The Un-United Nations
Did you hear the one about the rogue nation that brazenly violated international law only to have the world community look the other way? Funny? It would be if it wasn't so pathetic.
Should we throw our arms up and walk away in disgust, or is there something worthwhile to be gained from our continued participation in the United Nations? That's not rhetorical. I'm interested in your opinion.
It's been 80 years since the inception of the first inter-governmental organization, the League of Nations, and the United States is still searching for satisfaction. The League was formed in 1919 as a result of the Treaty of Versailles (ending WWI). The thought was that a union of nations, with its collective force, could provide a deterrent to aggression by belligerent states, and thus, prevent the devastation of another world war. The League was also meant to arbitrate disputes between and among nations, to facilitate disarmament, to promote/protect human rights, and to improve global quality of life. Noble objectives, all.
Britain and the United States are generally recognized to have been the primary forces behind the League, with President Woodrow Wilson having been its most important advocate. Ironically, even though Wilson was a vociferous sponsor and lobbied hard for U.S. participation, the United States never actually became a member nation. Wilson could not muster the requisite number of votes in the Senate for passage, largely due to concerns that membership came with a certain loss of sovereignty (primarily because of disarmament covenants in the charter).
Of course, the League ultimately proved feckless in the face of rising German aggression. It watched from the sidelines as another world war broke out—the very manifestation of what it was formed to prevent. Exit League of Nations; enter United Nations.
The U.N. was established in 1945 with objectives similar to those of the defunct and discredited League of Nations, but with membership requirements not as threatening to the sovereignty of member states. As a result, the U.N. achieved, then and now, dramatically broader participation (currently 192 members). The League peaked at 58 member nations, but fluctuated to much lower numbers.
Unfortunately, it appears the U.N. has been equally inept at dealing with global conflict and human rights infractions. Although WWIII has not broken out, there have been any number of regionally-focused wars and skirmishes, and many well-documented egregious infringements on human rights—all transpiring with little/no mitigation by the U.N.
So, is it worth it? Hundreds of billions of dollars go into funding and maintaining the U.N., but, over its 64-year history, it is difficult to identify concrete successes that justify the costs. One can point to a peacekeeping accomplishment in Kosovo, or election-monitoring achievements in various fledgling democracies, or humanitarian aid programs in third-world countries, but is that enough? Or, is that the wrong question? Might one argue that things would be much worse without the U.N.'s existence? Is its mere being enough to dissuade some countries from acting more reprehensibly than they otherwise might?
Can anything be done to make the U.N. more effective? Is it reasonable to expect countries with such divergent interests, ideals, economies, and cultures to act in concert for what some perceive to be the greater good?
Take the U.N. Security Council; it has 5 veto-holding permanent members—the United States, Great Britain, France, Russia, and China (representing the victorious Allied powers in WWII). Is that a workable configuration? Should we expect Russia and China to vote for sanctions on nations such as North Korea or Iran when Russia and China are often the subject of international scrutiny themselves? Does the U.N. Security Council's reluctance to take punitive action actually embolden misbehaving states?
What about President Obama's policy of engagement? Is it the right approach? Does it lend prestige to isolated and/or terrorist states/entities, or does it represent an enlightened, pragmatic effort to seek common ground? Or, do the countries/groups in question only respect and respond to power?
Should we accept the status quo, try to change it, or just back away? What are the consequences of each? These are all vexing questions.
What do you think? We all have knee-jerk reactions to particular events, but after taking time to examine the issues and evaluate prospective actions, the alternatives often prove to be much more complicated and nuanced than originally thought.
Should we throw our arms up and walk away in disgust, or is there something worthwhile to be gained from our continued participation in the United Nations? That's not rhetorical. I'm interested in your opinion.
It's been 80 years since the inception of the first inter-governmental organization, the League of Nations, and the United States is still searching for satisfaction. The League was formed in 1919 as a result of the Treaty of Versailles (ending WWI). The thought was that a union of nations, with its collective force, could provide a deterrent to aggression by belligerent states, and thus, prevent the devastation of another world war. The League was also meant to arbitrate disputes between and among nations, to facilitate disarmament, to promote/protect human rights, and to improve global quality of life. Noble objectives, all.
Britain and the United States are generally recognized to have been the primary forces behind the League, with President Woodrow Wilson having been its most important advocate. Ironically, even though Wilson was a vociferous sponsor and lobbied hard for U.S. participation, the United States never actually became a member nation. Wilson could not muster the requisite number of votes in the Senate for passage, largely due to concerns that membership came with a certain loss of sovereignty (primarily because of disarmament covenants in the charter).
Of course, the League ultimately proved feckless in the face of rising German aggression. It watched from the sidelines as another world war broke out—the very manifestation of what it was formed to prevent. Exit League of Nations; enter United Nations.
