Why do people think that the UN has any power whatsoever?

[Nakura Chambers]

I keep hearing "not my problem, the UN will fix it" on these boards. Why does anyone think that the United Nations is competent or has any power whatsoever? The military backbone of the United Nations is NATO, for starters. Not only that, but any sort of United Nations proposal (especially in regard to the Crimean crisis) would be immediately shot down by Russia (and probably China), who are permanent members of the security council and have veto power.

So where exactly does this thought process of "ignore the world, the UN will deal with it" come from? And is this really any different from the same thought process that people had in regards to German and Japanese expansionism prior to World War II? "Let the League of Nations deal with it"

[Wells]

Why do people think the government is meant to be a governing body?

[Deleted]

The UN is a joke that is only useful for policing extremely poor Asian and African countries, personally I would rather disband the military side of it and expand the humanitarian part.

[Zstr]

u think that US is ONLY awesome contry in this world and it should dictate what to do to everyone?!

[Nakura Chambers]

u think that US is ONLY awesome contry in this world and it should dictate what to do to everyone?!

Why do you think the United Nations was founded?

[Olo]

Why do you think the United Nations was founded?

To keep Europe from starting another world war?

[Nakura Chambers]

To keep Europe from starting another world war?

The entire international system that we live under today was founded by the United States, for the United States.

[Deleted]

The UN would work if sides engaged in a conflict would have no vote right and no veto right. Currently any serious action is blocked by China or Russia.

[Kellhound]

The UN only works when the interests of the 5 permanent Security Council members with veto power align. How often do the US, UK, France, and China agree on ANYTHING?

[Dreknar20]

The UN would work if the world actually tried to make it work, the amount of compromise and cooperation is pathetic.

collective security just dsnt work.
Nations don't really give half a shit about things that don't concern them, much less willing to spend resources or sacrifice for it

[Skroe]

It was a pragmatic system based on the primacy of the strong — a "trusteeship of the powerful," as he then called it, or, as he put it later, "the Four Policemen." The concept was, as [Senator Arthur H.] Vandenberg noted in his diary in April 1944, "anything but a wild-eyed internationalist dream of a world state.... It is based virtually on a four-power alliance." Eventually this proved to be both the potential strength and the actual weakness of the future UN, an organization theoretically based on a concert of great powers whose own mutual hostility, as it turned out, was itself the greatest potential threat to world peace.[1]

Many people are under a terrible misunderstanding of what the UN is. It is NOT a forum for global governance (although it occasionally dips its toe in that). It's actually a global forum where every country has an opportunity to be heard, even if that voice does not lead to action, because it is over seen by the powerful.

The idea that there is a place in the world where all countries can sit down and talk to each other is a new thing... a very very new thing, and very stabilizing as well. Before the League of Nations, the closest predecessor was the Concert of Europe, and it wasn't nearly as comprehensive. And that's it. There were no other places for countries to sit in a room, debate, rally and cut deals OPENLY in a regular forum. Countries having a forum to air grievances, discuss openly concerns and state positions within a framework of norms and regulations acts as a release valve and moderator.

Furthermore the UN put to rest finally, the idea of "Secret Treaties". All UN members must declare their allegiances openly. Most people never even thought of this point. Secret Treaties however, were a dangerous invention for nearly six hundred years before they were banned.

It's these norms and regulations, and the forum that it provides, that makes the UN essential as a chamber for engagement with countries of the world. People looking for more than that are wishful thinkers. People who want something different than that... like a Global Parliament... that's fine, but don't try to warp the UN into that. And people on the far right who want the US to abandon the UN... just ask yourselves... do you really want meetings to take place concerning things of global consequence WITHOUT the US in the room? Because that has happened countless times before to us and other countries, and it's very destabilizing.

The UN is that room. It's lived up to it's promise perfectly. The only promise it has not fulfilled, is those thrust upon it by people who had nothing to do with it's creation and barely understand it at all.

[Shiny212]

I think people are too hard on the UN, it's a massive multinational organization that despite what you're saying does alot of good work around the world.

[Skroe]

Why do people think the government is meant to be a governing body?

