Is the UN Dead as a political force?

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Old Test Forums
  Is the UN Dead as a political force?

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Is the UN Dead as a political force?

tOFfGI posted 12-18-98 06:41 AM ET
With the US and Britain Blatantly Ignoring the orders of the Security council, do you think that the UN has lost its power as a political force? The US is not paying the membership fees anyway, and if countries can just run over UN decitions like that and the Iraq Crisis, what is the Use of having it at all? Will the UN just become another league of nations, a failed political/military experiment?
What do the PKs Say?
Brutus posted 12-18-98 07:30 AM ET
Thank you tOFfGI !
Finally someone who getting it.
This is bigger then Saddam.
Tolls posted 12-18-98 08:16 AM ET
This is what worries me.
It's not quite at that point yet, though.
I just hope this hasn't set an unfortunate precendent.
BoomBoom posted 12-18-98 08:25 AM ET
Well they don't blatantly ignore the UN. In november a resoultion was passed warning Iraq that if the obstructed UNSCOM again they would face the gravest consequences. Well, this is a pretty grave consequence I suppose. Also Iraq broke one of the conditions of the cease-fire and thereby nullifying the cease-fire and falling back into a stage of war. Personnally though I think it is bit over the top. I mean it is not really a honorable war is it. What I want to see is a boxing match between Saddam and Bill (maybe tag-teaming with Tony) .
Climaticus posted 12-18-98 08:54 AM ET
Yheeehaaa! My first post!! (and probably my last; I spell horrorbly )
Well I think It is wrong to see UN as an independent political and military force. UN is only what the members (and especially US, UK, France, Russia and China) makes it. So when the members cannot come to an agreement, how can you possibly expect that UN schould be able to akt?? So stop yelling at UN and start yelling at the members of the security council!!!
Thank you for listeing and goodbye
Climaticus
DHE_X2 posted 12-18-98 12:58 PM ET
Sorry if I sound pompous, but without the support of the U.S., no global government will fly.
~DHE, *Cough*League of Nations*Cough*
Foxtaur posted 12-18-98 02:44 PM ET
I believe that the U.N., unless it changes its structure significantly, is doomed. I wish it weren't, as it makes a dandy group to sponsor humanitarian efforts, but with the Security Council stuck with the superpowers from 50 years old, I can't see any way for those security-council members to allow their positions to disappear.

The most likely scenario I see is that the U.N. will simply be ignored more and more often, members failing to pay their dues, until it goes bankrupt.

However... there is hope. Once the current U.N. permanently dissolves, this leaves open the possibility of a /new/ world-wide organization, where every state has equal representation (yes, Chad would be equal to the U.S. in this new group (unless the U.S. splits up again)). I see 4 possible locations for it's HQ - Montreal, somewhere on the West Coast (Victoria, San Francisco), somewhere central in Europe, or Beijing.
DHE_X2 posted 12-18-98 03:14 PM ET
New York
Utrecht posted 12-18-98 03:18 PM ET
The United States (and China and Japan and Britian and France.....) will never agree to a one nation one vote representation.

This is basically because the average American realistically does not care about what happens in Sumatra especially when it coops their ability to live the American lifestyle.
A great example would be if the world was working together and decided that Automobiles are a leading cause of environmental decay all of the developing nations would simple vote limiting the number of cars. The developed nations would have no way to prevent this.
Getting back to the original question. Is the UN dead. No, but it has never been truly alive either. It has always been an organization of convienience.
For example, lets look back 18 years. The USSR invades (at the request of the Afgani gov. ) Afganistan. The UN soundly denounces it. Did it change anything. Nope. Flash to today. US/GB attack Iraq. UN soundly denounces it. Will it change anything. Nope.
Zorloc posted 12-18-98 03:44 PM ET
The problem in the US is a little bigger than not caring about what happens in Sumatra. The average amercian does not care enough about who is the President to vote. We have a serious problem with lack of civic involvement. When the people don't care about what is going on in the US, there isn't a chance that they give a damn about what is going on outside the US.
Jojo posted 12-18-98 03:48 PM ET
I say that the next HQ for the world's main diplomatic body should be put in the biggest ****hole on Earth, wherever that may happen to be. Maybe once a year move it to another ****hole, until these guys can get their acts together.
I recommend, in no particular order:
1) Any war zone
2) Any famine zone
3) Any place where genocide is being practiced
4) Any place which is severely contaminated and plluted
5) Site of an ecological climactic disaster
6) The Canadian national igloo.
DHE_X2 posted 12-18-98 03:59 PM ET
New York
Utrecht posted 12-18-98 04:04 PM ET
zorloc, exactly, unless if effects them. Additionally how does one resolve discrepancies between the US (or other nations) constituion and UN policies.
The bottom line is that as a political force the UN has always been a 2nd team player.
Steel_Dragon posted 12-18-98 04:26 PM ET
The UN is nothing and has been nothing more than a place to talk. And in that capacity it works fine. What some of seem to want is a world government. Which to be effective must have sovereign. Are you willing to give your counrty up to a world government. If not please do not dad mouth the powerless UN. Nor should you bad mouth the US unless you want an sovereign world government, instead of your current one.
Roland posted 12-19-98 02:12 PM ET
You forget the WTO which is also part of the UN in a wider sense. I'm a PK, but Morgan is right in saying that money matters. A global economy -> a global economic government. Worked in Europe, and I think we will see a similar development for the world. Just will take 50-100 years... then on to political union. And I don't believe in nation state sovereignty.
"Are you willing to give your counrty up to a world government."
Some sovereignty, yes!
Roland,
trying to get SMAC into this discussion to make the thread appear slightly on-topic....
Kyle posted 12-19-98 02:37 PM ET
I would argue that it never was a true political force. It was simply, during the Cold War, a place for the US and Soviet Union, to get their clients in line, and to play to the world stage. It was useful in the sense, that it gave both countries a place to vent, instead of going to war with each other.
It is meaningless anyway, the US can do anything it wants, period. Luckily for the rest of the world, we aren't imperialist of the Soviet or English style, but of the economic persuasion.
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Is the UN Dead as a political force?
tOFfGI	posted 12-18-98 06:41 AM ET With the US and Britain Blatantly Ignoring the orders of the Security council, do you think that the UN has lost its power as a political force? The US is not paying the membership fees anyway, and if countries can just run over UN decitions like that and the Iraq Crisis, what is the Use of having it at all? Will the UN just become another league of nations, a failed political/military experiment? What do the PKs Say?
Brutus	posted 12-18-98 07:30 AM ET Thank you tOFfGI ! Finally someone who getting it. This is bigger then Saddam.
Tolls	posted 12-18-98 08:16 AM ET This is what worries me. It's not quite at that point yet, though. I just hope this hasn't set an unfortunate precendent.
BoomBoom	posted 12-18-98 08:25 AM ET Well they don't blatantly ignore the UN. In november a resoultion was passed warning Iraq that if the obstructed UNSCOM again they would face the gravest consequences. Well, this is a pretty grave consequence I suppose. Also Iraq broke one of the conditions of the cease-fire and thereby nullifying the cease-fire and falling back into a stage of war. Personnally though I think it is bit over the top. I mean it is not really a honorable war is it. What I want to see is a boxing match between Saddam and Bill (maybe tag-teaming with Tony) .
Climaticus	posted 12-18-98 08:54 AM ET Yheeehaaa! My first post!! (and probably my last; I spell horrorbly ) Well I think It is wrong to see UN as an independent political and military force. UN is only what the members (and especially US, UK, France, Russia and China) makes it. So when the members cannot come to an agreement, how can you possibly expect that UN schould be able to akt?? So stop yelling at UN and start yelling at the members of the security council!!! Thank you for listeing and goodbye Climaticus
DHE_X2	posted 12-18-98 12:58 PM ET Sorry if I sound pompous, but without the support of the U.S., no global government will fly. ~DHE, CoughLeague of NationsCough
Foxtaur	posted 12-18-98 02:44 PM ET I believe that the U.N., unless it changes its structure significantly, is doomed. I wish it weren't, as it makes a dandy group to sponsor humanitarian efforts, but with the Security Council stuck with the superpowers from 50 years old, I can't see any way for those security-council members to allow their positions to disappear. The most likely scenario I see is that the U.N. will simply be ignored more and more often, members failing to pay their dues, until it goes bankrupt. However... there is hope. Once the current U.N. permanently dissolves, this leaves open the possibility of a /new/ world-wide organization, where every state has equal representation (yes, Chad would be equal to the U.S. in this new group (unless the U.S. splits up again)). I see 4 possible locations for it's HQ - Montreal, somewhere on the West Coast (Victoria, San Francisco), somewhere central in Europe, or Beijing.
DHE_X2	posted 12-18-98 03:14 PM ET New York
Utrecht	posted 12-18-98 03:18 PM ET The United States (and China and Japan and Britian and France.....) will never agree to a one nation one vote representation. This is basically because the average American realistically does not care about what happens in Sumatra especially when it coops their ability to live the American lifestyle. A great example would be if the world was working together and decided that Automobiles are a leading cause of environmental decay all of the developing nations would simple vote limiting the number of cars. The developed nations would have no way to prevent this. Getting back to the original question. Is the UN dead. No, but it has never been truly alive either. It has always been an organization of convienience. For example, lets look back 18 years. The USSR invades (at the request of the Afgani gov. ) Afganistan. The UN soundly denounces it. Did it change anything. Nope. Flash to today. US/GB attack Iraq. UN soundly denounces it. Will it change anything. Nope.
Zorloc	posted 12-18-98 03:44 PM ET The problem in the US is a little bigger than not caring about what happens in Sumatra. The average amercian does not care enough about who is the President to vote. We have a serious problem with lack of civic involvement. When the people don't care about what is going on in the US, there isn't a chance that they give a damn about what is going on outside the US.
Jojo	posted 12-18-98 03:48 PM ET I say that the next HQ for the world's main diplomatic body should be put in the biggest **hole on Earth, wherever that may happen to be. Maybe once a year move it to another **hole, until these guys can get their acts together. I recommend, in no particular order: 1) Any war zone 2) Any famine zone 3) Any place where genocide is being practiced 4) Any place which is severely contaminated and plluted 5) Site of an ecological climactic disaster 6) The Canadian national igloo.
DHE_X2	posted 12-18-98 03:59 PM ET New York
Utrecht	posted 12-18-98 04:04 PM ET zorloc, exactly, unless if effects them. Additionally how does one resolve discrepancies between the US (or other nations) constituion and UN policies. The bottom line is that as a political force the UN has always been a 2nd team player.
Steel_Dragon	posted 12-18-98 04:26 PM ET The UN is nothing and has been nothing more than a place to talk. And in that capacity it works fine. What some of seem to want is a world government. Which to be effective must have sovereign. Are you willing to give your counrty up to a world government. If not please do not dad mouth the powerless UN. Nor should you bad mouth the US unless you want an sovereign world government, instead of your current one.
Roland	posted 12-19-98 02:12 PM ET You forget the WTO which is also part of the UN in a wider sense. I'm a PK, but Morgan is right in saying that money matters. A global economy -> a global economic government. Worked in Europe, and I think we will see a similar development for the world. Just will take 50-100 years... then on to political union. And I don't believe in nation state sovereignty. "Are you willing to give your counrty up to a world government." Some sovereignty, yes! Roland, trying to get SMAC into this discussion to make the thread appear slightly on-topic....
Kyle	posted 12-19-98 02:37 PM ET I would argue that it never was a true political force. It was simply, during the Cold War, a place for the US and Soviet Union, to get their clients in line, and to play to the world stage. It was useful in the sense, that it gave both countries a place to vent, instead of going to war with each other. It is meaningless anyway, the US can do anything it wants, period. Luckily for the rest of the world, we aren't imperialist of the Soviet or English style, but of the economic persuasion.