The U.N. has been U.N.remarkable in int'l security issues

Discussion in 'Politics' started by B_starinvestor, Apr 5, 2009.

  1. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    This is the U.N.'s stated purpose as listed on the official U.N. cite:

    [SIZE=-1]The purposes of the United Nations, as set forth in the Charter, are to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples; to cooperate in solving international economic, social, cultural and humanitarian problems and in promoting respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in attaining these ends.

    Are any of these objectives being met at a satisfactory level?

    None of the 192 member states seem to follow or adhere to Security Council Resolutions. It seems to equate to little more than lip service. North Korea is laughing at them. Hussein laughed at them.

    A few other slip-ups listed on Wiki

    [/SIZE]In many cases member states have shown reluctance to achieve or enforce Security Council resolutions, an issue that stems from the UN's intergovernmental nature — seen by some as simply an association of member states who must reach consensus, not an independent organization. Disagreements in the Security Council about military action and intervention are seen as having failed to prevent the 1994 Rwandan Genocide,[22] failed to provide humanitarian aid and intervene in the Second Congo War, failed to intervene in the 1995 Srebrenica massacre and protect a refugee haven by the authorising the peacekeepers to use force, failure to deliver food to starving people in Somalia, failure to implement provisions of Security Council resolutions related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and continuing failure to prevent genocide or provide assistance in Darfur.

    Maybe I'm missing something; but it seems they aren't making much progress in achieving said purpose cited above.
     
    #1 B_starinvestor, Apr 5, 2009
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2009
  2. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    North Korea tried to launch a missile and it turned out to be a dud.
    I really don't think they're laughing right now.
     
  3. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    Edit: N Korea was laughing before the launch.:biggrin1:
     
  4. HazelGod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    7,531
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Other Side of the Pillow
    Do you think he's laughing at them now? :biggrin1:
     
  5. D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,539
    Likes Received:
    1
    star: If individual countries have been unsuccessful at limiting nuclear proliferation, why slam the U.N. for being unable to do so also?



    star writes: "North Korea is laughing at them. Hussein laughed at them."


    North Korea is laughing and has been laughing for the better part of a decade at us. What do you suggest? Another pre-emptive invasion?

    We made have nabbed Hussein, but the whole Iraqi adventure has been a disaster. Yes! The "surge" worked -- but who cares? Because the war didn't. If a group of Iraqis or Saudi Arabians or Pakistanis want to set up a sleeper cell in the United States and blow up shit with pipe bombs and improvised explosive devices.... then how exactly has this adventure "worked"? We spent a trillion and a half bucks, tens of thousands died, and if a suicide bomber is smart enough to hijack another Boeing 747 jumbo jet and fly it into a building, we're back at square one.


    All of this is by way of saying that the United States "tried" to deal with Hussein, bypassing the United Nations, and only managed to exacerbate the problem. George "W" Bush compiled an "Axis of Evil" list and only managed to exacerbate the problem.

    If individual countries are ineffectual at combatting the "big issues" (North Korea has given us the finger for over a decade), why slam the U.N.?


    Today's News: at least Obama is trying. From the ABC website.


    Obama Outlines Sweeping Goal of Nuclear-Free World


    Declaring the future of mankind at stake, President Barack Obama on Sunday said all nations must strive to rid the world of nuclear arms and that the U.S. had a "moral responsibility" to lead because no other country has used one.

    "This goal will not be reached quickly — perhaps not in my lifetime," he told a cheering crowd of more than 20,000 in the historic square outside the Prague Castle gates. We "must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist, 'Yes, we can.'


    Obama, this morning, in Prague:

    YouTube - Obama's Prague Speech English part1

    YouTube - Obama's Prague Speech English part2
     
  6. B_Nick4444

    B_Nick4444 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,002
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    probably we can expect the same stunning success from the UN as we saw with the League of Nations ...
     
  7. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    WT,

    Do you think the UN is fulfilling its purpose?

    I'm not suggesting that I had an answer for N Korea, but I'm hoping somebody can help me understand the usefulness (in respect to int'l security) of an entity that issues resolutions, treaties, etc., that are simply ignored.
     
  8. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    And that makes some kind of difference? Their attempt to launch a missile failed. So what if they were laughing "before"? The end result was not in their favor. Surely you can understand that actions speak louder than words.

    Or are you just pissed of that the UN couldn't prevent them from just trying? Please elaborate, because as usual you're just reaching for straws. :rolleyes:
     
  9. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    What if the missile weren't a dud? Is that gamble worth taking?