Because the think "Global Body" and they immediately think "Global Government" without considering the light year difference between the two and the different levels between them.

[Deleted]

i think skro hit a good point

[Kasierith]

The UN is a joke that is only useful for policing extremely poor Asian and African countries, personally I would rather disband the military side of it and expand the humanitarian part.

The UN does not have a military. It's military forces are volunteers from its member states assembled only on an ad hoc basis.

[Doktor Faustus]

Why do you think the United Nations was founded?

Founding principles have been eroded over the last 70 odd years.

The USA doesn't even pay it rates to the UN anymore, and is high on the list of nations ignoring resolutions.

Disband the illusion.

[Dezerte]

Many people are under a terrible misunderstanding of what the UN is. It is NOT a forum for global governance (although it occasionally dips its toe in that). It's actually a global forum where every country has an opportunity to be heard, even if that voice does not lead to action, because it is over seen by the powerful.

The idea that there is a place in the world where all countries can sit down and talk to each other is a new thing... a very very new thing, and very stabilizing as well. Before the League of Nations, the closet predecessor was the Concert of Europe, and it wasn't nearly as comprehensive. Countries having a forum to air grievances, discuss openly concerns and state positions within a framework of norms and regulations acts as a release valve and moderator.

Furthermore the UN put to rest finally, the idea of "Secret Treaties". All UN members must declare their allegiances openly.

It's these norms and regulations, and the forum that it provides, that makes the UN essential as a chamber for engagement with countries of the world. People looking for more than that are wishful thinkers. People who want something different than that... like a Global Parliament... that's fine, but don't try to warp the UN into that. And people on the far right who want the US to abandon the UN... just ask yourselves... do you really want meetings to take place concerning things of global consequence WITHOUT the US in the room?

The UN is that room. It's lived up to it's promise perfectly. The only promise it has not fulfilled, is those thrust upon it by people who had nothing to do with it's creation and barely understand it at all.

Basically this, and I think I've honestly seen this misunderstanding far more often than the "UN will fix this" posts.

[Dreknar20]

The only promise it has not fulfilled, is those thrust upon it by people who had nothing to do with it's creation and barely understand it at all.

The UN failed with collective security, which is one of the reasons for forming it in the first place
The assumption that somehow all nations across the globe have the same interest in resisting a particular form of aggression and willing to make the same sacrifices as everyone else, history has shown to be total bullshit.

[Wells]

The UN failed with collective security, which is one of the reasons for forming it in the first place

There hasn't been a war between major powers since its creation, barring the Korean War in its infancy. Its purpose was to create a mechanism to enable global diplomatic communication and cooperation. It has succeeded in that regard.

[Kasierith]

The UN failed with collective security, which is one of the reasons for forming it in the first place
The assumption that somehow all nations across the globe have the same interest in resisting a particular form of aggression and willing to make the same sacrifices as everyone else, history has shown to be total bullshit.

I'm going to have to agree with this individual:

In conclusion, efficient UN action was in fact stymied by superpower conflict that was based on both geopolitical and ideological factors. These circumstances led to many brutal proxy wars, such as in Korea, the Congo and Vietnam, which were often even prolonged by superpower divisions. Many peacekeeping missions failed or never left. Atrocious genocides such as in Cambodia and in Guatemala were not prevented by the UN. Rather than acting as a collective security system, the SC mostly remained divided throughout the Cold War. Hence, ‘Divided States’ may have indeed been a more accurate term than ‘United Nations’ (Roberts, Kingsbury, 1993: 10). Yet, the UN was not a complete disaster and undoubtedly the Cold War world was better off with than without it (Weiss, Daws, 2007: 11). Some improvements towards peaceful cooperation were made, largely by simply providing a peaceful platform for global discussion. Throughout the Cold War, the value of the UN developed into one that was different from initially intended, focussing more on aspects such as human rights and self-determination. This is still true to this date and perhaps, it is high time to rethink the role of the UN. Maintaining global peace and security has so far proved impossible; however, it is possible to make small steps forward to hopefully gradually make this world a better place.

http://www.e-ir.info/2011/06/10/the-...ower-conflict/