Is the UN irrelevant?

I wouldn't say it's irrelevant but there will be some rethinking of what it is and what it's there for. On one hand you have constantly moving yardsticks and an unwillingness to back up decisions with action. On the other you have us saying "well, you can either accept our proposal or will do it without you."

Neither bodes well for the long term political strength of the UN as an organization. There are still many sub-groups within the UN structure that are working quite well though. The Security Council is the center of the problems at this point.

Without commitment by all members to lawful decisions the UN will probably struggle along, being made use of where convenient, being disparaged and ignored otherwise. It only has real clout when the major players see eye to eye.

Edgar
The irony is that when the major players agree it is unnecessary and when they don't it becomes irrelevant.

So long as our the United States treats it as our straight man -- it probably will not be anywhere near the force it should be.

We are unwilling -- and perhaps rightly so -- to cede any of our national interests to the interests of the world as a whole. And much like the stronger states during the battles over how to constitute our own country -- we are trying to force our desires on the rest of the world.

They resent it.

We ultimately may end up making some institution -- albeit probably not the United Nations -- a much stronger force by allowing ourselves to continue on a path that pretty much dictates "Our way or no way!"

Ultimately, all those other countries may unite against us -- which in the long run may be better for them and for us.

I hate to even conceive of us as a bully -- but I'm not altogether sure we are not. I wonder how I'd feel looking at our conduct if I were not an American???

au
When tey agree it becomes a forum for lining up support, world opinion, and is very valuable in that respect.

The UN has a place in international affairs, and I expect that it will continue for a long time after the current crises. I expect, however, that UN resolutions and sanctions against nations/leaders whose behavior threaten world peace, security and stability will dwindle away. The UN has been utterly unable to effectively deal with virtually every challenge where military action is a primary option. In each case, the United States and a small group of allies have had to act on their own to resolve thsitutationon. The UN appears to have failed with Iraq even more than in some of the earlier crises.

They are going to get another chance to be relevant a few months from now when the DPRK has to be dealt with. Kim Jong-Il can be expected rachet up the pressure over the next few weeks, and eventually I believe an ultimatum will be necessary. "Close down the nuclear weapons programs, or the UN/US will close them down for you." Whether Kim Jong-Il backs down or not will depend largely on the message(s) he will be receiving over the next few weeks. Let's send him a clear and unambiguous message that to maintain his nuclear program is madness.

On the contrary, Asherman - I find the UN is acting much more reasonably in the matter of Iraq than the US and UK. They have served a very useful function in trying to keep the madman Bush from attacking.

Asherman"
That about says it all where and what would the UN be without the US in the forefront. Would the rest of the members ever take action? It was said and I believe by Gen. Schwazkof [sp]. Going to war with French support is like going bear hunting with an accordion. You might rightly say that about most of the UN members.

Edgar,

12 years of allowing Saddam to build his arsenal of prohibited weapons, while failing to comply with the conditions under which the Gulf War was suspended is acting responsibly? Threatening force, and then four months later failing to deliver, that's responsible? The UN's unwillingness to use military force when necessary to back up it's resolutions, makes its pronouncements nothing but empty, hot air. No one will comply with any UN resolution if there are not substantial consequences for failure. The UN's behavior in these matters has for years encouraged nations like Cambodia, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and a host of others to behave in horrible ways to their own citizens and their neighbors.

Diplomacy without military force is wishful thinking at best, a prayer for peace. Some folks just can't be moved by "prayer". Far too many in the West have come to believe that if you are just sweet and nice, the whole world will love you and be transformed. Nice dream, but I don't want the United States to go from that comfortable delusion into the oblivion of death.

Most of the Bush "evidence" against Iraq is either fabricated or irelevant. Iraq has no capability for threatening the US and if he really did come up with something we already have planes there that can take out suspect sites.

Time's Up
The U.N. is already morally irrelevant.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-abrahms030703.asp

To give up on the UN in failure would be the greater moral lapse.

http://csmonitor.com/2003/0310/csmimg/cartoon.jpg[IMG]http://[/IMG]


George they don't love you!

I was kind of picking up on that, myself.

The organization where Germany, Japan, Belize and Vanuatu have the same number of representatives (as a result, the same number of votes), where Libyan representative is the head of the Human Rights commission, and where Syria is a part of the Security Council that is competent to make decision about waging war... This organization is more than irrelevant, it is an expensive hoax.

The United Nations is the world best chance for peace. Anything we do to weaken it is a mark against us in history.

UN has no efficient mechanism to enforce its own decisions.

steissd

Obviously you don't know much about the UN's history and how the UN works:

I do not deny the facts you posted here, Mr. Hinteler, and I am quite aware of these. But such principles make this organization essentially useless. It is obvious that Germany, Italy or Japan have more importance in the world politics than Vanuatu, Belgium, Cameroon or Equador, but all these countries have the same number of votes in the UN.