United nations, EU, where are you??

nimh's list--

- maintain peacekeeping missions, accepted by both or all previously warring parties, to secure ceasefires in dozens of countries around the world, varying from Cyprus to Eritrea (some of which without any geostrategical or economical value)?

- provide food and shelter to millions of refugees and internally displaced people in tent camps and makeshift settlements around the world?

- provide emergency food support when drought and hunger threatens to kill millions in some of the most remote (and strategically "valueless") countries and regions?

- gain access to nuclear installations in countries as 'closed' as Iran, to monitor the development of nuclear weapons?
--------
How do they do this? With other's money and assets.

It seems to me the world could save a lot of money, by having world's Secty's of Foreign Affairs meet for Humanitarian affairs. I don't know all countries' business; but we give from home, and we give at the UN. Seems only financially prudent to incorporate whatever the UN is doing into some of the overlapping meetings and organizations already in effect. African leaders addressed the G-8, we have NATO, we have internal charitable orgs, the IAEA... WHO...I think someone is redundant. And, it appears to be the UN.

I don't hate the UN. I just think it's not useful anymore. Everything has changed in the last twenty years. Maybe we need to reflect that with some of these organizations.

Craven--
Imagining is OK. Critical thinking comes when the report is completed.
<holding tightly to ability to imagine>

0 Replies

Ok, to those who criticize the UN:

Do you want to improve it?

Do you want it to suceed?

Do you want a new organization to fill the same capacity?

Ot do you just want to blow it up and pack everyone onto "bannana boats" and whatnot?

Because I get the distinct feeling that the criticism comes from people who do not want there to be any such organization and who want it to fail in the biggest way: to cease to exist.

And to that end, you see similarities to those who just want the US to fail.

Problems are touted as a reason to question existence rather than areas on which to improve.

A lot of the qualms here can be solved by strengthening the UN, but those who criticize the UN here seem to be constitutionally oppose to the very idea of such an organization for nationalistic reasons.

0 Replies

nimh wrote...
"Sofia, do you know of anyone else who would be ready, willing and able to

- maintain peacekeeping missions, accepted by both or all previously warring parties, to secure ceasefires in dozens of countries around the world, varying from Cyprus to Eritrea (some of which without any geostrategical or economical value)?

- provide food and shelter to millions of refugees and internally displaced people in tent camps and makeshift settlements around the world?

- provide emergency food support when drought and hunger threatens to kill millions in some of the most remote (and strategically "valueless") countries and regions?

- gain access to nuclear installations in countries as 'closed' as Iran, to monitor the development of nuclear weapons? "

Besides the UN,the US meets all of the things on your list.
The US supplies thousands of tons of food,and medical supplies and shelter to EVERY country on the planet.I point to Iran after the recent earthquake,central America after the devastating hurricanes several years ago,China after they experienced floods and earthquakes,the list goes on.
As far as peacekeeping goes,EVERY UN peacekeeping mission on the planet,except for Cyprus,relies on US logistic support.We provide the transport planes,the ships to move the goods,the material to feed the people,etc.
The UN has always had to depend on the US,so for you to say that the UN has done it all,while true,is misleading.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

The US supplies thousands of tons of food,and medical supplies and shelter to EVERY country on the planet.

False.

Quote:

I point to Iran after the recent earthquake,

Where the US contributions were outdone several times over by the UN and outdone even by small countries?

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

we have internal charitable orgs, the IAEA... WHO...

Ehm ...

the IAEA and WHO are UN organisations.

Perhaps that snippet alone might already change your calling the whole thing "redundant"?

I mean, its kind of ironic to call the UN ironic by saying some of its work is already done by ... UN agencies. Yeah, quite.

0 Replies

Craven--

If the UN provided a useful service that didn't duplicate what was already being done by individual nations, and then rely on them to act--I would be happy to have it strengthened.

You and nimh seem to have my, and I suspect Au's, sentiments backwards.

You think, IMO, we just don't like the institution, so we seek to weaken it. Actually, we seek to kill it, because it is, IMO, already weak, ineffectual and dated.

The UN proves redundant to many other organizations. So, why keep it?

Who wants to empower a useless entity?

The world has changed since the birth of the UN. It was needed, and unless it innovates --it should go the way of the Cold War. A page in history.

I happen to wish they would innovate, and become the world's best problem solvers, and push for world issues, such as enviromental issues, including how the hell to make Africa a workable nation. Develop plans to bring peace, agriculture, commerce, ... to our poorest countries. Long term solutions. For this, and reports of progress, I would be glad to pay dues to the UN.

