The Role of the UN

[Lisa Perez]

This came up in the "Draft.." thread. Personally, I believe that the UN is doing a job well done. I know many people feel very differently and I would like to get everyone's opinions. Do you feel the UN has done its duty in our world, and why or why not is this so?

[Billfred]

For its resources, the UN is doing quite well.

Although I think the only way to really get the UN to get everything done it wants to is for countries to give it some teeth. I mean, if some country goes counter to a resolution, what can anyone do?

[Adam Y.]

Although I think the only way to really get the UN to get everything done it wants to is for countries to give it some teeth. I mean, if some country goes counter to a resolution, what can anyone do?

That's exactly what happened during the Korean War. The Soviet Union kept on vetoing every single resolution related to North Korea. Only until they boycotted the UN was a resolution able to be passed.

[Andy Baker]

Originally Posted by Billfred

I mean, if some country goes counter to a resolution, what can anyone do?

Then, the UN can send in various weapons inspectors over many years, get told to leave and turn a blind eye to numerous resolutions being broken by that country. Then, an alliance of over 30 countries (without Germany, France, and Russia, of course) decide to stand up against that offending country.

Andy B.

[Collin Fultz]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

Then, an alliance of over 30 countries (without Germany, France, and Russia, of course) decide to stand up against that offending country.

Andy B.

of course...then people in those countries get mad because they are doing something pre-emptive while those same people get mad and hold a court because we didn't do something pre-emptive. oh the paradox.

[Bill Gold]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

Then, the UN can send in various weapons inspectors over many years, get told to leave and turn a blind eye to numerous resolutions being broken by that country. Then, an alliance of over 30 countries (without Germany, France, and Russia, of course) decide to stand up against that offending country.

Andy B.

In the case of the UN Resolutions regarding weapons inspections following the Gulf War, maybe the UN / US should have demanded a right to have unannounced inspections of Saddam's palaces.

The UN is failing because no country wants to allow themselves to be subjected to an international "government." Most countries like the US, England, France, Germany, Russia, etc. are afraid that if they publicly force themselves to follow each and every UN resolution that they lose their autonomy (which is a valid fear). Well established countries want nothing more than to remain sovereign nations. And they have no interest in allowing themselves to be ruled by some alien organization. Permanent members of the UN veto resolutions that they find damaging to themselves or their interests. There once was a time, when my father was growing up, that the USA was proud to have been the only permanent member of the UN to have never used its veto. These days are long gone. The UN is also failing due to the inherent vagueness and ambiguity in the wording of most resolutions. There is eloquence in the wording of resolutions, but there is rarely a distinct meaning in them.

The UN is also failing as a result of corruption. This corruption is not unique to the UN, though. Corruption is just something that exists in materialistic, capitalistic, greed driven societies. The UN is definitely not head and shoulders above other organizations / governments in terms of corruption. To scream and complain about the UN’s corruption is to turn a blind eye to a huge portion of humanity.

[David Kelly]

Originally Posted by Bill Gold

In the case of the UN Resolutions regarding weapons inspections following the Gulf War, maybe the UN / US should have demanded a right to have unannounced inspections of Saddam's palaces.

How could or would that have even been possible when Saddam and his cronie thugs kicked out the weapons inspectors on numerous occasions?

Originally Posted by Baghdad Bob

"Oh, we will let you come in and look, but first let us drive out these 'milk trucks' and 'bread trucks' before you come here. You cant come in this building where our chemical and nuclear scientists are because this is a milk factory. DONT LISTEN TO THOSE AMERICANS!! THEY ARE ALL LIARS AND INFIDELS!!!!"

[Bill Gold]

Originally Posted by David Kelly

How could or would that have even been possible when Saddam and his cronie thugs kicked out the weapons inspectors on numerous occasions? [/color]

After coalition forces rid Kuwait of Iraqi forces, and in the process displayed their military superiority, the US and UN had quite a bit of leverage. Had Iraq not immediately complied to unconditional unannounced inspections, an all out invasion could have been more legitimately called for in that time period than the past 2 years. Instead, the US and UN assumed that Iraq would just continue to capitulate to whatever request / threat they decided to extend to Iraq in the future. The problem with this is that Iraq held weapons inspectors, rightly, to the conditions agreed upon immediately following the Gulf War and didn’t bend over to US demands of unannounced inspections. Apparently it wasn’t that big of a deal to the US, since they didn’t attempt to push such a resolution through the UN for over 10 years.

