Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:

WarOne wrote:
But it SHOULD be. This is like the pre-meeting for the meeting for the planning stage to Operation Overlord. We need more direct and firm action to decide how to assess women's rights!

Then say that, don't demean something for what it isn't intended to be.

The fundamental problem of the United Nations is that it acts as a cipher to direct action. International organizations have proven to be ineffective in dealing with nations and power blocs that have the balls to challenge the ruling or governing international body that oversees a particular area of concern. The UN and the various functions it supports are good for nations that wish to play by the rules and honor agreements. But for desperate nations and regional strife, the UN has failed to save what it could in instances for which quick intervention could of saved lives or a way of life that was threatened by extremists.

I demean it in intent and spirit as this governing body of the UN clearly does not account for certain member nations who sit on the board and have women rights records of severely negative magnitude. Of course, that comes from a white male who lives in a Western world and thus is considered discredited by many women scholars the world over as intellectual discourse on women and rights has now shifted to the Third World and the problem the Western World has on discussing women's rights in a non-Western context.

WarOne wrote:
The fundamental problem of the United Nations is that it acts as a cipher to direct action. International organizations have proven to be ineffective in dealing with nations and power blocs that have the balls to challenge the ruling or governing international body that oversees a particular area of concern. The UN and the various functions it supports are good for nations that wish to play by the rules and honor agreements. But for desperate nations and regional strife, the UN has failed to save what it could in instances for which quick intervention could of saved lives or a way of life that was threatened by extremists.

That's the very problem though, you're treating the UN as a sort of world government, but that's not what it is. In some ways it has tried to behave as one, but in all those cases it has failed to do so; treating an organization in accordance with what it wants to be doesn't make much sense.

WarOne wrote:
I demean it in intent and spirit as this governing body of the UN clearly does not account for certain member nations who sit on the board and have women rights records of severely negative magnitude. Of course, that comes from a white male who lives in a Western world and thus is considered discredited by many women scholars the world over as intellectual discourse on women and rights has now shifted to the Third World and the problem the Western World has on discussing women's rights in a non-Western context.

I don't particularly demean the body, as I consider its mission to be something entirely distinct from advancing Western values. It claims to be the "principal global policy-making body", and therefore it does not represent only one region of the world.

That said, in terms of politics within the UN, the appointment of Iran is a blow to the US agenda as the US, obviously, wishes to advance its official values. Official values that are in strong conflict with those of Iran. That doesn't make the UN ineffective, it makes the UN something which isn't a direct extension of the US.

Mortified Penguin wrote:I never understood the way Americans react to the UN. It's like "We made you, so toe our line or SO HELP US GOD."

The US is the dominant economic and military power in the world, and this position has produced has a fairly large number of people whose international politics consist basically of America Uber Alles and a healthy dose of military fetishisation. The UN, as a body dedicated to international consensus and national sovereignty flies in the face of that, the us of soft power ni negotiation dedicated towards sustainable progress just isn't as gratifying as threatening to bomb someone for whatever this week's grave issue might be.

Therefore the UN is bad. They're so weak willed they weren't even willing to admit there's WMD in Iraq.

Also, the UN is a farce because of the sheer inertia of the fething thing. It's the obese blue whale of international politics.

There's a big problem with describing the UN, it's about as problematic as talking about the Federal Government. It's a crazy big organisation, and culture and efficiency will change massively from one part to the next.

Can anyone here give an honest assessment over the level of efficiency with which the World Intellectual Property Organization supports intellectual property, or would it just be guessing based on the assumption that the UN is bad? What about Food and Agriculture, or the WHO, or the IMF.

Alright, the IMF really does suck, but what about the others, or any of the other 13 or 14 bodies that operate under the UN?

The US is no longer the dominant economic and military power in the world - and I would argue it hasn't been for quite some time. That mantle belongs to China. The US has more percieved influence because it more active internationally.

Ultimately, the UN will only become a truly active force in world politics when China decides to engage with it and that's not happening any time soon.

The Commission for the 'Status of Women' (could it have a more patronizing title?) does as little as any other part of the UN because all the UN is empowered to do is to report on what goes on in the world. Countries that ask it for help recieve that help, but any Nation that thinks its a good idea to go to an international body for impartial arbitration or to ask for help from willing Nations when it is in trouble is not the kind that should worry people.

The UN will never have a mandate to enforce any decision it makes because no Nation can have the will of the international community imposed on it. Sanctions and even military force only work as long as UN members - and its usually the US and her allies that do the dirty work - are willing to do it anyway.

Now, none of that is to say that the UN should go, but people need to recognise it for what it is - a forum for discussion.

And let's face it, we all now how effective a forum is at resolving anything but the most clear cut issues...

Chimera_Calvin wrote:The US is no longer the dominant economic and military power in the world - and I would argue it hasn't been for quite some time. That mantle belongs to China. The US has more percieved influence because it more active internationally.

That's just wrong.

Total US production in 2009 - $14.3 trillion. Total Chinese production in 2009 $8.8 trillion.

Total US military spending in 2009 $604 billion. Total Chinese military spending in 2009 $85 billion.

Now, none of that is to say that the UN should go, but people need to recognise it for what it is - a forum for discussion.

And let's face it, we all now how effective a forum is at resolving anything but the most clear cut issues...

The UN is a lot more than just the General Assembly.

sebster wrote:
Alright, the IMF really does suck, but what about the others, or any of the other 13 or 14 bodies that operate under the UN?