<Or, couldn't a department established at the WHO do this? See what I mean? No need for the UN. Just farm out their different focuses to the appropriate existing org, of which there are plenty.>

0 Replies

Craven,
Some examples for you...
http://www.waltainfo.com/EnNews/2003/Aug/31Aug03/Aug31e5.htm

http://wwww.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/480fa8736b88bbc3c12564f6004c8ad5/c1bb0bb969111508c1256d440044dc9e?OpenDocument

http://www.afrol.com/News/afr006_usaid_horn.htm

http://www.afrol.com/News2002/maw012_emergency_credit.htm

shall I keep going,or do you get the point?

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

If the UN provided a useful service that didn't duplicate what was already being done by individual nations, and then rely on them to act--I would be happy to have it strengthened.

What forum for dispute resolution (to name just one thing) exists outside of the UN?

Quote:

You think, IMO, we just don't like the institution, so we seek to weaken it. Actually, we seek to kill it, because it is, IMO, already weak, ineffectual and dated.

No no, I am perfectly aware that you want to "kill" it.

Quote:

The UN proves redundant to many other organizations. So, why keep it?

Redundant to what other organizations? Since there are "many" please name many.

Quote:

Who wants to empower a useless entity?

Nobody, but you are asking a loaded question that assumes agreement on the very issue in dispute: whether it is or is not useless.

Quote:

I happen to wish they would innovate, and become the world's best problem solvers, and push for world issues, such as enviromental issues, including how the hell to make Africa a workable nation. Develop plans to bring peace, agriculture, commerce, ... to our poorest countries. Long term solutions. For this, and reports of progress, I would be glad to pay dues to the UN.

But they have to do this first and without the money and cooperation right?

That's kinda like saying you'll invest in a company once the investment is no longer needed.

Quote:

<Or, couldn't a department established at the WHO do this? See what I mean? No need for the UN. Just farm out their different focuses to the appropriate existing org, of which there are plenty.>

Sofia, the WHO is the UN.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Craven,
Some examples for you...
http://www.waltainfo.com/EnNews/2003/Aug/31Aug03/Aug31e5.htm

http://wwww.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/480fa8736b88bbc3c12564f6004c8ad5/c1bb0bb969111508c1256d440044dc9e?OpenDocument

http://www.afrol.com/News/afr006_usaid_horn.htm

http://www.afrol.com/News2002/maw012_emergency_credit.htm

shall I keep going,or do you get the point?

Yes I get the point. You make false claims and when challenged you post a list of links that do not support your false claims.

None of those links address your false claims mysteryman. So don't cop out by copying and pasting links that do nothing to support them and expect people to just pretend that your claims were true.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

How do they do this? With other's money and assets.

Well, yes, they pool it so to say. Because it saves money to have one UN organisation set up offices in Kenya to take care of refugees, instead of having the US, France, Britain, Sweden and India all set up shop themselves with their own respective aid organisations there. That already happens way too much.

Sofia wrote:

It seems to me the world could save a lot of money, by having world's Secty's of Foreign Affairs meet for Humanitarian affairs.

Well, yeah, thats one of the ideas behind the UN - bring the delegates of the respective governments together, so they can coordinate and pool humanitarian efforts. But I understand you want to do away with the UN meetings because they are useless - and instead have other meetings of the national delegates from each country? How would that be better?

Sofia wrote:

Seems only financially prudent to incorporate whatever the UN is doing into some of the overlapping meetings and organizations already in effect. African leaders addressed the G-8, we have NATO, we have internal charitable orgs, the IAEA... WHO...I think someone is redundant. And, it appears to be the UN.

Apart from listing some valuable UN agencies like WHO and IAEA, of the organisations you mention NATO is military and only includes North-Atlantic organisations, G-8 is economic and only includes superpowers, there's organisations for Asia, the Americas ... how can any of them replace the UN?

If anything, the opposite concept seems more obvious - if you already have a UN, why set up separate bodies on part-topics?

Sofia wrote:

I don't hate the UN. I just think it's not useful anymore.

So you dont think the work of the UNHCR is useful (thats that UN agency that provides food and shelter to millions of refugees and internally displaced persons)?
You dont think the controls the IAEA is undertaking in Iran are useful?
You think the peacekeeping missions in Cyprus, Timor, India/Pakistan, Kosovo, Bosnia, Eritrea are not useful?

0 Replies

My bad, but there were so many alphabet to choose from--brain fart. I admit I didn't know the WHO was an UN entity--but I did know the IAEA. Drat.

But, that doesn't negate my premise.

Conflict resolution-- The world's Secty's of Foreign Affairs. Each could give reports of interest from either their own country, or a neighbor. I'm sure there are offices in each govt I don't even know the names of--but they focus on health--the CDC--Ministers of Interior-- In each country, these people already have the job of amassing pertinent information. Why can't these guys get together and take the world's pulse, and decide if any action needs to be taken.

The world is loaded to the gills with Departments and officials doing associated work, already. I think it would be more cost effective to let them expand their job description to share this.

Actually, meetings like this would enhance globalization moreso, than having the UN. World leaders from the top (G-8) and farther down on several levels would be meeting, sharing info and ideas, working out solutions.