The U.N. was established in 1945 with objectives similar to those of the defunct and discredited League of Nations, but with membership requirements not as threatening to the sovereignty of member states. As a result, the U.N. achieved, then and now, dramatically broader participation (currently 192 members). The League peaked at 58 member nations, but fluctuated to much lower numbers.
Unfortunately, it appears the U.N. has been equally inept at dealing with global conflict and human rights infractions. Although WWIII has not broken out, there have been any number of regionally-focused wars and skirmishes, and many well-documented egregious infringements on human rights—all transpiring with little/no mitigation by the U.N.
So, is it worth it? Hundreds of billions of dollars go into funding and maintaining the U.N., but, over its 64-year history, it is difficult to identify concrete successes that justify the costs. One can point to a peacekeeping accomplishment in Kosovo, or election-monitoring achievements in various fledgling democracies, or humanitarian aid programs in third-world countries, but is that enough? Or, is that the wrong question? Might one argue that things would be much worse without the U.N.'s existence? Is its mere being enough to dissuade some countries from acting more reprehensibly than they otherwise might?
Can anything be done to make the U.N. more effective? Is it reasonable to expect countries with such divergent interests, ideals, economies, and cultures to act in concert for what some perceive to be the greater good?
Take the U.N. Security Council; it has 5 veto-holding permanent members—the United States, Great Britain, France, Russia, and China (representing the victorious Allied powers in WWII). Is that a workable configuration? Should we expect Russia and China to vote for sanctions on nations such as North Korea or Iran when Russia and China are often the subject of international scrutiny themselves? Does the U.N. Security Council's reluctance to take punitive action actually embolden misbehaving states?
What about President Obama's policy of engagement? Is it the right approach? Does it lend prestige to isolated and/or terrorist states/entities, or does it represent an enlightened, pragmatic effort to seek common ground? Or, do the countries/groups in question only respect and respond to power?
Should we accept the status quo, try to change it, or just back away? What are the consequences of each? These are all vexing questions.
What do you think? We all have knee-jerk reactions to particular events, but after taking time to examine the issues and evaluate prospective actions, the alternatives often prove to be much more complicated and nuanced than originally thought.
I believe that the UN has accomplished many goals that have gone without notice or attention. For example, the UN has been credited with 172 peaceful settlements that have ended regional conflicts since 1945; UN agencies distribute over 2 million tons of food each year to countries in emergency situations; UN programs for women have helped raise the female literacy rate in developing countries from 36% to 56% in twenty years. Other women's programs have improved the quality of life for women in over 100 countries; Through UNICEF, the UN has drastically changed the lives of millions of children. The Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded five times to the United Nations and its organizations.
Shall I go on.........
Sometimes, we need to look below the surface to find the true story. I say...keep the United Nations going in full force with all the funding it needs!
Reply to this
I think you crafted this to be much more engaging with the reader. Good job!!
On the UN, I have no opinion. lol
Reply to this
I say bag the UN. Even though it may have done some good things, it basically assumes moral equivalence to each member state. Thus, tyrants like Fidel have the same recognition as a member such as Belgium. Countries run by dictators and thugs that oppress their people and threaten their neighbors have the same vote as Italy. I think we need a league of democracies with member countries dedicated to promoting individual liberty...although in the current socialist democracy climate, it would have few members
Reply to this
Could NATO and other similarly focused organizations meet our needs?
Reply to this
Good point about everyone having same recognition. And Yes to Chuck's comment- I do think NATO and other similar organizations could and DO meet the same objectives which the UN does now. IF the UN were to actually try to achieve the original objectives, it would be relevant; as the UN now behaves, it is not.
Reply to this
Frankly, many times I have thrown my hands up and said why the hell are we involved with this band of pirates and thieves. It does not make sense that we continue to be the primary financial support of this ridiculous organization that their only claim to fame is agreeing that the UN advisers wear blue helmets.
On the other hand maybe just maybe we need this group of losers together. There is an old Italian saying that says "keep your friends close and your enemies closer". Maybe that in itself is worth the investment.
Reply to this
I am a person who is easily confused. As I read over these posts I wondered what was what and who was whom. For example, Chuck asked if the UN is relevant or if some of the duties could be carried out by NATO. I wondered what the difference was between the UN and NATO. Angie mentioned some wonderful accomplishments by the UN- increased literacy and helping children. Did the UN really do this?
So just to clear some things up in my own head, I looked up some things. According to WikiAnswers.com (not a trustworthy scholarly site, but it is straightforward):
The UN (United Nations) is a international organization of every recognized state, created to keep the peace between nations and helo (sic) create international law and cooperation.
NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is a military alliance of the United States, Canada and most of Europe, created back in the Cold War to counter Soviet and Communist power. It now consists of 26 nations. First answer by ID1217155284. Last edit by ID1217155284
The UN consists of the General Assembly of which there are 6 main committees dealing with security, humanitarian, administration and legal issues. The UN has many subsidiary organizations that have done some wonderful things. UNICEF, WFP, and UNHCR are a few of these. The UN also has two trust funds which funds programs that are recommended by United Nations Democracy Fund (UNDEF). It seems to me that individually some of these organizations do good things and these are not the culprits that cause the most uproar of late.
