dealing with threats by itself was a pathetic appeasement to the failed Westphalian ideology and nothing more, and nobody will want that.

[Satuga]

Personally I think the UN is corrupt, not because of it's policies, but because despite it being a Human's Rights council, it host various countries that are practically built on the foundation of oppression and tyranny. It's frankly absurd how this is allowed within the UN which I need to say again is a HUMAN'S RIGHTS COUNCIL.

[Heloin]

Personally I think the UN is corrupt, not because of it's policies, but because despite it being a Human's Rights council, it host various countries that are practically built on the foundation of oppression and tyranny. It's frankly absurd how this is allowed within the UN which I need to say again is a HUMAN'S RIGHTS COUNCIL.

The United Nations is a International Forum were nations can yell at each other instead of fighting wars, with varying degrees of success.

[North German Realm]

Personally I think the UN is corrupt, not because of it's policies, but because despite it being a Human's Rights council, it host various countries that are practically built on the foundation of oppression and tyranny. It's frankly absurd how this is allowed within the UN which I need to say again is a HUMAN'S RIGHTS COUNCIL.

The United Nations is a International Forum were nations can yell at each other instead of fighting wars, with varying degrees of success.

The problem arises when the people designing it added in "League of Nations" functions, while the League of Nations was specifically not an international forum. That's why you get shit like International Conventions on Political and Civil Rights, or the Hague under the UN's administration. It was designed as a forum, but someone fucked up and gave the forum an illusion of being a "world assembly", but didn't follow through by giving it a way of enforcing International Law.

[Yusseria]

But who will send strongly worded letters without the UN?

[Kowani]

But who will send strongly worded letters without the UN?

Can’t the peacekeepers not fire their guns?

[United Muscovite Nations]

But who will send strongly worded letters without the UN?

Like I said, the goal of the UN is not global governance, it's to provide a place where countries can discuss their problems openly before violent action is necessary to solve the world's problems. At that, it's done pretty well.

[Yusseria]

But who will send strongly worded letters without the UN?

Like I said, the goal of the UN is not global governance, it's to provide a place where countries can discuss their problems openly before violent action is necessary to solve the world's problems. At that, it's done pretty well.

Didn't the League of Nations do that exact same thing? Sometimes countries don't care to talk.