Some Basic Logical Problems with the United Nations

...

Successfully updated karma reason!

I also think that the security council is very questionable.. five countries that can veto all resolutions and proposals on a whim, more or less. It is not justifiable with anything these days as it had only been used in political powerplayes so far. I think the UN is more or less useless in its current form - for me the dutch UN soldiers in Srbrenica watching the massace of thousands are a very good example for that. They were there to keep the peace and we all saw how much good that did.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Anthony R

Join Date 01/2003

+59

I agree with utemia on the the "useless" designation. The reason she cites is a good one too. Not only did the UN stand around and watch that massacre, they were said to have provided gasoline for the Serbs bulldozers which were used to plow all the bodies into the ground. Worse than that, rthe disarmed the entire village before the massacre. Under Kriminal Anus's watch I think there was like 3 genocides. Just abominable.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I also think that the security council is very questionable.. five countries that can veto all resolutions and proposals on a whim, more or less. It is not justifiable with anything these days as it had only been used in political powerplayes so far.

I like the security council. They are the five (main) victors of World War II. That's why they have the power.

Other countries voluntarily joined the organisation in which those five have the special powers. That legitimises their power. I have no problem with that.

I think the UN is more or less useless in its current form - for me the dutch UN soldiers in Srbrenica watching the massace of thousands are a very good example for that. They were there to keep the peace and we all saw how much good that did.

Indeed.

The UN has become simply an organisation that watches over genocide (and protects the perpetrators).

I agree with utemia on the the "useless" designation. The reason she cites is a good one too. Not only did the UN stand around and watch that massacre, they were said to have provided gasoline for the Serbs bulldozers which were used to plow all the bodies into the ground. Worse than that, rthe disarmed the entire village before the massacre. Under Kriminal Anus's watch I think there was like 3 genocides. Just abominable.

Don't worry. The Human Rights Council will get Israel for that!

Successfully updated karma reason!

I like the security council. They are the five (main) victors of World War II. That's why they have the power. Other countries voluntarily joined the organisation in which those five have the special powers. That legitimises their power. I have no problem with that.

To quote the movie "The fellowship of the ring" The world is changing.. I think it is no longer acceptable to make global politics according to the post WW2 and post cold war political situation - but of course it is in the vested interest of those that have special powers to keep them. But why should the victors of WW2 have special powers in a global organization 100 years after their victory? (Assuming that the UN will still exist in 36 years) Time moves on and political treaties and organizations form anew that have no ties to past events and can legitimize their existence by saying "we won way back then but nobody who fought back then is actually still alive". Otherwise, no change at all would be possible, ever.

The UN has become anachronistic in its current form and it is unwilling to change. All it really does is cost billions for bureaucracy alone - the peacekeeping missions are all just a waste of resources because they do not prevent anything, and I am sure humanitarian aid could be organized differently. That is probably the only resort where the UN does good, and I am sure there are many issues which could be found that are bad within that as well.

Successfully updated karma reason!

To quote the movie "The fellowship of the ring" The world is changing.. I think it is no longer acceptable to make global politics according to the post WW2 and post cold war political situation - but of course it is in the vested interest of those that have special powers to keep them. But why should the victors of WW2 have special powers in a global organization 100 years after their victory?

Why not? Which cosmic law says that a victory must be undone after so many years?

You are right about the special interests and everything, but I don't see a mechanism or legitimacy to change it. If countries don't want the Security Council they could simply leave the UN and ignore it.

Heck, Brazil and Germany could found their own United Nations, declare themselves and Japan permanent members of its Security Council and compete with the established Security Council of the old United Nations on the grounds that the world has changed and there is nothing special about the old five.

(Assuming that the UN will still exist in 36 years) Time moves on and political treaties and organizations form anew that have no ties to past events and can legitimize their existence by saying "we won way back then but nobody who fought back then is actually still alive". Otherwise, no change at all would be possible, ever.

But isn't the purpose of the United Nations to avoid change and preserve the existing?

The UN has become anachronistic in its current form and it is unwilling to change. All it really does is cost billions for bureaucracy alone - the peacekeeping missions are all just a waste of resources because they do not prevent anything, and I am sure humanitarian aid could be organized differently. That is probably the only resort where the UN does good, and I am sure there are many issues which could be found that are bad within that as well.

I totally agree. But that's an argument against the UN, not against the special standing of the top five members.

Do you think that any of these things would work differently, if not the US, Great Britain, France, China and Russia had the special status but others or noone?

