Poll: Is The Death Of The UN A Good Thing?

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by candletrader, Mar 6, 2003.

  1. Our war with Iraq is pretty much inevitable (in my view)... my hunch is that we will definitely be vetoed by the French and possibly by the Russians and Chinese... but we will still go ahead... going ahead despite the vetos will probably spell the death of the UN...

    So this poll is set-up to stimulate debate on whether or not the death of the UN is in fact a good thing...
  2. The UN is a failure. The concept sounds nice, but it doesn't work.

    F. PeBBLe
  3. Babak


    Justice needs a powerful arm to inforce itself. Otherwise it is without meaning. The UN finds itself in this situation with regards to rogue states. Imagine a judge who after a lengthy trial hands down a sentence but then has no way of preventing the guilty party of simply walking out of court.

    Having said that, the UN does much, much more than simply 'judge' or 'police' the world. There is a plethora of humanitarian work that they do throughout the world.
  4. I agree with Babak. Although the UN has proven itself toothless and can only make resolutions that, ironically, only the US has the ability to enforce, it does indeed do a lot more for the world in other ways.

    The UN is vital to the world for certain issues, and a eunuch in others.
  5. tampa


    Wouldn't be a hoot if the UN sanctioned us, and imposed tradeanctions against us?

    I wonder how long we would last without oil, steel, and the like - and we had no one to sell our CD's and DVD's to?

    Or, God forbid, they tried to cash in their US Government bonds. Or passed a resolution demanding we disarm.

    I guess we could nuke everyone.

    Smart bombs, or no smart bombs, maybe we need the world more than the world needs us...
  6. Dream on.
  7. 4england


    Yeah, buck it. We gave it a shot. It didn't work. Oh well. That's life.

    Helping to feed the starving, saving refugees, ending apartheid, promoting human rights, catching and sentencing war criminals, preventing nuclear proliferation and promoting democracy, nice idea, guys, but it just doesn't seem to work.

    I am shocked the way the poll is going. I cannot believe that anyone would agree that the UN has no moral standing.

    But what really annoys me is the suggestion in my mind that this anti-UN feeling is fueled by the prospect that it might return a verdict not to the liking of the US.

    Which kinda puts the US on a sticky plate. If the US doesn't get the result it wants, what then? If the US ignores the UN and goes it alone, then it will be undermining the most important democratic institution on earth. This from the nation that holds democracy as one of its fundamental ideals. hypocrisy and double-standards don't even begin to describe how that looks.

    But then that doesn't matter does it? Because America can nuke anyone. So why bother with that poxy UN bs?

  8. It is my view that the aspects of the UN related to overt policy-making on geopolitics and on gaining consensus for war will die a swift death... like Babak has correctly pointed out, the remit of the UN goes beyond this... it would be a real tragedy to see arms of the UN such as the UNHCR die... given the lack of economic ulterior motives playing out between the powers in the activities of the UNHCR, I do however feel that the UNHCR will live on... indeed UN departments such as the UNHCR have a good chance of strengthening their remit over time...

    But the death of the UN in its capacity for the resolution of international discord is pretty much inevitable once the war starts... there are positives and negatives to the demise of this facet of the UN machinery, as highlighted in the "yes" and "no" assertions of this poll...
  9. 4england


    Achieving consensus on military matters has rarely been routine.

    As has been (rightly) noted on this site, the US had to rescue the Yugoslav peace plan after the European Union's failure to act. And this was after Luxembourg's foreign minister had optimistically hailed that "This is Europe's hour." Pluralism and democracy have effectively halted a single European foreign policy.

    Yet somehow we are being led to believe that a "no" vote on invasion of Iraq implies a failing of the UN and I don't see why.
  10. A "no" vote followed by a US attack does not imply a failing on the part of the UN... it implies a US defiance of the UN's wishes i.e. another nail in the coffin of the UN, but not necessarily the fault of the UN... the UN is only as good as the compliance of its members with the various resolutions... countries like Iraq, the USA and Israel have been in consistent breach of the various resolutions...

    We are moving from a system of multilateralism to a system of (primarily) unhindered US unilateralism... in such a context, it makes perfect sense to be buddies with the USA... cos there will be no UN left to save your butt from the wrath of the USA...
    #10     Mar 7, 2003