Is the UN sufficient and reliable?

[Badb Catha]

Neither of which encompasses the entire globe. Why do you keep reaching?

They formed the linchpins of global international orders- controlling 100% of the Earth's land area isn't really the point...?

You are missing the point. The United Nations encompasses the entire globe; the French and British Empires did not.

The UN cannot make decisions without it's member states agreeing to make those decisions. Therefor, everything he described is a direct case of the UN exerting influence.

No lmao it's a case of those member states coming to agreements with one another and exerting influence, not the UN itself

To reiterate: an organization is nothing without it's member states. To suggest that it is only the members exerting influence is to suggest the UN does nothing, but this is clearly not the case.

[Yusseria]

Don't we have Switzerland for that?

Switzerland wants no part in facilitating our diplomacy. They didn't even join the UN until 2002.

They have been a historically neutral place for nations to discuss important matters.

[Badb Catha]

I already did.

No, you have decisions taken by member states. Those actions can be taken without the UN, the UN just provides an independent framework for those decisions to be taken. The UN does not have a will of its own beyond what the members want, and therefore, it does not exert influence. The member states do, and wield the same influence as they would have if the UN were not there. The UN just allows for easy multilateral talks.

Then why does the UN exist? Because the way you described it makes it sound redundant.

[Yusseria]

No, you have decisions taken by member states. Those actions can be taken without the UN, the UN just provides an independent framework for those decisions to be taken. The UN does not have a will of its own beyond what the members want, and therefore, it does not exert influence. The member states do, and wield the same influence as they would have if the UN were not there. The UN just allows for easy multilateral talks.

Then why does the UN exist? Because the way you described it makes it sound redundant.

It is.

[Senkaku]

They formed the linchpins of global international orders- controlling 100% of the Earth's land area isn't really the point...?

You are missing the point. The United Nations encompasses the entire globe; the French and British Empires did not.

Yes, I know, but as I said, "controlling 100% of the Earth's land area isn't really the point..."

No, you have merely misunderstood how I was utilizing the word "influence". I was not speak in the general term in which quite literally everything influences something else;

Then explain how you were utilizing it, if you could be so kind, because atm only the general term in which everything influences everything would fit with your argument.

it would be asinine to make an argument using such logic.

I know that's my fuckin point lol

[The Emerald Legion]

Honestly, my main issue with the UN is that it pretends countries are civilized that aren't civilized and then acts surprised when their peacekeepers that they recruited out of third world hellholes start raping people. It's central conceit, that all nations of the world are equal and deserve equal voice, is wrong.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

No, you have decisions taken by member states. Those actions can be taken without the UN, the UN just provides an independent framework for those decisions to be taken. The UN does not have a will of its own beyond what the members want, and therefore, it does not exert influence. The member states do, and wield the same influence as they would have if the UN were not there. The UN just allows for easy multilateral talks.

Then why does the UN exist? Because the way you described it makes it sound redundant.

To provide a forum for those high level meetings, so they can happen after multilateral talks, which drastically alters how decisions are made. Yet, these decisions are not altered by the UN, but by internationsl collaboration.

And the UN has done incredible things. Article 2(4) of the Charter has become incredibly important in international politics, the ICJ provides a vwry good system of dispute settlement, and the Security Council has also done a great deal. Yet, this is not exerting influence. Every nation voluntarily agreed to sign the San Francisco Charter. All nations voluntarily signed treaties, with no possible coercion from the UN. If the UN is a hegemon, then my local library is a hegemon.

[Badb Catha]

You are missing the point. The United Nations encompasses the entire globe; the French and British Empires did not.

Yes, I know, but as I said, "controlling 100% of the Earth's land area isn't really the point..."

Yes, it is. If you would go back to the beginning of this discussion - which you were not present for - you would see why.

Then explain how you were utilizing it, if you could be so kind, because atm only the general term in which everything influences everything would fit with your argument.

No, because that does not apply to the definition of a hegemony; which is precisely what we were discussing.

I know that's my fuckin point lol

Your ignorance of the origin of these debates is leaving you incapable of formulating a proper rebuttal in an informed nature, making your posts utterly pointless as you're doing nothing but making arguments easily refuted by the beginning of this discussion. If you are not going to properly inform yourself then all you're doing is wasting both our times.

[Badb Catha]

Then why does the UN exist? Because the way you described it makes it sound redundant.

To provide a forum for those high level meetings, so they can happen after multilateral talks, which drastically alters how decisions are made. Yet, these decisions are not altered by the UN, but by internationsl collaboration.

And the UN has done incredible things. Article 2(4) of the Charter has become incredibly important in international politics, the ICJ provides a vwry good system of dispute settlement, and the Security Council has also done a great deal. Yet, this is not exerting influence. Every nation voluntarily agreed to sign the San Francisco Charter. All nations voluntarily signed treaties, with no possible coercion from the UN. If the UN is a hegemon, then my local library is a hegemon.

You claim the UN has done these things while simultaneously claiming what I mentioned earlier was not done by the UN but by it's member states. This is blatant hypocrisy.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

To provide a forum for those high level meetings, so they can happen after multilateral talks, which drastically alters how decisions are made. Yet, these decisions are not altered by the UN, but by internationsl collaboration.

And the UN has done incredible things. Article 2(4) of the Charter has become incredibly important in international politics, the ICJ provides a vwry good system of dispute settlement, and the Security Council has also done a great deal. Yet, this is not exerting influence. Every nation voluntarily agreed to sign the San Francisco Charter. All nations voluntarily signed treaties, with no possible coercion from the UN. If the UN is a hegemon, then my local library is a hegemon.

You claim the UN has done these things while simultaneously claiming what I mentioned earlier was not done by the UN but by it's member states. This is blatant hypocrisy.

I don’t claim that the UN has done these things. The member states have created these provisions, and signed onto them. However, they are part of the UN, and part of the UN system. The UN is a catalyst without which many decisions would not be taken as they are being taken, yet that is merely because of the existence of the UN, and not because of any action.

[Valkalan]

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?

Then it seems you've overlooked the rest of my argument. Aid ending up in the wrongs hands is only part of the problem.

The answer to the developing world's ills is not foreign aid, but rather foreign trade. This has been demonstrated in numerous Asian nations, such a Singapore and South Korea. When you provide aid, you disincentivize development of indigenous industry, because it's difficult to compete with free goods and services. You'll also have the effect that skilled professionals will tend to leave the aided nation from a lack of opportunities, again stunting the development of native industry.

Furthermore, when you provide foreign aid, you save the native government from having to fix its own problems. Normally, a government would have to cut corruption, increase accountability, and maintain law and order to attract foreign investment and improve its people's living standard. Foreign aid has the effect of providing an artificial lifeline, and the native government is no longer incentivized to clean up its act.

Someone made the argument that the UN was intended to prevent a Third World War. This is true, however it should be noted that the UN Security Council includes such offenders as Russia and China as permanent members. Before Russia, the USSR was a permanent UNSC member, and had representatives for all of its constituent republics at the general UN. Allowing such nations that much influence at the UN is akin to the pre-WW2 British policy of appeasement towards Germany. They will veto any resolutions that go against their interests. The UN has failed to prevent conflicts in the Third World, and conflicts between great powers have only been avoided on account of nuclear weapons.

For these reasons, I don't see a point in wasting resources on keeping the UN afloat. Might as well scrap it, and allow individual nations to use the savings more productively. I'm sure that the UN complex in New York can be converted into into prime office space and high-end housing.

[Badb Catha]

I don’t claim that the UN has done these things.

This contradicts what you just said moments ago:

And the UN has done incredible things.

After which you listed what those "incredible things" were.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I'm not talking about the League of Nations, I'm talking about the British and French Empires.

Neither of which encompasses the entire globe. Why do you keep reaching?