I think the US veto has so far avoided the UN becoming openly pro-genocide and I don't think that abolishing the last instrument of control civilisation has over the UN will help in any way.

Isn't it true that the few good things the UN does (and does worse than others) are those financed mainly by the west while all those bad things you cite are supported by those members who are not among the top five?

Successfully updated karma reason!

The UN security council is anachronistic in the sense that it represents a post WW2 and coldwar world which no longer exists in that form. The world is not organized into NATO, Warshaw Pact and block free any more. It has changed - and the UN failed to adapt to the new challenges.

The new problems and challenges are not mainly a looming WW3 between the US+allies and the USSR+allies anymore. Humanitarian aid, human rights, economical problems related to globalization, migration, environmental problems, foreign aid etc. and promoting world peace *cough* are the main domains of where the UN is active - and those issues don't really justify the security council in its current form.

Generally, I think the UN has turned into virtually powerless, money guzzling monolith - my argument against the security council is just a small slice of the overall problems you already mentioned.

But isn't the purpose of the United Nations to avoid change and preserve the existing?

Interesting question. According to that statement, the german reunification and breakdown of the iron curtain would have had been something the UN would have tried to stop at all costs - including and foremost the top members of the security council.

I sometimes wonder how wise it is to assume that the status quo has to be preserved at all costs.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The UN security council is anachronistic in the sense that it represents a post WW2 and coldwar world which no longer exists in that form. The world is not organized into NATO, Warshaw Pact and block free any more. It has changed - and the UN failed to adapt to the new challenges.

The UN was founded before there were those two blocks. It never took into account the possibility of such two blocks as the Korea and Vietnam wars clearly showed.

The new problems and challenges are not mainly a looming WW3 between the US+allies and the USSR+allies anymore. Humanitarian aid, human rights, economical problems related to globalization, migration, environmental problems, foreign aid etc. and promoting world peace *cough* are the main domains of where the UN is active - and those issues don't really justify the security council in its current form.

Those issues have nothing to do with the Security Council. I don't see why they have to justify or not justify it.

Generally, I think the UN has turned into virtually powerless, money guzzling monolith - my argument against the security council is just a small slice of the overall problems you already mentioned.

The UN are a lot of things but unfortunately not powerless. The dictators and racists in charge have every power to condemn smaller countries into virtual isolation and dictate policy whereever it suits them.

Take my pet peeve example of Israeli "settlements" in the disputed territories. The UN has an opinion on the issue. Why? What's it to them and why do they take sides? Aren't they supposed to be a forum for negotiation rather than a side in the conflict? (And if they had no power, how could they take sides?)

And this even ignores the UN troops in Lebanon who openly side with Hizbullah, share camps with the terrorists and hunt down Israeli spies rather than disarm Hizbullah (the latter being their "official" duty).

The UN are not powerless, they are a powerful player. They take sides and the Security Council cannot stop them since the councils in question work outside the Security Council's control.

Interesting question. According to that statement, the german reunification and breakdown of the iron curtain would have had been something the UN would have tried to stop at all costs - including and foremost the top members of the security council.

I sometimes wonder how wise it is to assume that the status quo has to be preserved at all costs.

The UN were set up to preserve the pre-Cold War situation, not the Cold War situation. The Cold War was an anomaly (even though it took up most of the time). When the Cold War ended, the UN's job was to make everything as it was before the Cold War.

After World War 2 and after undoing what Germany and Japan (and their allies) had done, the only open wounds were the Baltic countries (which they Soviet Union annexed), the British territory in Israel and some of those colonies.

Since then the UN tried to make into law every crime committed before the 1940s (except by the axis) and to avoid any border changes afterwards (except by communists).

That's how Saudi Arabia got to keep land stolen from the Hashemites in 1926 while Israel is condemned for annexing the Golan Heights. And that's how North-Vietnam got to attack and annex South-Vietnam while Jerusalem is an "Arab city".

Successfully updated karma reason!

In the mean time, the UN Security Council serves as a last check and occasionally manages to avoid the UN becoming totally dictatorial as the five great powers have a way to stop the UN before they have to fight each other.

That works very well.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The UN were set up to preserve the pre-Cold War situation, not the Cold War situation. The Cold War was an anomaly (even though it took up most of the time). When the Cold War ended, the UN's job was to make everything as it was before the Cold War.

