Post: #1

The rise of Trump in the US got me thinking about the UN. I think he is pretty dismissive of it, to say the least. Looking at their day to day operations one does get the impression that they spend an enormous amount of money and have very little to show for it. Very little actual peace and development results from UN programs that is.

But on reflection you're left asking what can we have in place of the UN? If the answer is "nothing, we don't need a multi-purpose international body", I think we're setting ourselves up for a proverbial "Black Swan" event. A...negative one. It might be that the real and best use of the United Nations is really to prevent a major future conflict. Nuclear or otherwise. It is quite possible that brinksmanship in the future tips over into an existential conflict. One that may be prevented by the existence of a body like the UN.

So it's very frustrating. Faced with an organisation that takes in a lot of money and doesn't do much with it, but may be the best forum to prevent untold future destruction. In ways we can't currently predict.

Post: #2

BH

International entities have a purpose. For example part of what the UN does is setting global standards (e/g/ Telecommunications).
It is also a place to "blow steam". That is required in order to "relieve tension".

However
The UN was built at the begining of the cold war. So it has evolved mostly during that global conflict, with minimal influence.
Do notice that security council has an actual impact on nations (for example - trade embargos and so).

You are probably refering to what the 1990s concept of "Globocop". Don't see that happening any time soon.

Post: #3

Pay me $1k a month and I'll protect you from murderous space aliens.

When you can figure out why that's a bullshit proposition, then you'll know why the UN is bullshit too.

Post: #4

The UN can be useful but not when one country (yes, the US) shows complete and and utter contempt for it. Chomsky brought up a good example of how the Israel-Palestine conflict can easily be resolved with a two-state solution but it has been constantly blocked by two member nations. Votes have been something like 190-2 in favor of .

I'm not surprised that Trump considers it a joke since American politicians have shown complete disregard for international law.

Post: #5

Post: #6

The same U.N who ordered its "peace keepers" to not stop genocide in multiple countries? The same U.N whose mandate includes the requirement of a peoples continent take responsibility for their well-being?

They're useless. Dangerously-so.

Post: #7

Q. Could The United Nations Actually Be Useful?

A. Best place to collect flags (e.g. UN HQ in NYC)

Post: #8

(08-19-2015 04:42 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  Q. Could The United Nations Actually Be Useful?

A. Best place to collect flags (e.g. UN HQ in NYC)

"Is that a good non-binding resolution?"

Post: #9

Nope but NATO could do better.

Then again....might as well call the states for help.

UN is a circle jerk where every resolution gets vetoed and people are absent from speeches.

Basically it's a big drama fest.

Post: #10

United Nations, League of Nations...whatever it's called the answer is always NO.

Post: #11

The UN would be useful if they could actually prevent any of their member nations leaving the Council and falling to the Sirius Cult.

Post: #12

UN really started this whole worldwide trannie agenda around their member countries back in 2007. Way before anyone was thinking about this nonsense.

I wrote about it here earlier today. /thread-49828-...pid1093683

Post: #13

If it was less inclusive.

The lack of agreement and stupid stunts largely comes from the fact that these nations are too culturally different to ever agree on anything.

Post: #14

The public health arm of the UN, the World Health Organisation, has done a lot of good in my opinion.

They eradicated smallpox. I'm glad I don't have to worry about waking up one day and seeing something like this in the mirror:


The WHO has also almost eradicated polio. Isn't it amazing to live in a world where you don't have to worry that catching a flu might leave you paralysed?

Both of the above are stunning achievements and could not have occurred without the co-ordination of a massive, all-inclusive international body. So yes, the United Nations, or at least its public health division, is pretty useful as far as I'm concerned.

Post: #15

"the best nothing money can buy"

Post: #16

Every time I hear about the UN this video comes to mind.

Starts at 2:45.

Post: #17

Some interesting comments. Maybe they could spin-off their development arms, like Unicef and UNDP, into completely separate organisations with no links back to the UN.

As for their political and peacekeeping functions. I completely agree that they are rubbish at them. But things don't work, until they do. My concern is that it is conceivable that some international body could play a role in defusing a serious stalemate in the future. And by serious I mean something much bigger than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Something with potential for actual physical repercussions globally. And if the UN is not this body, which one is? In tense conflicts nobody is going to trust an individual government since almost all of them are aligned. Maybe the Swiss Prime Minister could be negotiator?

In a separate note: Do you think the UN can ever abandon their New York Headquarters? The environment in America is already bad for them. If Trump becomes president it will become so much worse. Do they own the land underneath the UN complex and the UNDP Building, or is it leased to them by the Rockerfeller's or some such? If they do own it they could probably sell the land and buildings and build somewhere else with the proceeds. Why do they wan't to be in a country that doesn't like them anyway? Maybe move to Switzerland. Or even London.