They controlled the majority of the world's population and land mass, that's far more than what the UN does. The UN is barely an entity.

[US-SSR]

The UN and its dedicated staff around the world do signal service, particularly in the areas of humanitarian aid and peacekeeping. They often go where others fear to tread. That being said, it is an institution like any other and there are those who abuse their authority and enrich themselves at the expense of the work. The General Assembly gives even the smallest nations a forum to bring issues and concerns to light. The Security Council is what it is; its not being able to take action without the consent of its permanent members is a feature, not a bug. Like any institution it is constantly considering and sometimes instituting reforms. On balance the world is better off with a UN, or something like it, than without.

[Badb Catha]

Neither of which encompasses the entire globe. Why do you keep reaching?

They controlled the majority of the world's population and land mass, that's far more than what the UN does. The UN is barely an entity.

The United Nations is hardly "barely an entity".

[United Muscovite Nations]

Switzerland wants no part in facilitating our diplomacy. They didn't even join the UN until 2002.

They have been a historically neutral place for nations to discuss important matters.

Not for every country. The point of the UN is that every country has that place to talk.

[United Muscovite Nations]

They controlled the majority of the world's population and land mass, that's far more than what the UN does. The UN is barely an entity.

The United Nations is hardly "barely an entity".

It is, it has no power independent of its member states. It's entirely at the mercy of its member states.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

I don’t claim that the UN has done these things.

This contradicts what you just said moments ago:

And the UN has done incredible things.

After which you listed what those "incredible things" were.

Done, here, not in an active sense. You still have to provide any evidence that the UN is hegemonic. The UN ‘doing things’ does not make it hegemonic. All the examples you named were not UN actions.

[Badb Catha]

This contradicts what you just said moments ago:



After which you listed what those "incredible things" were.

Done, here, not in an active sense. You still have to provide any evidence that the UN is hegemonic. The UN ‘doing things’ does not make it hegemonic. All the examples you named were not UN actions.

And yet you just attributed several actions to that of the UN itself rather than it's member states.

The United Nations is hardly "barely an entity".

It is, it has no power independent of its member states. It's entirely at the mercy of its member states.

...Yes, that's called an organization.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Done, here, not in an active sense. You still have to provide any evidence that the UN is hegemonic. The UN ‘doing things’ does not make it hegemonic. All the examples you named were not UN actions.

And yet you just attributed several actions to that of the UN itself rather than it's member states.

It is, it has no power independent of its member states. It's entirely at the mercy of its member states.

...Yes, that's called an organization.

How is it hegemonic then?

[Badb Catha]

And yet you just attributed several actions to that of the UN itself rather than it's member states.



...Yes, that's called an organization.

How is it hegemonic then?

I have already explained this, and your continuous refusal to listen - along with others in this thread - is beginning to frustrate me. I see now this discussion is a waste of time. Good day.

[United Muscovite Nations]

How is it hegemonic then?

I have already explained this, and your continuous refusal to listen - along with others in this thread - is beginning to frustrate me. I see now this discussion a waste of time. Good day.

Because you clearly have no idea what a hegemon actually is and just use your own stupid made up definition.

[Ethel mermania]

I like the ITU

[Yusseria]

They have been a historically neutral place for nations to discuss important matters.

Not for every country. The point of the UN is that every country has that place to talk.

Switzerland is neutral. Any country could ask to host diplomatic talks there and probably be successful.

And besides, it's often been the case throughout history for any country that is a third party in a war to offer to mediate talks between two nations. These things still happened before the UN and will most likely continue to happen should the UN ever cease to exist.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Not for every country. The point of the UN is that every country has that place to talk.

Switzerland is neutral. Any country could ask to host diplomatic talks there and probably be successful.

And besides, it's often been the case throughout history for any country that is a third party in a war to offer to mediate talks between two nations. These things still happened before the UN and will most likely continue to happen should the UN ever cease to exist.

There was nowhere that hosted every country in the world at the same time to discuss things.