That is just not possible. One can not turn time backwards to make everything as it was before. People change, nations change, problems change - the world is changing (quite a banal, but apt summary, really). It might have been a grand vision in 1942, but it is hardly a workable idea in 2009 to return the world to a pre 1939 status quo. Among other things, there would be no Isreal, you'd have colonies and the German state would be much much larger. Poland would be somewhere else on the map..

Successfully updated karma reason!

That is just not possible. One can not turn time backwards to make everything as it was before.

One can try.

People change, nations change, problems change - the world is changing (quite a banal, but apt summary, really). It might have been a grand vision in 1942, but it is hardly a workable idea in 2009 to return the world to a pre 1939 status quo.

You and I know that.

The UN probably know it too, but that doesn't stop them from trying.

Among other things, there would be no Isreal, you'd have colonies and the German state would be much much larger. Poland would be somewhere else on the map..

There would be an Israel, it would still be under British rule. But independence for mandate territories and colonies was already part of the UN's original plan, so they are part of it.

As I said, the UN ignored changes made by the communists for the most part. The Soviet Union could, for example, annexx Lithuania and keep it.

And Germany always, officially, existed in the 1937 borders until a final peace treaty was signed.

I am constantly confused by how people believe that Israel didn't exist before independence. I live in Ireland but I don't believe Ireland didn't exist before independence from the United Kingdom either.

Israel was before 1949 under British rule, but it certainly existed.

Israel didn't exist, as a state or territory of any form under Turkish rule when the territory was part of the Turkish provinces of Jerusalem and Beirut. But it certainly existed before 1949 just like Germany existed during 1945 and 1949.

Here are a few interesting pictures:

http://www.jhom.com/topics/money/images/anglo_pound.jpg

The "Palestinian Pound", currency in Israel before and after independence until currency reform. "Palestine" was the European name for the land, "Israel" was the Semitic name. The Zionists always used Semitic words over European words.

I cannot read the Arabic on the note (it's too skillfully drawn) but it probably says "Palestine" as per British ideas. The Hebrew in the middle says "one Land of Israel pound". The note was printed by "Bank Anglo-Palestina [some Hebrew abbreviation follows]".

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3060/2561527910_591d40d0af.jpg

This is the emperor of Ethiopia arriving in Jerusalem, a city that did exist before 1949. The sign says in the three official languages (two are still official today) "Jerusalem" in English, "Al-Quds" ("the holy") in Arabic, and "Yerushalayim" in Hebrew.

Emperor Haille Selassie is incidentally a descendant of King David, king of the land that certainly existed before 1949.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/taphoto1900.html

http://www.historama.com/onlinepricelist/eretz-israel-palestine-holyland-collectibles/0040004.html

These are some pictures of Tel Aviv between 1910 and 1940. The city was founded in 1906 when the land was still part of Turkey (Jerusalem province). All these existing people lived in an existing land they called "Israel" and used the "Land of Israel Pound" printed as such and with that name by the Anglo-Palestina bank to buy products made in Israel.

Current thoughts at the time where whether one should by from Jews (because one should look after one's brother) or from Arabs (because one must treat the stranger in the land as one treats one's own).

What impressed me is how Diezengoff Street looks exactly the same now as it did then!

Successfully updated karma reason!

I meant the modern state of Isreal that was founded after the war in 1948.

And while Germany existed officially in its 1937 borders after the war it had been de facto not the case. The borders were effectively moved with the Potsdam agreement between Stalin and the western allies - and with the formation of the occupation zones. After the war was over, many german nationals were expelled (eg from Slovakia, Poland..) and those refugees have ever since demanded the repatriation of those lands into Germany and to be paid damages for their annexed property. Of course, it had become quite clear with the passing years that this would never happen. Even so, this issue is still a hot political potatoe, as I'm sure you're aware.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I meant the modern state of Isreal that was founded after the war in 1948.

Again, all those pictures show the modern state of Israel, before 1948.

The modern state of Israel came to be as a British territory and then became independent when the British got bored of running the place.

British law continued to be valid, as did Turkish law unless changed by the British. The currency remained the same and the civil service remained the same.

And while Germany existed officially in its 1937 borders after the war it had been de facto not the case. The borders were effectively moved with the Potsdam agreement between Stalin and the western allies - and with the formation of the occupation zones. After the war was over, many german nationals were expelled (eg from Slovakia, Poland..) and those refugees have ever since demanded the repatriation of those lands into Germany and to be paid damages for their annexed property. Of course, it had become quite clear with the passing years that this would never happen. Even so, this issue is still a hot political potatoe, as I'm sure you're aware.