WikiAnswers doesn’t seem to provide enough information on NATO. If NATO was established to counter Cold War threats, it should have been disbanded long ago. So further research actually establishes NATO. “The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is an alliance of 26 countries from North America and Europe committed to fulfilling the goals of the North Atlantic Treaty signed on 4 April 1949” (NATO, 2009, homepage). The North Atlantic Treaty is basically a list of articles that reaffirm the UN charter, “to live in peace with all peoples and all governments” (North Atlantic Treaty, 1949, ¶ 1). When one examines the individual articles one can begin to see why the NATO forces are so ineffectual. There are 111 articles, only a few will be discussed here.
Article 1 of the Treaty sets forth “to settle any international dispute by peaceful means” (North Atlantic Treaty, 1949, Article 1). Clearly Article 1 states that NATO does not intend to use threat or force.
Article 2 states that a goal of NATO is contributing to “peaceful and friendly relations by strengthening their free institutions” (North Atlantic Treaty, 1949, Article 2). While I believe the intention of this article is to provide financial means to a UN sponsored government with the purpose of gaining or maintaining control, the sarcastic side of me thinks it means giving away money to anyone who says (not actually does) they’ll do good things.
Article 3 is pretty cle
Reply to this
You are correct; the two are quite different. In theory, organizations like NATO would/could be superfluous if the U.N. operated as originally intended, but, since it doesn't, should groups of like-minded and/or like-interested countries band together to protect and promote their interests? Might that not be a more effective mechanism of international action (military and humanatarian)? A better deterrent? A superior way to apply pressure?
One of the very important differences between the U.N. and NATO is that NATO members are signatories to a treaty that binds them in very specific ways to act when certain circumstances arise (e.g. one of the member countries is attacked). Would we be better off with the greater relative certainty and clarity provided by a NATO-type organization, or are there enough advantages to the highly deliberative, political posture of the U.N. to make it the better option?
Reply to this
Well the rest of the post was cut off. But I am understanding more. NATO- war guys.
UN - peace guys.
Who better deals with bad guys? NATO. Not sure if the big group hugs from UN actually do anything. good article:
http://www.users.interport.net/r/o/roger.dnai/95Book/Boothby.htm
Reply to this
Don't forget, it is possible to have peace through strength. NATO and NATO-like organizations can reduce actual armed conflicts by being more resolute in its/their stance toward rogue behavior. I remain firmly convinced that the last Iraq war would have never happened had France, Germany, Russia, and China firmly denounced Saddam and his regime in the U.N. Security Council.
Reply to this
The UN has been totally bastardized from it's original intent. Perhaps it has raised the literacy rate for women and instituted women's programs. Probably between episodes of rape and abuse of women in Africa by it's minions. Where was it in Rwanda, Darfur and Somalia? Hiding in it's encampments. I am underwhelmed by the UN's reactions to other rogue states such as North Korea and Iran. Isn't a world body's primary function to garner a coalition of it's member nations to oppose states that pose a severe world threat to peace? And you can forget the UN's efforts against international terrorism.
Israel was founded by the UN, and yet it's allegiance and actions have almost always lent support to the surrounding Arab hordes.
Let's not forget the corruption under Kofi Annan. As I recall, his son's company profited significantly under the UN's food for oil program, as did other UN officials. What other corruption exists within that organization that we don't know about?
This is also a body with no accountability to any of it's members. I think we could put it's headquarters and the United States financial support to far better use. Some have mentioned NATO as a replacement organization. That is a better solution than what we have now.
Reply to this
Interesting note about Israel since the UN funds a programme: UNRWA - United Nations Relief and World Agency for Palestinian refugees in the Near East.
Reply to this
I think NATO was a pretty good success story during the Cold War. It kept the U.S., Canada and most of Western Europe (France wobbled, of course) together against the Soviet Union and Soviet-controlled Eastern Europe.
In less than 20 years, it's amazing to me how much of that is forgotten. When I arrived at the border of East/West Germany on February 9, 1987, an East German man and his son had just been shot as they tried to escape East Germany. They risked their lives running across mine fields and scaling two barbed wired fences which were also rigged with anti-personnel mines.
They were running toward the U.S. post - Observation Post Alpha - when they were shot. The East Germans had line-of sight bunkers manned with soldiers all along the entire East/West border. They also had "wild" German Shepherd dogs on chains who were trained to attack any person crossing their area.
None of this was theoretical - it was very clear to me. As for that dad and son - the East Germans allowed their bodies to hang dead and impaled on the barbed wired fences for a full week, only yards from freedom at the U.S. Post Alpha - as a cautionary tale for all in the East German village below.
The U.S. and NATO are far from perfect, but I've seen evil regimes up close and the U.S. and NATO don't come close to those barbaric governments.
Posted for G.F
Reply to this