The UN Secretariat, when its actually put to work outside the UN itself , is an effective organization (though its still quite effective internally). Together the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, and the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs have managed a better success rate in the course of their attempts at nation building than the US, and have been generally able to deploy fewer troops (most of whom are from non-Western nations) in order to achieve similar ends. In part this is due to the fact that the US generally attempts nation building exercises as an extension of a war effort; leading organically to larger troop commitments, and more hostile situations. But it also reflects a certain talent for coordinating the resources of less powerful member states to bring about a favorable outcome; essentially matching Western leadership, and to an extent training, with third world soldiers. Not something that breeds peace under different circumstances.

I've also heard that the International Telecommunication Union, and Universal Postal Union are good organizations. Though I don't have enough experience in either area to comment.

Anyway, it should be remember that, for all the specific mandates, the rest of the UN is essentially a diplomatic association. It isn't designed to be efficient outside of consensus. Realistically, it would probably be better off if the Security Council were done away with, in order to leave the General Assembly to pass resolutions binding on those who sign to them.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:
The UN will never have a mandate to enforce any decision it makes because no Nation can have the will of the international community imposed on it. Sanctions and even military force only work as long as UN members - and its usually the US and her allies that do the dirty work - are willing to do it anyway.

In terms of UN missions, that's flatly false. The 10 leading contributors of troops to the UN are, in order: Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Jordan, Uruguay, Italy, Ghana, Nigeria, and France.

You can argue that peacekeeping isn't dirty work, and in that you'd be correct in that its less dangerous than open war. However, the UN does not oversee wars, and any decisions by other coalitions to invade is not their authoritative purview.

Huh. Well, colour me embarrassed. In any case, the perception that the US pulls the military weight in the UN dates from the Cold War, and more specifically from the Korean War. And I call the UN the "obese blue whale of international politics" because if the GA ever says anything that the US or the USSR (Cold War) or China (now) doesn't like, LOLVETO. It's like Truman and the Potsdam Club didn't learn from the League of Nations or something.

Stalin snow-jobbed Roosevelt at the end of WW2 and the Chinese were US allies.

Kilkrazy wrote:Stalin snow-jobbed Roosevelt at the end of WW2 and the Chinese were US allies.

True, but then my main point was that leaving a veto in the UN was a terrible idea.

dogma wrote:It isn't meant to be an extension of US interest, and it isn't meant to dictate the beliefs of liberal democracy to the world. It is meant to be a forum for diplomatic dialogue, and and intermediary in certain conflict situations.

Any organisation with international reach is a medium for imposing each nations interest on the larger world. Compromise can often benefit both parties, but international affairs are a conflict as vicious as any war. That spills into the ideological as well as economic realms. The stability is provides allows for covert aggression in lieu of overt war; that's about it.

Any other benefits are largely ancillary.

IceRaptor wrote:
Any organisation with international reach is a medium for imposing each nations interest on the larger world.

Not really, unless you consider the Red Cross to be an extension of national interest? I mean, often times certain organizations are folded into the great game between states, but they aren't necessarily direct extensions of that game. The world doesn't really look like a simple matter of state against state anymore, there are many other avenues for engagement between nations which aren't necessarily driven by the interests on an individual collective. Nations can impose their will on the world, but it is increasingly true that international actors can impose their will on nations; either by contract with a supporting state, or strong multinational support.

IceRaptor wrote:
Compromise can often benefit both parties, but international affairs are a conflict as vicious as any war. That spills into the ideological as well as economic realms. The stability is provides allows for covert aggression in lieu of overt war; that's about it.

Any other benefits are largely ancillary.

International affairs between states, or simply rival organizations (there is quite a bit of tumult in the humanitarian field), are often cut throat; though I think to compare them outright war is disingenuous. War is a form of relationship between parties, and is characterized by the absolution of certain limits on conduct between those parties. To say that diplomacy is like a war is only true to the extent that there are two opposing parties exercising their authority within conventional limits.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mortified Penguin wrote:And I call the UN the "obese blue whale of international politics" because if the GA ever says anything that the US or the USSR (Cold War) or China (now) doesn't like, LOLVETO.

Well, the GA can say whatever it wants. It simply can't pass a binding resolution without the assent of the Security Council.

No, but it can stop them from taking action; see Darfur.

Well, yeah, military action is only possible by binding resolution. Its one of the reasons that they should get rid of the Security Council, though that's hardly possible as the security council would have to vote to dissolve itself.

Mortified Penguin wrote:True, but then my main point was that leaving a veto in the UN was a terrible idea.

No, the veto is a very good thing. While individual matters such as Israel and Darfur are very important, they pale into insignificance compared to open war between major powers. Veto power means the UN can't undertake major initiatives that the superpowers oppose, which means the UN will be less effective than it could be, but that's better than a UN that could be committed to action opposed by a major power.

I think there are problems with the UN power structure, in that there are only two tiers of power, when the real situation is so much more complicated. You end up with a situation where the US and the UK are given the same formal powers, while on the second tier of power Germany and Fiji are considered equal. But this is largely controlled with the use of soft power, particularly by countries like Japan, who use their aid programs to get a lot of smaller Asian countries voting their way.

Mortified Penguin wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Stalin snow-jobbed Roosevelt at the end of WW2 and the Chinese were US allies.

True, but then my main point was that leaving a veto in the UN was a terrible idea.

It was the USA's idea.