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.

Frazzled wrote:And none of that actually comes from the UN does it.

-Troops don't
-Aid doesn't

Only because you refuse to define UN members as part of the UN. That's like saying nothing comes from the Federal Government because it really only comes from the people, or that nothing really comes from the people because it really only comes from the planet. Reductionism gets us nowhere.

Frazzled wrote:
Nothing that can't be done more effectively (and is) directly from NGO's/donor governments to recipients.

So, wait, NGOs are fine, but the UN is not? The UN is the largest NGO on the planet, with the possible exception of the Red Cross/Crescent. You're imposing a ridiculous double standard.

Frazzled wrote:
They do spend a whole lot of money on their headquarters though. You have to repect that.

Meh. We spend a lot of money on our headquarters too. The White House isn't cheap. Actually, I'd wager that its far more expensive than the UN complex in New York.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:And none of that actually comes from the UN does it.

-Troops don't
-Aid doesn't

Only because you refuse to define UN members as part of the UN. That's like saying nothing comes from the Federal Government because it really only comes from the people, or that nothing really comes from the people because it really only comes from the planet. Reductionism gets us nowhere.

Respectfully you are are correct. I don't identify the UN members as the UN.
1. The members are sovereign nations that do their own thing.
2. The UN prints no currency/central bank, has no military or transportation arm. By its very essence it is incapcable of spending money as efficiently as an NGO or donor nation-they have to pay all that rent, salaries, and bribes after all.

Frazzled wrote:

Nothing that can't be done more effectively (and is) directly from NGO's/donor governments to recipients.

So, wait, NGOs are fine, but the UN is not? The UN is the largest NGO on the planet, with the possible exception of the Red Cross/Crescent. You're imposing a ridiculous double standard.

By its nature the UN is not an NGO. The UN is a supranational governmental entity with no authority but a nice budget.
Remember, if you want to do something efficiently, you don't meet at a boondoggle in Switzerland. Lets get real.

Frazzled wrote:
They do spend a whole lot of money on their headquarters though. You have to repect that.

Meh. We spend a lot of money on our headquarters too. The White House isn't cheap. Actually, I'd wager that its far more expensive than the UN complex in New York.

Again, the White House is the executive of a sovereign nation that actually does things. But I agree - it - like the Fed and at least my state, are hyper bloated and could do with a 50% reduction in personnel and divisions.

Frazzled wrote:
Respectfully you are are correct. I don't identify the UN members as the UN.
1. The members are sovereign nations that do their own thing.
2. The UN prints no currency/central bank, has no military or transportation arm. By its very essence it is incapcable of spending money as efficiently as an NGO or donor nation-they have to pay all that rent, salaries, and bribes after all.

You've clearly not spent much time examining the operations of your average NGO. Most of these groups, in particular the humanitarian ones, are as beholden to corruption and mis-tasking as the UN is. They have their own specific political agendas that relate to publicity, and the acquisition of funding. It isn't like they earn their money through commercial activity.

Frazzled wrote:
By its nature the UN is not an NGO. The UN is a supranational governmental entity with no authority but a nice budget.

That's about what an NGO is. Yes, the term denotes Non-Governmental Organization, but that really only applies in the context of the conventional understanding the nationalist system. In a very real way NGOs have a discernible affect on the political reality of the territories in which they work, and many of them use that affect in the pursuit of an agenda. That makes them as a clear a governing force as anything I know of.

Frazzled wrote:
Remember, if you want to do something efficiently, you don't meet at a boondoggle in Switzerland. Lets get real.

Unless what you want to do is develop international dialogue, which is the real purpose of the UN. The resolution of specific issues is secondary.

Frazzled wrote:
Again, the White House is the executive of a sovereign nation that actually does things. But I agree - it - like the Fed and at least my state, are hyper bloated and could do with a 50% reduction in personnel and divisions.

The UN does things though, a lot of them. You just aren't giving it credit for anything because you want to see it as fully ineffective. Its a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Unless what you want to do is develop international dialogue, which is the real purpose of the UN. The resolution of specific issues is secondary.

So they have to go to place with nice skiing. I see, its all about dialog. Good thing my tax dollars are going to that instead of directly to a charity that is actually using those dollars.

Oh well, the efficacy of the UN is best served in a different topic.

The UN prints no currency/central bank, has no military or transportation arm.

yet ! The day's a comin' !

Is the UN flawed ? Of course, but it does help with a lot of humanitarian issues, as well as other issues such as international drug control, relief effort etc etc.

They should still pay their damn parking fines though in NY.

JohnHwangDD wrote:How terrible!

Oh, wait.

The UN doesn't actually *do* anything.

Nevermind...

