It has stood ineffectually by while massacres took place; it has allowed a sponsor of terrorism to chair it’s security council, it has constantly condemned the sole bastion of democracy in the middle east, it has been home to massive corruption and sexual abuse scandals, it has whined and dined in luxury as others shouldered the real burden of Tsunami cleanup… but still, shreds of legitimacy have clung, at least in the eyes of some, to the United Nations. But no more. No longer should anyone look to the UN and see it for anything more than it is – an utterly hypocritical forum who’s soul purpose is to allow world leaders to absolve themselves from any sense of responsibility.
The UN Refuses to Call Sudan’s War on non-Arabs “Genocide”
I think this quote from the article pretty much sums up why:
Where genocide is found to have taken place, signatories to a UN convention are legally obliged to act to end it.
No legitimacy, no respect, no credence deserve to be conferred on this organization any more. Fuck the UN.
let’s also remember who stood among its founding, honored memebers: the USSR and communist china – two of the worst mass-murder-regimes in history.
( strangely, people would understand the issue if the nazis had been among the honored founders. )
Yup it was the winners on of WWII
Britain, America, France (who did very little but be an ally), along with China (who’d been our ally), and Russia who we couldn’t say no to. (Without continuuing WWII. )
The idea of me as a defender of the UN is amusing, but I want to make a few points here–namely, its very easy to read back in hindsight what “should” have been done.
First, the idea behind the UN, the concept of an international body where nations could meet, discuss, and work in concert was a sound one. It was also seen as a move which could (in retrospect) have helped stop Hitler’s rise to power; had an international system reacted swiftly to his attack on Poland, the war might’ve been substantially contained.
Its easy today to think of WWII as a war we were certain to win, but nothing could be further from the truth. Hitler was inches from smashing Britain; had he continued his campaign only a few weeks more he would likely have forced the nation’s surrender. Without Britain as a staging platform, D-Day couldn’t have occured.
Russia, meanwhile, was saved by the harshest winter in a century. As it was, the German offensive ground to a halt within sight of Moscow. Psychologically, seizing the Russian capital would’ve been a tremendous blow against the morale of the Russians, and a tremendous boost for the Germans.
There was a common cause and a common recognition that fractured diplomacy and a lack of communication between nations had allowed Nazi Germany to rise. Also, remember, that China at the time was ruled by Chang Kai Shek, not the Communists (though he was arguably little better). Meanwhile Stalin, while known for a murderer, hadn’t yet descended into total madness.
The UN, like most political organizations, had high ideals and pragmatic compromises. No doubt quite a few people gritted their teeth at including countries like Russia–but how could you reasonably keep them out? 20 million Russians died in WWII–they had the right to be there.
My problems with the UN lie not with its founding, but with its conduct the past 15 years. Ironically the reason its only recently become an issue is because US / USSR relations effectively kept the UN stalemated. What one proposed the other vetoed, etc.
“UN, the concept of an international body where nations could meet, discuss, and work in concert was a sound one”
[[[To discuss yet…to have authority over sovereign nations….NO!]]]
“It was also seen as a move which could (in retrospect) have helped stop Hitler’s rise to power”
[[[Not really, “The League of Nations” was a similar organization and failed to do such. The U.N. was mainly created as a replacement cause the LoN lost all respect.]]]
“There was a common cause and a common recognition that fractured diplomacy and a lack of communication between nations had allowed Nazi Germany to rise”
[[[I strongly disagree with this reasoning. To me it is revisionist. Sure, the outcome of the war was undetermined. It usually is for a war…that bear no consequence to the U.N.’s existance.
Furthermore, and more to the point of this quote – it was NOT fractured diplomacy. But rather a inaction and complacency out of a fear of another world war. A tendency to capitulate in hopes of avoidance. A mindset that still plagues most of Europe today.
I am very well aware of Russia and China’s leadership. Please note, the grouping in my post. And how they were structured. Deliberately to denote the seperations. However, the fact is still clear that they were on the security council because they were the major victors.
No other reason….
“My problems with the UN lie not with its founding, but with its conduct the past 15 years.”
[[[The founding as a “discussion forum” is acceptable. But with the intent to pursue a global governance….it becomes unacceptable.]]]
I live in a Democratic (Republic) country. And I will NOT give up my nations sovereignty to the U.N. (a dictatorship) without a fight.
See the issue at hand is one of poor education. Most people see the U.N. as a Democratic organization. This is what they’ve been taught and how the U.N. tries to portray itself. The U.N. in fact is NOT a democratic entity. (Although a few of it’s members are.) However, a large number of it’s members are in fact dictatorships.
I refuse to accept the decision of an organization in which the vote of a single dictator in one nation is equivalent to the vote of every Australian. I would consider submission of U.S. sovereignty if, and only if, a global entity existed which had equal or greater protections as the U.S. government and who required all eligable voting members to have a minimum level of democracy and civil rights for it’s populace.
In truth, I am puzzled by your reply as its written as a rebuttal (defender) but defending against what. You re-iterated exactly what I said but in many more words. And a few minor points, of which I actually disagreed.
The issue Humandays seemed to be making, IMHO, is that the U.N. does NOT have a good track record for being a good protector of human rights. I itereated that it came about by the victors of WWII. An open forum for the “powers” to discuss.
Both points are 100% true. Not sure how you can really defend the U.N. without denying truth?
U.N.believably f**** up
That should be “Fuck the UN!” – with an exclamation point.
I had a more substantial post.. but I biffed and just lost it…
oh well.. my only comment is that–yes.. I agree that the UN does suck–especially recently–but that part of the reason that it sucks is that no one ever really wants it to succeed… because.. for it to have a real impact on the world–all nations would have to give up a bit more sovereignty–and no one wants that…
So instead.. it just sits there… collecting dues and acting as one giant perk for various upper level diplomats…
To turn the discussion around..
or anyone else here–what would you suggest to change about the UN to make it more effective? Pointing out why something sucks is easy.. fixing things is a lot harder…
Abolish it and make world leaders admit that they just don’t give a shit when genocide takes place?
OK, yeah, that wouldn’t happen, and I guess it might not help much, either… but I have to admit I’m kind of attracted to the “League of Democracies” idea that has been batted around lately. Yeah, I guess that would probably be just as innefectual.
OK, you want my libertarian/anarchist answer? Fuck the UN, fuck treaties, it’s no nation’s job to police the world. We need private well-armed humanitarian groups composed of the people who just can’t stand by and watch genocide happen, that are free to intervene anywhere in the world where the rule of law and human rights are not respected. I’ll call mine the “Justice League of America”, I don’t think that name’s been taken…
I just love the idea of “private well-armed humanitarian groups” going in and forcefully inflicting human rights ideas upon nations that are oppressing their people…
truly.. I am not being sarcastic here… that would be awesome…
of course… it would only work–granting that any private groups would really be willing to blow the billions of dollars that such groups would cost–in places where there were weak/non-existent and poorly armed central gov’t’s… (thinking back.. no one in the west–private groups included–really cared when the Tutsi’s got massacred back in 1994.. there was no profit to be made…)
I mean..could you see the Ciba-Geigy/Deutschebank commando force parachuting into Dallas to prevent–what they consider to be human rights abuses–the enforcement of the death penalty on poor blacks?
personally.. I think that would be awesome.. but not bloody likely… 🙂
A guy can dream… I think every one of us, at some time or another, sees some report of atrocities committed against innocents and gets the urge to pick up a boom-stick and go on a righteous killing spree…
We could always hit George Soros up for the money 😉
Comments are closed.