Sorry Everyone
The UN has outlived it usefullness. Their only contribution is in relief work. As a place to resolve differences the UN has never been able to perform any function. Korea, Vietnam, Cosovo, Israel the list is endless The UN has never solved
a problem. Now they are even a more pathetic bunch with absolutely no enforcement powers. They can make all the resolution they want but they can't enforce them.. The US would do itself a favor by getting out of the UN, (think of all the money that would be saved, Then make the UN building into a Epcot North type of thing where it would be a giant flea market for all the remaining countries to display and sell their wares.

I agree, Jayne. The United States (and many other countries) would see the UN as an infringement on their sovereignty. The whole concept of national sovereignty will have to change before an organization such as the UN can become effective, and I doubt that will happen in my lifetime.

Humans, like most animals, are naturally aggressive and territorial. The core of the human brain has much in common with the brain of a crocodile, and our violent instincts reveal our reptilian roots. Our basic nature is certainly not "good" and the UN needs to acknowledge that reality.

Heather H.

All I can add to that Stevie is Amen!!!!!!!
[RESPONSETO]
Stevie wrote:
The trouble with the United Nations is that it exists.
[/RESPONSETO]

The present Iraq crisis, among others, has shown some serious problems with the United Nations. I am afraid that if the UN is not reformed, it will go the way of the League of Nations and the countries of the world will not have a forum in which to air their grievances.

First, the Security Council is broken. The veto power of the permanent members serves to paralyze it. It would be better for everyone if the veto was taken away. Also, the non-permanent members are not always representative of the entire world. Right now, Africa is well-represented but some other regions are not. Each seat should be allocated to a particular regional group of countries and the position should rotate among them. Also, the permanent membership should be up for review periodically and should be adjusted based on changes in the world situation. The most populous and most powerful countries should be there. Perhaps the EU should have a seat instead of individual European countries.

Also, the Human Rights Commission is a complete joke. Libya, a flagrant violator, chairs the commission. If that sort of problem can't be solved, it should just be disbanded, as it is useless in the present situation.

The UN has no effective means of enforcement. At some point, it probably needs its own military, but I know that would be strongly opposed at present. Something like that could perhaps be phased in over time. Even if the UN had its military, great military powers such as the United States and Russia would serve as a check on its power. There must be some kind of check to prevent it from becoming too corrupt and powerful.

Are there any other ideas? The UN is in desparate need of reform.

I have put an essay on this subject on the Politics Page of my website.

http://gendersociety.com/membersites/personal/heatherh/

Heather H.

It would be nice if the UN could be reformed, but I am afraid you are right, Denise. No country will want to give up the powers that it now has, and France and the UK will certainly never get along well - they never have. I have little hope that the UN will ever be reformed and I have little hope that it will become an effective organization. As long as countries guard their narrow, short-term interests, and ignore the world at large, there is no hope.

I predict that the UN will either disappear like the League of Nations before it, or that it might continue to stumble along for a while and have little real effect on the world situation.

World peace will suffer.

Heather H.

Ladies:

You have all hit upon the real issue: The UN has no real authority and no real enforcement power. There is no way to "fix" the problem without there being A: agreement that the UN is the "world authority" (like the US will ever go along with that) and B: Giving the UN its own military forces to insure same (response is same thing as "A" above). Nobody wants to give the UN the tools it really needs to do the job it was created to do. So why bother?

Another part of the issue is that the UN believes in the inherent goodness of humanity. All one needs to do to shatter that myth...

...is buy today's newspaper.

luv 'n hugs,

Jayne Sakura
"Almost-Angel, T-Girl Genius, and Ultra-Flirt"

The UN will only survive if the USA will become a fully paid up member and cease to have the power that it holds currently. It is to be hoped that some nation soon will have sufficient weapons of mass distruction so as to pose a threat to USA, A nation that could easily reach the shores of America, this would halt the bullying tactics shewn by Ameerica in the present middle eastern crisis, and enable the UN to work correctly

Sorry, but I think just about everybody has missed the point of the United Nations.

It was never set up to be an "Authority". It is not meant to be Independent. It's purpose is to be a secretariat; to assist the nations of the world, or those that want to, in coming together to discuss matters of common interest or, frankly, anything else. If those countries choose to agree to do something in concert then it will facilitate that action but legality comes because those countries have to enact national legislation.

The United Nations is never intended to supplant National Sovereignty. It is the Civil Service of the Community of Nations (rather pompous that bit, don't you think)

So those of you who argue that it has passed it's sell by date, are you arguing that we don't need a global forum in which to come together to discuss issues and take such actions as we can agree on? That we should go back to little gangs, skulking in the corners of the playground. Or are you arguing that we need something stronger, a World Government perhaps?

Sarah

The trouble with the United Nations is that it exists.

It doesn't happen often, but once every other eclipse, someone agrees with my political views.

What I'm suggesting is that the UN is trying to become that which it was never intended to be. If it were simply a discussion forum, I wouldn't have anything against it. But, when I see troops with "UN" patches and tanks with "UN" on their sides, I see an authority.

Thankfully Stevie

I can go back to disagreeing with you. I never said that it was "simply a discussion forum". I did say that if the nations of the world agreed to act in concert then the United Nations would facilitate that.

When you "see troops with "UN" patches and tanks with "UN" on their sides" you see a force that has the Authority of the nations of the world. Well ok, the majority of the nations, that chose to vote, and no veto. And why those tin pot dictators chose to side with the US is best left unsaid as well. So it's not perfect but, like democracy, it's the best we've got.

The debate here is over what we mean when we say "UN". (By the way pedantry is my hobby). Do we mean a group of bureaucrats housed in a building in New York? Or do we mean the united nations of the world?

If it is the former then I see no evidence that they are seeking to do anything other than what they have been authorised to do by the latter.

If it is the latter then there is nothing wrong with the nations of the world seeking to change the organisation that we set up. After all what nation is still bound by it's original charter?

The nub of this issue seems to be that most of these posts see the UN (Bureaucrats in New York) as ineffective without accepting that the real responsibility is our's, the nations of the world.

So, what do you see as the United Nations.

Sarah

Two answers:

1. I currently see the UN as a self-serving BS factory.

2. I would like to see the UN as a legitimate discussion forum, where nations of the world have a public outlet for hashing out their problems without meeting on the battlefield. I do not want the UN to have any power or authority over anything. The nations of the world are not ready for a world government just yet, and the more we try to make the UN an active body, it starts to walk, talk, and quack like a duck (world government), at least to an extent.

Sometimes, we just have to agree to disagree.