@RABEL222,
Quote:I've already said that the UN has outlived its usefulness. There's nothing they can do. Words alone will not accomplish anything in that situation.
Quote:I agree with C.I.. The U.N is just a bunch of inept politicians who do nothing but collect their wages.
I agree with both of you that the UN has been less than perfect in addressing & resolving the problems its been confronted with in the 21st century (in particular that of powerful nations preying on weaker ones for their own ends) but I despair at what appears to be your blanket negativity regarding the value of such an organization.
I wish you had something constructive to offer about alternative approaches.
As I see things, I'd much prefer an imperfect world body attempt to resolve the conflict in Syria (& elsewhere) than no such body exist at all. Do we agree on that?
The UN's difficulty is that its a 20th century construct with a 20th century charter, established to "to stop wars between countries, and to provide a platform for dialogue" :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations
... which is sorely in need of
reform in the 21st century if is to be more effective in resolving 21st century problems. To be
allowed the necessary "teeth" required to work toward achieving world peace in a globalized world, in other words. Of course that would involve changes to the UN charter. Changes to the existing "rules".
At the moment the Security Council (the "enforcement arm" of the UN) has sole power to allow the UN to
act. The General Assembly can only make
recommendations to the Council. And given that any one of the "big 5" (the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain, France, and China) can veto any UN Security Council resolution, it's pretty clear why so many issues the UN
should be addressing are so often swept under the carpet, isn't it?
It seems clear to me that the General Assembly requires real power (maybe a 2/3rd vote to actually count as a formal resolution?) & that the power of the "big 5" over the Security Council be reduced.
For starters, that would be an admirable, say nothing of a far more democratic (!) reform!
That may sound pie in the sky to you, but if the nations of the world can & do work with each other to resolve global monetary issues, why not also work together toward achieving a more peaceful, lawful world?
(Incidentally, check out the information contained in this link.
the "big 5" countries with veto powers in the Security Council are the amongst 6 leading arms exporters in the world (including Germany) , with the 5 largest defence budgets in the world. Kind of contradiction in purposes, yes? )
Arms industry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry
Anyway, anyway ....
Rather than directing our anger & frustration at the UN as an organization, perhaps we should be targeting & shaming the the "big 5"? .... or at the very least, looking at ways of lessening their power & influence?
The UN
could be a lot more effective if "the big 5" weren't preoccupied with looking after their own selfish interests, at the expense of those countries which urgently require support, that's for sure.