The UN has a broad range of duties. Most people assume they’re limited to the general assembly and a couple of peacekeeping missions they saw on the news. Those people need to read more before they can form an opinion that’s worth a damn. Presently the UN performs peacekeeping operations, supports human rights,

UN peacekeeping troops are paid through the UN. There are currently peacekeeping operations in Chad, Haiti, Timor, the India/Pakistan border, Cyprus, Kosovo and Lebanon. I’ve probably missed a few.

The UN is feeding around 100 million people in 80 odd countries through its food programs and has more than 100 refugee projects around the world. This is real, tangible support, and without it millions would be dying.

The UN’s Development Program is the largest form of technology trading and support in the world. It’s impact in advancing economic development in the developing world is massive.

The World Health Organisation is the key organisation in controlling diseases like malaria. Without it millions more would be dead. It’s also improved infant mortality in more than 100 countries.

The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund… actually they’re dominated by Austrian School of Economics nutters and are a disaster. Let’s not talk about the world bank.

There are also countless minor administrative tasks, without which we wouldn’t have world trade. Ever wondered who schedules it so a plane flying from Newark to Frankfurt doesn’t bump into a plane flying from London to Washington?

Frazzled wrote:And none of that actually comes from the UN does it.

-Troops don't
-Aid doesn't

Nothing that can't be done more effectively (and is) directly from NGO's/donor governments to recipients.

They do spend a whole lot of money on their headquarters though. You have to repect that.

Since the beginnings of politicking people have claimed something can be doen better for less, by getting rid of waste or inefficiency or whatever. Nine times out of ten they never give references to any relevant level of waste, they either cite a couple of anecdotes of a $1,000 piece of equipment never being used out of a billion dollar budget, or they say nothing at all. Sometimes they come into power of that organisation, and every time they fail to save money. Every time. Because it was just rhetoric and ignorance, the assumption that money must be getting wasted, without ever understanding the organisation.

So, which are you, the nine in ten or the one in ten? Got any substantial savings the UN could make?

ShumaGorath wrote:When the weak are elected to protect the frightened freedom dies at the hands of those who will cut a deal. When you allow torture, when you allow jailing of the press, when you allow protests to be stamped out this is what you get. You reap what you sow.

The UN is a paper tiger with no morals. It's led by countries with hideous human rights records and is little more than a gathering of bitchy diplomats. It needs a teardown and total restructuring.

Read my response above. The UN is a lot more than the General Assembly.

@sebster - and of that list, how does freedom of speech matter?

I don't think freedom of speech matters for any of that stuff.

The UN doesn't censor, doesn't provide worldwide news or have a press corps.

My whole point about the UN freedom of speech bit is "so what?", and your post doesn't change that.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:And this is the truly interesting thing to me. Which came first? The Ten Commandments, or the general idea that being a bastard to people isn't the best way to get ahead in life? Now, this is a difficult thing to discuss as we have all been brought up in a world which, regardless of which denomination or faith you follow, they tend to agree that the Ten Commandments are a pretty good guide line on how not to be a knob to your neighbour. As such, I find it very hard to think that the things ruled in the Ten Commandments were ever all that socially acceptable. I mean, before they were written, I think I'd still have been pissed off with you if you knobbed my Missus behind my back, and probably feel quite bad about hacking you into tiny bits.

Funnily enough, we don't as a society even follow the ten commandments. Have you read them?

The commandments break down into;

Stuff that’s illegal that was illegal in every society before and has been illegal in every society since;
You shall not kill
You shall not steal

Stuff that isn’t illegal but is a nice moral looked upon well in society;
Honor your father and mother
You shall not commit adultery
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour

Stuff that isn’t illegal, and isn’t even a moral for the most part, in fact we are proud as a society that people are free to accept or ignore this at their pleasure;
You shall have no other gods before me & You shall not make for yourself an idol
Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God

Stuff that isn’t illegal, isn’t immoral and is actually thought of as a good thing;
You shall not covet your neighbor's wife & You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbour (well, maybe not the wife part but as a capitalist society the whole thing works because we covet other people’s stuff).

Stuff that isn’t a moral, or a law or much of anything really, just God making a statement;
“I am the Lord your God”



So yeah, the idea that the ten commandments somehow represent the origins of law? Bunkum. The bible on the whole plays a significant part along with a pile of other texts, but that part of the old testament by itself is pretty irrelevant.

JohnHwangDD wrote:@sebster - and of that list, how does freedom of speech matter?

I don't think freedom of speech matters for any of that stuff.

The UN doesn't censor, doesn't provide worldwide news or have a press corps.

My whole point about the UN freedom of speech bit is "so what?", and your post doesn't change that.

You said the UN doesn’t do anything. It was demonstrably wrong.

In terms of freedom of speech, I think people make the mistake of only looking at two kinds of countries. They look at powerful developed countries and they look at pariah nations.