Germany did not vanish between 1945 and 1949. The merchant navy still existed and a flag was assigned to Germany for such purposes. The country was occupied, but it existed. The German states were refounded in 1947 and the new currency was introduced before independence.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I like the security council. They are the five (main) victors of World War II. That's why they have the power.

I have always thought that was strange. I never saw France any more deserving than say Poland. And China? While all were allies, in the end, the main muscle came from Russia (the old USSR), America, and the Commonwealth (UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, etc.). As it was a world war, most of the nations were caught up in it. But in the final analysis, the countries listed above did the most damage, not China and France (and yes they suffered a lot, but then all nations did).

Successfully updated karma reason!

I have always thought that was strange. I never saw France any more deserving than say Poland.

France was officially among the five main allies, Poland was not. Everything about France is strange. Even you.

And China?

That was likely a propaganda move to explain why fighting Japan was so important even after they had retreated enough not to be a danger to the US any more.

While all were allies, in the end, the main muscle came from Russia (the old USSR), America, and the Commonwealth (UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, etc.).

And those three are also among the five, of course. But including France and China basically covered all pre-war powers except those on the other side.

As it was a world war, most of the nations were caught up in it. But in the final analysis, the countries listed above did the most damage, not China and France (and yes they suffered a lot, but then all nations did).

The seats were not awarded by damage but by being a founder member.

Successfully updated karma reason!

France was officially among the five main allies, Poland was not. Everything about France is strange. Even you.

That is why I am overly qualified to address the issue.

I understand why China and France are there, I just meant to say I dont necessarily agree with the reasoning. But then I dont agree with pickled eggs either. Too much heart burn!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Interesting question. According to that statement, the german reunification and breakdown of the iron curtain would have had been something the UN would have tried to stop at all costs - including and foremost the top members of the security council.

They probably would have if it hadn't happened so quickly...and a US president the caliber of Ronald Reagan had not been in office (I'll give some credit to Gorby too). If you doubt what I'm saying here's a different example:

Tens of thousands of Iranians take to the streets after an obvious rigged election. An unprecedented opportunity to repair relations, ruined under Carter, is at hand. What is the response from the US "wonder kid" and the rest of the world (the UN)....silence, if not outright support for the pretender to the Iranian government. Thousands are killed, beaten, and jailed.

Need more?

A leftist president, of a small Latin American nation, decides to change his countries constitution to allow him to stay in office. He is removed from office. What does the world do? Cut off financial dealings with this country, and pressure it to take back the "El Presidente for life". Nothing funny about Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and other supporting the ousted presidents claims. The UN loves dictators.

IMO the security counsel is probably the only part of the UN worth having (and lately not even them). What an enormous waste of money. I wonder how much was thrown away on fraud?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Put like that.. I know that Maggie Thatcher was vehemently against the whole idea of one united german state for one.

But then, I didn't know that the UN is a body that had its own political agenda - or it shouldn't be in any case. Because it begs the question of whose agenda they are actually following. Admittedly, I don't really follow what the UN does that closely so I am probably misinformed on a lot of the processes.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Put like that.. I know that Maggie Thatcher was vehemently against the whole idea of one united german state for one.

I love Maggie. But she was against everything.

But then, I didn't know that the UN is a body that had its own political agenda - or it shouldn't be in any case. Because it begs the question of whose agenda they are actually following. Admittedly, I don't really follow what the UN does that closely so I am probably misinformed on a lot of the processes.

The UN definitely have an agenda and it's not peace. (If it were peace, the UN would not worry so much about the Middle-East's smallest conflict but would take the occasional look at some of the many much bigger conflicts.)

Successfully updated karma reason!

If the UN have an agenda, I would really like to know who is invovled in forming it. Because I believe in the democratic principles - out of everything, it is the best alternative. And in that, theoretically at least, the elected body of governance is at least supposedly able to be held accountable for their actions. The people have an power in a democracy - the US constitution has that as its very first sentence, and it's not without a reason. (We, the people of the United States...) Where are the people in the UNO?It is undemocratic that a organization has that much power and nobody to whom it is accountable to.

It is all a bit fishy if you ask me - much like the Lissabon treaty that is in effect for the EU since December 1st. Now Europe has much resemblance to a constitutional monarchy where the EU comission is royalty and the people have no influence whatsoever on what is going on. Some unseen bureaucrats in Brussels and the elected leaders of the member states can basically do what they want without opposition. It is doubtful that this is intereseting for americans, but I know that Ireland had been more or less bullied into ratifying.

