These are my random musings. Hopefully they will be witty, insightful, and frequently updated.
Is there a modern need for the United Nations?
Published on January 31, 2008 By singrdave In International
By the end of the Second World War (WWII), Europe and Japan were in shambles. The United Nations (UN) was established after WWII to prevent war from breaking out again. It was not founded to govern over the myriad nations of the earth, but rather to preserve the sovereignty of each through international oversight and action. All nations could have a seat in the General Assembly, but only five nations would comprise the UN Security Council: the United States (US), France, the United Kingdom (UK), the Soviet Union (USSR), and China. The UN Charter established a body that would provide a forum for communication between sovereign nations. It also authorized the collective use of force in defense of the international status quo.

One purpose of the United Nations is to preserve the sovereignty of nations. As the 1940s progressed, an antagonistic USSR posed an even greater threat to freedom than Adolf Hitler. On 24 June 1950, South Korea was invaded by communist forces from the North. Bankrolled and trained by the Soviet Union, these forces drove the garrisoned Korean troops almost to the end of the peninsula. However, the UN sprang to action, invading at Incheon and pushing the Northern troops back across the 38th Parallel north to the Yalu River. It was only Chinese intervention that fought back the UN troops, stalemating the fight at the highly-fortified borders that stand today. The UN was seen to be a global policeman, assembling and mobilizing task forces and armies in order to maintain the status quo of borders and nations.

The UN can also bring crises to light that have global import. The UN is very effective in the championing of human rights. Because individual people lack the international stature required to bring a grievance against a sovereign nation, the UN has striven to bring oppressed citizens a voice. From the refugee crises in Darfur and the Sudan to international human smuggling, the UN has power to change minds regarding abhorrent practices and hopefully affect change on an international level. Another project is the recent UN Panel on Climate Change. This panel has alerted nations to the threat of global warming. Their work has recently been recognized, as the Panel was co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former US Vice President Al Gore.

Not everything the UN touches turns to gold. Recent scandals like Oil-For-Food have tainted the UN's credibility. Powerful nations have been able to take international action without UN mandate. In the wake of the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 (9/11), America sought to bring those responsible to justice. Proving a connection between Osama bin Laden and the Taliban was clear and uncomplicated; however, the establishment of a connection to Iraq required more diplomacy. America sought UN approval for the invasion, claiming that Iraq had been seeking biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s motives were purely malevolent: the case was made that he sought to propagate this dangerous material to terrorists, specifically those of the ilk who had perpetrated 9/11. Even in the face of ignored UN sanctions, the UN was unconvinced and America proceeded. The US assembled a coalition of willing nations to invade Iraq, topple Saddam and install a pluralistic democracy, though true Iraqi stability remains a work in progress.

This end-run around the UN did not obviate its need. Quite the contrary, as this makes the UN more necessary than ever. In this post-Cold War world where two antagonistic nations no longer stand toe-to-toe, there is a need for multinational oversight of issues that span borders. Whether the issues at hand are one country invading another, global warming, or a refugee crisis in sub-Saharan Africa, the UN can bring these issues to light and hopefully affect change.

Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Feb 04, 2008
To be frank that would be unusually unsubtle for either of them.


They admitted it you freak!

Man! I bet you totally ignored it when Wilson was exposed as a liar too!

Russia, which put up some ``obstacles'' to access of documents and hasn't signed a memorandum of understanding on their delivery, is cooperating, according to Michael Holtzman, spokesman for the panel named by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to probe allegations of corruption in the oil-for-food program. The memos detail ``parameters'' of cooperation, Holtzman said.

Russia

I guess in your little warped world, only the US can be blamed for anything.
on Feb 04, 2008
The French, Russians and Chinese have traditionally had quite effective intelligence services


So have the US and Britian (selective praise). The problem is that they are not UN INTELLIGENCE services. And as we see today, the French and Russian were compromised as badly (or worse in some views) as the Britian and US services.