As for the “cronie thugs,” if the US had cared about inspections a resolution could have been passed granting UN peacekeeping troops the right to escort inspectors. It’s not like our country had no knowledge of Saddam’s Gestapo, after all our two countries had been very closely allied against Iran during the Iran/Iraq War (while we sold arms to Iran under the table). In fact, the chemical weapons that Saddam used against the Kurds were very possibly purchased from the US. I do admit, like everyone must, that it is much easier to observe the past than to predict the future.

[Collin Fultz]

Originally Posted by Bill Gold

The UN is failing...the UN is failing...the UN is failing...

The UN is failing because it has no bite, no man-power to back up it's resolutions. The UN fails because even when it does pass a resolution, not everyone in the UN is willing to use its bite to back up that resolution. The UN fails because it is too nice. There comes a point when being nice is overweighed by public safety.

Originally Posted by My Gov. Book, I can look it up if you want, but I know it because I missed it on a test

The role of a government is to protect its people.

The UN is not a government because it cannot protect its people. When push comes to shove...the UN falls over.

Get US out of the UN!

~Please keep in mind that these views are coming from a Hoosier Republican who is going to Purdue University on an Air Force ROTC scholarship and plans to defend you and your right to say whatever you want with his life in the world's greatest air force. I also promise not to give negative reputation points in this thread...unless a comment is simply rude...because there is no right or wrong opinion here and we all have the right to say what we want. Post away and keep in clean! ~

[Lisa Perez]

IMHO, the United Nations is simply trying to look out for the welfare of the human race, while at the same time creating a concord between all nations so that tensions will not arise. Don't get me wrong, conflict will still come about. But the UN provides a strong, neutral medium where nations may civilly come to a conclusion on how they may solve problems.

In addition to this, it organizes the issues of our world into different subcommittees in which such issues may be looked at a litte more closely. Though the Security Council (one of the minority of committees in which specific nations have veto powers) is the most famous (or infamous, depending on how you may interpret the situation), at least 100 other committees exist. These groups discuss social and economic concepts, create healthy alliances - NEPAD and ASEAN, for example - and decide on the best course of action.

The UN has created a Millennium Goal, which stresses that for 10 or so years, the number one goal would be to achieve sustainable development. Because the UN has concentrated on doing so, I can see where it may come across as "too nice".. health care, landmine clearance, education, infrastructural improvements. Not exactly anything to do with politics. But collectively, everything that has been accomplished has made a large difference in the world, and that should definitely be something we should look at.

Overall, I just don't think we should judge the UN on the basis that it hasn't done as much as it could have in solely the Security Council. Other committees have added greatly to the progress of our world.

Yay for multilateralism - My 10 cents, in binary, that is

[Venkatesh]

I see a lot of people here saying that the weakness of the United Nations is its lack of power to back up its words.

I believe that nothing could be further from the truth. A United Nations Army would be a fate worse than any that we could possibly contrive. A new world order could be imposed upon soverign nations, starting with weak countries at the periphery of global power, and reaching slowly inward, till all uncontrolled people are islands of hope in a storm. There will be no regional conflicts; instead, it will be the forces of the "World Government" against forces of regional autonomy.

My expectation of the United Nations is not that they stop every conflict, but rather that they try and eliminate the roots of violent conflict. After the birth of nuclear ballistic weapons, every day's survival was just an hour away from utter destruction. However, we are still here today, and the spectre of death no longer hangs so threateningly above us. The UN provided a forum for negotiations between the various parts of the world, enabling us to be here.

The UN has successes in many other areas as well. The WHO was able to forcibly eradicate smallpox from the face of the Earth. Imagine if another such campaign was targetted against AIDS or typhoid or something else. Such an undertaking requires international cooperation.

It is my opinion that the UN is a very useful organization which cannot always be successful, but must always try. Each success means that many fewer people die and that many few families and cultures are destroyed.

[Andy A.]

The United Nations is only as effective as the members are willing to make it.