Successfully updated karma reason!

If the UN have an agenda, I would really like to know who is involved in forming it.

My guess it that those governments that get replaced the least often are those that have the most influence in the UN bureaucracy. (And France for some reason.)

The UN's agenda is certainly imperialism-friendly (as long as the imperialists are Arab) and very hostile towards Israel (less so towards the US) and the African population (as opposed to the African regimes).

The entire thing appears to be a power protection mechanism designed to keep dictators in power and people down.

Because I believe in the democratic principles - out of everything, it is the best alternative. And in that, theoretically at least, the elected body of governance is at least supposedly able to be held accountable for their actions.

Most countries do not have an elected government.

Some countries that don't do still have a government that is perfectly capable (Jordan, Morocco).

And one quasi-country, the Palestinian Authority, is neither elected nor non-elected but elected by the UN and the west who forced Israel and the Arab population of the territories to accept terrorist rule over those territories. The UN (and the EU for some reason) are currently trying to force terrorist rule over the Jewish holy sites and East-Jerusalem as well, despite the fact that the people of Jerusalem, Jews and Arabs alike, haven't been asked but plainly appear not to want to submit to PLO rule.

In fact I have heard from Jewish and Arab groups that there will be an "Intifada" in Jerusalem should any Israeli government hand over any part of the city to PLO rule.

See this article of mine about the people of Jerusalem, where the UN ignores nations and people (even Arabs) and territorial integrity for the sake of an anti-Israel position.

The people have an power in a democracy - the US constitution has that as its very first sentence, and it's not without a reason. (We, the people of the United States...) Where are the people in the UNO?It is undemocratic that a organization has that much power and nobody to whom it is accountable to.

The people of the UNO are the dictators and few elected heads of governments that form the "General Assembly".

You won't find a Kurdish representative at the "United Nations", unless the president of Iraq speaks. But he represents neither the Kurdish nor the Arab people but the state of Iraq and he is elected by all Iraqis but not all Kurds and thus cannot speak for the Kurdish nation.

Israel represents the Jewish nation at the UN, by definition.

The US represent American Indians, since they can vote there. Australia represents the Aboriginals, officially. I guess it is fair to say that New-Zealand represents not only English New-Zealanders but also the natives since the state of New-Zealand really is based on a treaty between native New-Zealanders and the British Crown. And perhaps Egypt represents native Egyptians (or just Arab Egyptians, hard to tell).

Germany represents the Sorbish nation as well as part of the German nation.

But there are no representatives at the United "Nations" of the Imazighen (Berbers), of the Nilo-Saharan tribes, of the Kurds, or of the Assyrian nation.

The entire concept of the United "Nations" is nonsense.

It wasn't like that, originally.

In the 1940s the United Nations were actually supposed to represent nations and it did, for some time.

Hence the Soviet Union had three votes in the General Assembly (since it represented, among others, the three nations of Russians, Belarussians, and Ukrainians) and hence the United Nations recognised the right of self-determination of the Jewish people.

But the Cold War replaced the nation right of self-determination with a regime right of territorial integrity. And this is what the UN know defend fiercely.

This is why we don't see the UN trying to form a country for the Kurds, despite the fact that only a few years ago the world had an occupied territory overlapping with the Kurdish population centre.

Independence for Kosovo was a step towards self-determination (this time for Albanians) and was fiercely opposed by the territorial integrity crowd. The invasion of Iraq did more for the self-determination of a nation (the Kurds) than anything the UN had done since East-Timor in 1975. But nobody in the UN even took that little detail into account when discussing the Iraq war, so forgotten has the actual principle behind the UN become.

Also note that "territorial integrity" is a principle not applied to Israel. There is no doubt in the UN that land can and should be taken away from Israel and given to never-existing countries.

It is all a bit fishy if you ask me - much like the Lissabon treaty that is in effect for the EU since December 1st. Now Europe has much resemblance to a constitutional monarchy where the EU comission is royalty and the people have no influence whatsoever on what is going on. Some unseen bureaucrats in Brussels and the elected leaders of the member states can basically do what they want without opposition. It is doubtful that this is interesting for americans, but I know that Ireland had been more or less bullied into ratifying.

It is fishy, of course. But I have noticed that the left-wing and right-wing fanatics were against Lisbon. If Sinn Fein and the British National Party are against it, I am certainly for it.

I'd rather be ruled by unelected Stalinist bureaucrats in Bruseels than by some of the idiots that can be freely elected in individual European states.

Successfully updated karma reason!