Is the UN completely outmoded?

[CRSP]

As an institution, is the UN completely outmoded?

A number of high profile failures to "step in" to a conflict have lead to disaster (Rwanda's a good example). Most of the heavy lifting of the UN seems to be done by a few countries (NATO, larger members of the African Union, etc.) Further, the whole structure of the UN lends credence to the notion that all nations are created equal. Nuclear powers have the same voting rights as tiny island states. Voting rights do not factor in population levels, and assignment of nations to committees is a joke: Libya served on the human rights committee!

Further, resolutions are toothless. The UNSC can make as many resolutions as it wants about Israel, but whilst America backs them, there's nothing that can be done.

In short, what is the point of the UN? It fails at what it was set out to stop (genocide) and is inherently unfair in how it operates.

[Muffin]

It's very useful when it comes to international conventions.

[Muffin]

Even its declarations can be useful for folks trying to change their government's policies. It's one thing to be an organiztion tying to change governmental policy; it is quite another to be an organization invoking the weight of a UN declaration trying to change governmental policy. It's all grist for the mill.

[CosmosDan]

I think we need something like the UN but it appears the existing UN has become more focused on finances and power struggles than promoting world peace and solving the problems of poverty and health crisis. Still, I don't see how the modern world can move forward without some sort of international body like the UN.

[dark smoky eyes]

As an institution, is the UN completely outmoded?

Not outmoded. It has simply become almost completely a criminal organisation and a force for evil in the world.

A new organisation is needed. One with membership restricted exclusively to those countries with legitimate forms of government. Those countries would need to adopt a policy of total ostracism towards those countries governed by illegitimate governments.

This would cover economic (finance, trade, foreign aid), social (sports and tourism) and diplomatic directed against the 150 or so criminal states that remain in the UN.

Once the new organisation of legitimate states is up and running the UN would be transformed into a body with membership restricted exclusivly to states with illegitimate forms of government. It would need to find an alternative location and new accommodation.

Perhaps Dubai might be a suitable choice. They've had a pretty massive real estate crash recently and commercial premises are going cheap.

[[Undecided] Adrian]

I don't get the American hate of the UN. It is the *point* to get every country in, no matter how criminal the government is.
At least you can *try* to talk instead of shoot.
The democratic first world countries have other means to ensure tighter cooperation (G7 etc).

One problem is the veto system. From my European pov it would be much better if it worked more like the EU in that regard, where importance is ranked by population and contributions, but nobody has a veto. Being able to override one vetoing country would be great, even though getting the security council members to give up that right is probably not going to happen for a long time.

From the military side, of course there are not enough countries involved in missions, and the US has too large a share of the heavy lifting.

But I think in a sense that was a desired result of US policy, because it obviously means control as well. The Bolton debacle made it clear to me that there are American tendencies to try and weaken the UN and then declare that it is broken. Also, when you get the sense that the US only listens when it is convenient (compare Gulf War 1 and 2), other nations are less inclined to participate in missions.
And as far as I know, other nations make proportionally larger financial contributions in exchange for sending fewer soldiers.

I think the long-term goal should be something like the European Union, with sovereign member states but shared institutions and real authorities in certain areas. It has its problems and unnecessary bureaucracy, but compare the modern Europe with that of 70 years ago and you see what good it can do.
Of course that will take a long time and will not involve all nations at the outset. But I don't get why the idea of a "world government" is so abhorrent for some.

[dark smoky eyes]

Adrian]I don't get the American hate of the UN.

I am not an American.

Adrian]It is the *point* to get every country in, no matter how criminal the government is.

I disagree. Countries under the control of criminals should be totally quarantined from the civilised part of mankind.

Adrian]At least you can *try* to talk instead of shoot.

A compromise between good and evil can only result in evil.

No negotiation. No trade. No foreign aid. No contact. No nonsense tolerated.

Adrian]But I don't get why the idea of a "world government" is so abhorrent for some.

Because the vast majority of the countries of this planet are gangster states.

[Harlequin]

I disagree. Countries under the control of criminals should be totally quarantined from the civilised part of mankind.

(...)

A compromise between good and evil can only result in evil.

No negotiation. No trade. No foreign aid. No contact. No nonsense tolerated.

Do you think this is the best way to help the population of those countries? Remember, they're probably as displeased with their leaders as you are.

Because the vast majority of the countries of this planet are gangster states.

Vast majority? What is your definition of "gangster state"?

[dark smoky eyes]

Do you think this is the best way to help the population of those countries? Remember, they're probably as displeased with their leaders as you are.

That is their problem.

Vast majority? What is your definition of "gangster state"?

Any country that:

1. Does not hold honest elections;
2. Does not hold free elections;
3. Does not permit freedom of speech;
4. Does not permit freedom of association;
5. Has non violent political prisoners;
6. Practices overt or covert discrimination, bigotry and harassment towards selected ethnic, religious and political groups, or any combination of same.

[Sophistry and Illusion]

A compromise between good and evil can only result in evil.

But ignoring evil on the theory that as far as the victims of evil are concerned, "That is their problem", is...?

[dark smoky eyes]

[quote=Sophistry and Illusion]

A compromise between good and evil can only result in evil.

But ignoring evil on the theory that as far as the victims of evil are concerned, "That is their problem", is...?[/quote:3r70k2at]

Never ignore. Always observe. Remain alert. Provide assistance only by covert means and only if absolutely necessary. Do not aimlessly try to overthrow the existing tyranny simply to bring democracy to a region, like that nitwit Bush ("Ah thought all Iraquis were Muslims") the Younger.

The end result of the Bush/Blair folly? A permanent transfer of power from Sunni to Shia Muslims and, with the imposition of Islamic law in accordance with the new Iraqi constitution, the end of all effective protection to the remaining Christians of Iraq.

I left one feature of a civilised state out in my previous post. It must have a sound and trustworthy legal system and a stable business environment where contract law is honoured. If it lacks this feature then that would also move the state into the gangster category.