I never said they were efficient. I said they were effective. There's a difference. You don't have to be efficient to be effective. Efficiency is nice, but without a sovereign to keep them in line I don't think UN agencies can ever be efficient. Effective is all we can hope for.


That is a red herring. They are 2 sides of the same coin. Collecting a million dollars and paying out 10 may be effective (they got some money), but not efficient. And hardly worthy of the effort. UNICEF is effective in drawing attention to a problem, not in fixing it. But I can see where the confusion lies. Intentions versus effect. As long as the intentions are good, then it does not matter the effect.

You are not alone in that regards. There are many here who beleive the same thing. I am not one of them.
on Feb 04, 2008
The war didn't give the US any more territory nor improved access to strategic resources (the same access could have been obtained by making a deal with Saddam, the US had more to offer than France and Russia).


Australia entered the war not so much for morality but to get in good with the Americans. Britain probably did it as much out of pride as anything else.

On the US front the bases have fairly effectively replaced the Saudi ones, which is one reason put forward by some observers.

On an unrelated note, PNAC had a boner for knocking off Saddam, so internal domestic politics was sated with the invasion. Whether that was a major cause for war or not we'll know in 50 years.

If YOU didn't support the war, that's fine. But don't tell those who did that they didn't do it for morally sound reasons!


You can support whatever you like for whatever reasons you like. But that doesn't mean states act morally. You should read the textbooks about global policy your fellow citizens produce to train new generations of leaders, generals and diplomats. There aren't many references to morality in them that don't begin with neomarxist or liberal.

Your view of realpolitik seems to be that American cannot possibly want good and that France and Russia have no immoral reasons for supporting a fascist dictator.


Everyone wants good things to happen. It's just a matter of whether it provides anything else as well.

I'm fairly sure France and Russia had immoral reasons for supporting a fascist dictator. But so does every country. The actions of any world power can't be explained with references to morality, because their actions tend to be clearly amoral.

There's always an ulterior or at least an additional motive.

Man! I bet you totally ignored it when Wilson was exposed as a liar too!


I don't think I cared. Why should Woodrow Wilson be important to me in any life-changing way?

Oh, and your website doesn't reference any of its claims. I'm not much of a fan of conspiracy theorists.

I guess in your little warped world, only the US can be blamed for anything.


{sarcasm}Yes, that's exactly how I feel. Why, some days I just skip around blaming things on the Great Satan. Because one-dimensionalism is what all the kids are into these days.{/sarcasm}

You're an idiot, Parated, and you always have been. You're obviously clever enough to breathe, but anything that requires more than one thought at a time is clearly beyond you.

PS. All the cool kids are freaks these days. Don't you want to be cool?

UNICEF is effective in drawing attention to a problem, not in fixing it.


Attention raising is one of the key factors in effecting change. I'm surprised you deny that. Could world charities be so effective without the UN to protect them/speak for them?
on Feb 04, 2008
Attention raising is one of the key factors in effecting change. I'm surprised you deny that. Could world charities be so effective without the UN to protect them/speak for them?


I am surprised you are surprised. As I said in my last statements:

Intentions versus effect. As long as the intentions are good, then it does not matter the effect.

You are not alone in that regards. There are many here who beleive the same thing. I am not one of them.


To many here, it is all about intentions. Effects be damned. Drawing attention to it? Somehow that escapes me when I see the "attention" they drew to Saddam, Darfur, Bosnia, etc. The world is full of people "drawing attention". We do not need a bloated bureaucracy to do that. There are very few that do anything about the problems however, and the UN is not among them. Thus my scorn.
on Feb 04, 2008
Go ahead and continue to defend the UN. They have already stood behind their representatives who raped those women they were supposed to be helping. I guess you like that too.

It's made for you Cacto. Maybe you should join in on their kind of "aid" and enjoy life as the thugs you embrace.
2 Pages1 2