In the case of a country like the US, the UN has little influence. But the US is really big, developed country. If you instead look at a smaller country, one more dependant on UN economic develop and humanitarian programs, and it becomes a very different kettle of fish.

In the case of a country like North Korea, the UN has little influence, because North Korea doesn’t care what anyone thinks about them. But few developing countries want to be anything like N Korea, they want to be like the US. And to be like the US they need access to the development programs of the UN, they need access to international trade and all kinds of similar things. When UN reports cite human rights abuses, they lose access to these things.

Frazzled wrote:
So they have to go to place with nice skiing. I see, its all about dialog. Good thing my tax dollars are going to that instead of directly to a charity that is actually using those dollars.

Oh well, the efficacy of the UN is best served in a different topic.

What place with nice skiing? The Hague? Switzerland? Historically neutral countries/city-states that have served as fora for negotiation since long before the UN was even a glimmer in the eye of Woodrow Wilson?

I really don't see what you're criticizing. The UN is about as efficient as any major, international NGO. The people that work there make about as much, and often much less, than comparable officials in the Red Cross, or Amnesty International. That isn't to say that the organization doesn't have it shortcomings. It most certainly does. But once you recognize it for what it is, a massive NGO, those shortcomings seem less like failures, and more like the limitations of reality.

Let's not forget, it was the USA that instrumental in setting up the League Of Nations after WW1 and the UN after WW2.

If the USA wishes the UN to be an effective supranational organisation, it needs to effectively engage with the UN, rather than criticise and fail to support it in the hope it will collapse and be able to replace it with something better.

End it. Don't mend it!

N.B. The biggest failing of the UN is that it is comprised of member States who act like a bunch of spoiled little brats when it comes to making a group deicision.

So, is that the organisation at fault, or the members? For example, the invasion of Iraq went ahead because no matter what, France stated it would veto *any* resolution to that end. Ergo, Resolution could not be passed, so no point beating about the bush.

Seriously, the UN needs to DIAF anyway. The world doesn't need a global watchdog; we WILL destroy ourselves sooner or later, the UN is just helping to accelerate the process.

Kilkrazy wrote:If the USA wishes the UN to be an effective supranational organisation

Protip: It doesn't

Exactly. Once they found out the other nations wanted a say, so the UN couldn't be a rubber stamp to give supranational legitimacy to US foreign policies, they lost interest.

Kilkrazy wrote:Exactly. Once they found out the other nations wanted a say, so the UN couldn't be a rubber stamp to give supranational legitimacy to US foreign policies, they lost interest.

Well that is a bit of an oversimplification, but yeah.

The world doesn't need a global watchdog;

The hell it doesn't. The human race is by in large an idiotic mass of selfish self deluded fools. It needs someone to hold it's hand. Thats easiest done by grabbing the smartest and most representative of each tribe/nation/and religion and sticking them all in a box to work their crap out. Otherwise they just sit in their echo chambers and talk about lowering taxes to fix economic problems. The problem with the UN is the security councel. China and russia should not be represented on it. Neither nation is even close to a free democracy, and both think solely about their administrations or economy before the well-being of their people (russia much moreso than china).

The "security council" shouldn't exist, and it certainly shouldn't function as it does.

ShumaGorath wrote:The problem with the UN is the security councel. China and russia should not be represented on it. Neither nation is even close to a free democracy, and both think solely about their administrations or economy before the well-being of their people

Yeah, *totally* unlike the US...


Quite frankly, having been in both countries, China and Russia are just about as free as in the US. Just their systems are differnt. And if you want to talk about freedom, I welcome you to take your rights and butt heads with Homeland Security at any time. Go ahead, I *dare* you.


If anything, with 1B+ people India should take Britain's "permanent" seat, and Germany should have France's. But the idea of unseating the world's most populous country? Nonsense.

Really, the UNSC's permanent members should be:
- China
- India
- USA
- Russia
- Germany

The rest are just way too small to deserve permanent seats.

Japan is bigger than Germany.

Indonesia is bigger than Russia.

The EU is bigger than the USA.

It should be China, India, EU, Indonesia, Japan.

The EU isn't a country though KK.

So?

It's got a united currency, a united government and a united immigration policy. It's not that different from the US.

Countries comprise the members not, organizations.

Frazzled wrote:The EU isn't a country though KK.

Yet...


There's moves for a common Foreign secretary and the defense force gets more entwined by the year.

Something I'm decidedly mixed about, not the theory, but the actual practise of what we appear to be getting.

Frazzled wrote:Countries comprise the members not, organizations.

But the US doesn't think the UN works, so maybe it's time for a change.

Cool. Do we have to belong?

So, the UN is made up of countries, not consortiums.

Kilkrazy wrote:It's got a united currency, a united government and a united immigration policy. It's not that different from the US.

Except we kick ass and the EU is lame.