Why not?

0 Replies

Actually, if there isn't another global group mirroring the WHO, who's to say we can't keep that, expand it, but get rid of the rest of the UN?

I'm looking for streamlining.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Conflict resolution-- The world's Secty's of Foreign Affairs. Each could give reports of interest from either their own country, or a neighbor. I'm sure there are offices in each govt I don't even know the names of--but they focus on health--the CDC--Ministers of Interior-- In each country, these people already have the job of amassing pertinent information. Why can't these guys get together and take the world's pulse, and decide if any action needs to be taken.

Cool, they'll need to meet. Let's call the meetings "The United Countries".

Quote:

Actually, meetings like this would enhance globalization moreso, than having the UN. World leaders from the top (G-8) and farther down on several levels would be meeting, sharing info and ideas, working out solutions.

Why not?

You are describing an integral part of the UN Sofia.

0 Replies

But why have so many people doing the same things?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

nimh wrote...
"Sofia, do you know of anyone else who would be ready, willing and able to

- maintain peacekeeping missions, accepted by both or all previously warring parties, to secure ceasefires in dozens of countries around the world, varying from Cyprus to Eritrea (some of which without any geostrategical or economical value)?

- provide food and shelter to millions of refugees and internally displaced people in tent camps and makeshift settlements around the world?

- provide emergency food support when drought and hunger threatens to kill millions in some of the most remote (and strategically "valueless") countries and regions?

- gain access to nuclear installations in countries as 'closed' as Iran, to monitor the development of nuclear weapons? "

Besides the UN,the US meets all of the things on your list.

Really?

You think Iran would have let American soldiers come in to check its nuclear capabilities?

You think the warring parties in Timor, Lebanon, Bosnia or now the Sudan would have said, "sure, we'll welcome US-led, US-controlled peacekeeping troops to start patrolling missions in our country? President Bush, bring them in!"?

As for providing food and shelter to all refugees around the world, do you really think
a) a US government could take over the entire UNHCR budget and missions and voluntarily take up end responsibility for refugees from Tanzania to Thailand, without being immediately punished by the American voters?
b) the US would be welcome in all world refugee camps?

mysteryman wrote:

The UN has always had to depend on the US,so for you to say that the UN has done it all,while true,is misleading.

The US provides only a minority of the UN budget. <shrugs>

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

I'm looking for streamlining.

Sofia wrote:

Actually, we seek to kill it

Sofia wrote:

I happen to wish they would innovate, and become the world's best problem solvers...

Make up your mind Sofia.

0 Replies

The difference, Craven, is my guys are already employed by their countries to gather this information, and administrate.

The UN is a whole, big, unweildy institution populated by additional people to address things which are already being addressed, or would be, and they have to go to other countries and ask them to do something they would (and in some cases are) already addressing. So, we're all funding the UN to do what these guys in my scenario are already doing in their own countries, on a salary.

Too many guys, too much money, too much duplication.

<My guys won't call their meetings anything. It will just be part of their job description.>

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

My bad, but there were so many alphabet to choose from--brain fart. I admit I didn't know the WHO was an UN entity--but I did know the IAEA. Drat.

But, that doesn't negate my premise.

No?

You seem to assert that the work of the WHO and IAEA is useful. Hey, you might perhaps say the same about the UNHCR or the UNDP?

So how does that not affect your premise that the UN is redundant and not useful and just doesnt DO anything thats needed and doesnt supply any product worth paying for?

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

The difference, Craven, is my guys are already employed by their countries to gather this information, and administrate.

Just like the UN delegates.

Quote:

The UN is a whole, big, unweildy institution....

This is one of those "sounds nice despite lacking factual basis" things.

How is it a big unweildly institution?

Dollar for dollar and pound for pound no comparable organization has ever existed.

So what on earth are you talking about? What facts is this claim based on? Are you just imagining this?

Quote:

Too many guys, too much money, too much duplication.

Ok fine, it's about time you back up your claims.

Go for it.

Quote:

<My guys won't call their meetings anything. It will just be part of their job description.>

IMO, basically you just want the UN without any danger of it encroaching on US authority in any way and the suggestions you forward would make it less efficient.

The pretext for it all is efficiency.

Well, again, back up your claims.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

<My guys won't call their meetings anything. It will just be part of their job description.>

Right. And then your guys decide to do something about the Sudan. Peace negotiations are organised, and when an agreement is finally arrived at, the decision is to send peacekeeping troops. Oh, but who's going to administer these troops? Who's going to be responsible for the logistics? Troops from ten countries, hmm, they wont all want to follow the commands of one country's CinC ... the Foreign Secretaries will have to set up some kind of neutral command structure, and some organisational structure to take care of logistics, and ...

but all that is going to be very diffferent from the UN.

:wink:

0 Replies

United nations, EU, where are you??

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know