    I'm not 'pissed off' about anything. I'm looking for answers....Is the U.N. a viable organization in matters of int'l security issues? They indicated that they are, but I've not seen many endorsements from anyone.

    Yes, I do believe that it is disconcerting that a country can recklessly fire a missile amidst international condemnations and warnings with no meaningful repercussions.

    For example, what if this 'dud' had misfired or errantly closed in on a population center?
     
  10. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    you have a point, there:wink:
     
  11. D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,539
    Likes Received:
    1
    I think it's entirely beside the point whether or not North Korea's rocket launch "succeeded" or "failed". The point is: they have continued to experiment with impugnity (largely). The point is: their nuclear capabilities are far enough along now that nobody is going to risk a potential North Korean retaliation with an actual pre-emptive strike.

    The point is: which countries are now "allowed" to test missiles and which countries are not?


    Countries with Nuclear Capability


    • Acknowledged: Britain, China, France, India, Pakistan, Russia, United States, North Korea(1)
    • Unacknowledged: Israel
    • Seeking: Iran(2)
    • Abandoned: South Africa—Constructed but then voluntarily dismantled six uranium bombs. Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine—When Soviet Union broke up, these former states possessed nuclear warheads that they have since given up.
    1. North Korea tested its first nuclear device on October 9, 2006.
    2. In Aug. 2005, U.S. intelligence estimated that Iran would possess nuclear weapons in the next decade. In Jan. 2006, Iran announced its decision to restart nuclear research. Source: U.S. State Department, TIME magazine and the Nuclear Threat Initiative.



    We all know the best scenario is to slow down a country's aquisition of muclear capability.

    It's fairly obvious that North Korea, a very isolated country, has ramped up its nuclear program as a response to George W. Bush's "Axis of Evil" list, then the subsequent Iraqi invasion.

    If France wants to continue nuclear experimentation, should they be allowed?

    How about Israel?

    How about the United States?

    North Korea, for all practical purpposes has made its way into to the big boy's "Nuclear Club". That's why the United Nations is ineffectual. The United Nations would be equally ineffectual offering the U.S. an ultimatum (at least under "W").
     
  12. Gl3nn

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,457
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Somewhere in the universe
    I've been busy lately, I'll take care of it soon.
     
  13. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    When folk critcise the UN for being ineffective, they should perhaps pause and reflect for a moment on the ultimate target of that criticism. The UN isn't a sovereign power, and acts only within an agreed charter - it is thus only as effective as it's constituent members permit to be. Thus it's a ready made and convenient whipping boy for national procrastination and duplicity.

    Calling it 'useless' strikes me as something of an own goal, certainly when such criticism emanates from citizens of one of the permanent security council members. If nations want the UN to have teeth so be it, but it seems to be that on the rare occasions it tries to snarl, it's muzzled and told to heel.

    Does the world want a guard dog, or a pet?
     
  14. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    Dong,

    I don't remember characterizing the UN as 'useless.' This OP addressed the issue of 'effectiveness' in int'l security.

    I never suggested it as a sovereign power. Albeit, what is the point of their role in international security issues?

    The answer is that they don't have one.
     
  15. koval

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,313
    Likes Received:
    21
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Dublin (IE)
    The effectiveness of the UN Security lies with the security council in which China, Russia & the US are permanent members. the other members are based on a rotation basis. Sadly it's the permanent members who tend to veto any attempt by other civilised nations to reign in countries that step out of line.

    To make the UN more effective one must first remove the permanent members from the council to prevent these veto's and perhaps then something will be done about it.
     
  16. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    Did I address you personally? I was speaking to a wider audience. It's just bit tiresome to read so much whining of late, esepcially from citizens of those nations where it's least justfied.
     
    #16 dong20, Apr 7, 2009
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2009
  17. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    1. There are five on the Permanent council, not three - you omitted France and the UK.
    2. There ten non permanent members, elected by the General asembly on a 'regional bloc' basis - each serving a two year long term. Presently these are; Austria, Japan, Uganda, Burkina Faso, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Viet Nam, Costa Rica, Mexico, Croatia and Turkey.
    3. The president rotates through the list in alphabetical order of nation member, for a month at a time.
    When offering suggestions for improving the structure of an organisation, it helps to understood its current structure. :rolleyes:

    I agree about removing permanent members, and limiting vetos.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted