Why the UN is doomed

[simcha_6]

This is really a simple conclusion to make. Look at the United Nations. It failed to stop genocide in the Balkans, leaving that to NATO, because it gives veto power to certain nations which don't like their sphere of influence being encroached in. It didn't stop genocide in Rwanda and now it isn't doing much for the Darfur people, nor the Southern Animist-Christian Sudanese. It failed to stop the Second Gulf War as well.

Look at the hypocrisy. The UN talks so much about the inalienable rights of human beings. Yet it places Sudan on the human rights council. It gives voice to brutal, corrupt dictators, but rarely gives voice to freedom fighters. It supports the "government" of Somalia while trying to undermine the democratically elected government of Somaliland, which is the only really stable place in that country.

Here's the problem.

1.) The Name. Look at it. The United NATIONS. The UN is an institution whose power comes from the authority given to it by nation-states. Nation-states are created on the basis of territorial integrity, which means that nobody can tell them what to do, even when it comes to slaughtering their own people, which is why today there is still "no" genocide in Sudan.

The United Nations talks about human dignity, yet it supports cultures of victim-hood. In the early nineties, Armenians in the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan, who made up about 70% of the region, declared independence. Azerbaijan invaded, exiled or killed all the Armenians they came across, and took over about half the region. Then, the Armenian Army came to help the Armenian secessionists, and they swept through the region, as well as bordering cities, and kicked out all the Azerbaijanis they could find. In the end, 800,000 Azerbaijanis were exiled, and 353,000 Armenians were exiled.

Fast-forward eleven years. The Armenian/Nagorno-Karabakh Republic government(s) <http://www.nkr.am> have resettled those 353,000 refugees, who have, for the most part, been able to get on with their lives. The Azerbaijani government took their exiled civilians, stuck them in camps, where they literally lived in holes in the ground until the Asian Bank came and built some houses, and the Azerbaijani government used the refugees (technically IDP's) plight to demonize the Armenians. Yet they were equally terrible in the war- the only difference was that the Armenians won- and when it comes to who is helping their people achieve human dignity, the Armenians come far ahead. Yet they seem to be considered the bad guys in the conflict.

The UN's part in this- the UN fed those Azerbaijani IDP's for eleven years without making an effort to get them permanent homes and jobs so that they could move on with their lives. This January the food just stopped coming- the world had lost interest, and it was too expensive. I don't know how the IDP's get by nowadays.

This isn't an isolated incident. In the Israeli war for independence, around 650,000 Palestinians were kicked/scared out of their homes. A large number of Arab Jews also left their homes across the Middle East. Israel resettled the Jews. The Palestinians were put in camps run by the UN, where they still live today, waiting to go home, living without dignity or much purpose, because, like the Azerbaijani IDP's, it serves the war's loser to keep these people in camps to demonize the other side, and the UN, which ranks sovereignty over human rights, can do naught but go along with the nations who these refugees are in, keeping them fed and discontented, unfulfilled. You can bet if the Palestinian refugees hadn't gotten so much media attention, the UN would have stopped feeding them long ago.

The UN has its institutional heart in the right place, but since it is bound by respect for nations' supreme authority, it is basically incapable of fixing the world's most dire problems. Because of its structural flaws, the UN can will always find itself caught between doing its duty and kissing up to dirt-bag dictators and autocratic democracies in an attempt to maintain the illusion that it is an important player, rather than a pawn to the established nation-states. Such an institution cannot continue to stand. It's about time an alternative institution were set up that was run parliament style that got its power from people, not states.

[lenidog]

1. Another problem you can add to the list of the UN

Western Sahara formerly Spanish Sahara in the early 70s managed to win its independence from Spain, the Polisario which was the movement that fought for its Independence was recognized as the official government of Western Sahara by the UN when it recognized the the regions independence. Morocco basically moved in settlers and troops and took over the region starting another guerrilla war which lasted until 1991 when the UN brokered a ceasefire on the condition that the people would have a referendum deciding whether they wanted independence or union with Morocco. Since that time there has been no referendum because Morocco wants the settlers they moved in to vote in it and the Polisario wont allow that to happen since it would mean a definite union with Morocco since the Moroccans outnumber them. So it has dragged on for years now with the UN last I heard dropping the idea of a referendum and just giving Morocco the Western Sahara but promising "autonomy." As far as I know the UN has never condemned Morocco and is also turning their back on the recognition that these people fought so hard to win.

[DulceDecorum]

2. al qaeda?

simcha_6 says:
It's about time an alternative institution were set up that was run parliament style that got its power from people, not states.

The UN is working just fine.
It's just not doing what you want it to do when you want it to do it.
Bad for you.
Good for everyone else.

[Maple]

3. I agree

It was never set up to serve solely the wishes of the US. There are 191 countries in the world and they all get a say.

It has done remarkably well considering it was formed over half a century ago, in a very different time, and has had to contend with the Cold War and countless hot wars and brush fires ever since.

They have a new blueprint for the 21st century, and they need countries to vote yes to them, so they can do a better job in a new era.

It was set up to prevent another world war. Think what happened to the world before it existed. We don't want to go back to that.

Fix the problems, and move on.

[simcha_6]

6. I don't understand what you're saying

"It was never set up to serve solely the wishes of the US. There are 191 countries in the world and they all get a say."

It seems you think I want the UN to act in the interests of the U.S. Read my first post and you'll see that what I want is sometimes opposite to U.S. interests. Please don't write me off as a pro-America drone. I'm against supreme sovereignty of the state (definitely against U.S. interests) and in favor of taking care of refugees, and of avoiding genocide. So far, it's not done very well with either of these goals, nor has it or its affiliated institutions like the World Bank and IMF done well at promoting development and alleviating poverty. When it fails so regularly at keeping peace and helping people, I can't say it's doing a good job. It didn't even end the Cold War. While the UN isn't all bad- its heart is in the right place, as I've said, and they've provided a good place to talk things over before fighting- it hasn't got a great record of fulfilling its goals.

"They have a new blueprint for the 21st century, and they need countries to vote yes to them, so they can do a better job in a new era....Fix the problems, and move on."

Bali, that's right, and that's what my post is about. The UN relies on nations whose interests conflict with those of the UN. It would be nice to fix that, but how do we do that? I think we need a "people-power" sort of institution. What would you suggest.

[simcha_6]

5. The UN is working just fine?

It's failing to fulfill its millenium goals, and is forsaking its principles to maintain what little power it has. When an institution begins ignoring itself, then something is definitely wrong. The UN is behaving to human rights like the United States is behaving to the constitution: avoiding it for the sake of convenience.

P.S. What's al Qaida have to do with it? It's a confederation of groups promoting a theocratic nation-state, not a democratic institution based on human rights. (I haven't seen them helping the Palestinians either.)

[mahina]

4. Which does not prove it's doomed.

I am sorry to say it but I think you may have strayed from home a bit here.

With family serving, I can tell you I would love nothing more than for the UN peacekeepers to go to Iraq so our husbands and fathers and brothers can come home.

Your argument reminds me of the underpants gnomes...premise, (pause) conclusion!

[simcha_6]

7. Sorry for the jump, I'll try to strip the argument

1.) The UN's goals are to eliminate poverty, help people live in dignity, respect human rights, and keep the peace.

2.) Sometimes these goals run contrary to the interests of the nation states they involve. (See Azerbaijan-Armenia and Israel-Arab examples)

3.) The UN derives its power from nation-states, so

4.) It tries not to offend them, which often-times means that

5.) It fails to fulfill its goals

SO...

It's a structural flaw. If we are headed toward a democratic world as our president predicts, then eventually in order to fulfill these "universal goals" of peace, human dignity, and human rights, the nation-state system will be replaced (gradually and democratically, not violently) by something focusing on support from people, not dictators or National Upper-class Administrations such as exist in most democracies.

Even if this doesn't happen, here's why I think the UN is doomed to fail. Sooner or later, people will begin to realize that the UN is unable to keep peace or promote development. At that point, it will either cease to exist, be marginalized as other organizations do its job more effectively (that's the one I'm betting on) or it will undergo such drastic reforms that nations like the United States will withdraw recognition.

P.S. Underpants gnomes?

[Spazito]

8. The UN is not doomed but is in need of REAL reform...

not the bush cabal type of faux reform.

The right of veto for the 5 countries in the Security Council needs to go, it no longer serves the UN but, instead, serves only to tie it's hands and make it disfunctional.

Once the veto is gone, the UN can move onto addressing other reforms needed as to it's membership, structure, responsibilities, etc.

[Bridget Burke]

9. So set up an alternate institution.

Let us know when you've done it.

[Chicago Democrat]

10. Perhaps. Perhaps not....

It depends what happens now. How far will Bush go?

After this war he started is ended and some kind of justice is met out, then perhaps a leader like Franklin Roosevelt will devise a UN reform package.

I think the Security Council needs to be expanded, maybe scrap it all and start over. It needs to be more equitable and less weak. It needs to be strong enough not to be bowled over, but weak enough to not become a tyrant. Its tough. Democracy is at best a goal.

[simcha_6]

11. Very ture

Congradulations. That's the only way to save the UN without endangering the world.