As Lincoln once said, "A house divided can not stand". This is true in respect to the US and now to the UN. If the US is really the worlds last superpower, then I belive it has an obligation to participate and facilitate the UN. With out the participation of the US then of course the UN's ability to fulfill it's goals are compromised.

When Powell presented the case to the UN and sought multilateral action from countries not just out to get into NATO, as most of the ‘coalition of the willing’ is. Thats a whole other discussion, but it stems from the US neglecting the UN. Back on topic, the UN heard the arguments, and agreed that the Iraqi military posed no threat and the US claims of WMD were unfounded or based on poor intelligence. It was agreed that further inspections were required, and were commencing.

That’s is the moment that the US should have dropped the cowboy attitude and worked with the UN to help ensure the inspectors and aid workers could do their job. We had the worlds attention focused on Iraq and had demonstrated that we were willing to work with the rest of the world to fix what we argued was a world threat. It could have been an example of the world working together to defeat an evil, as it almost did in the first Gulf war. It could have cemented the role of the UN and eliminated any doubts the world had about the ability of nations to come together and work for a common good.

Instead we gave the UN the proverbial finger and started bombing. And don’t forget the Freedom toast. We really stuck it to those French with that one.

And here we are. No WMD, no moral victory, no strategic victory, nothing even remotely involved in fighting terrorism, an angry Arab world and an over tasked military. We do have examples of the US military practicing the same brutality that Saddam was guilty of and a mounting body count, along with a massive war debt. Aside from all that, the real problem is that we have pretty well trampled on decades of diplomatic ties and good will that could have given us a real chance at routing terrorist cells around the world. Now the chances of getting the level of cooperation that we had shortly after 9/11 is gone. This makes the ‘war on terror’ a war on entire countries instead of terrorists.

Oh yes, this unilateral thing is just working out swimmingly huh?

Again. Diplomacy may not be as fun, but has a lower body count. This is good, no?

-Andy A.

[Andy Baker]

Originally Posted by Andy A.

And here we are. No WMD, no moral victory, no strategic victory, nothing even remotely involved in fighting terrorism, an angry Arab world and an over tasked military. We do have examples of the US military practicing the same brutality that Saddam was guilty of and a mounting body count, along with a massive war debt. Aside from all that, the real problem is that we have pretty well trampled on decades of diplomatic ties and good will that could have given us a real chance at routing terrorist cells around the world. Now the chances of getting the level of cooperation that we had shortly after 9/11 is gone. This makes the ‘war on terror’ a war on entire countries instead of terrorists.
-Andy A.

(I'm going to follow Andy off the subject here, but some things need to be said before too many people embrace these words as true. This pains me.)

Are you sure about this?

WMD: Iraqis fired scud missles at our troops (while we were bombing them). We hear that our troops have found some Iraqi equipment to make mustard gas. Also, recently, we have heard that we have found serin-filled bombs. Is this not true?

Moral victory: Saddam is removed from power. Is Iraq no better off now as opposed to before? One side of the media says no, the other says yes. We hear that schools are in session, the power grid and oil production are both more productive now compared with levels under Saddam's power. It's too early to tell if there is a moral victory or not, yet. I hope that there is, for the sake of peace.

Remote links in Iraq to terrorism: Actually, we have heard about some links. Suspected terrorist training camps are reported to be found (one included a Boeing passenger plane). While these are not concrete, they are at least remote.

"We do have examples of the US military practicing the same brutality that Saddam was guilty": SAME brutality as Saddam? whoa. Both sides of the media tend to agree that Saddam raped, tortured and killed thousands of people. Some reports say that up to 300,000 Iraqi people have been killed by Saddam's brutality. You are equating 6 US soldier's abuse to this? While the abuse of these 6 soldiers (and their management) must be condemned and punished, it is not the SAME. You are over the line on this one.

I repsect people's opinions and it is good to back up your beliefs passionately, but do not use shockingly untrue claims to get your point across. Once this sort of reckless behavior is shown, respect is lost.

Andy B.

[Tristan Lall]

It seems like we're having a problem with the relative scale of things here.

For example, a SCUD with mustard gas is not a weapon of mass destruction--with a chemical payload, it's intended mainly as a tactical weapon (albeit a fantastically outdated and highly inaccurate one). With a nuclear payload, it could be used strategically, but that's moot, since nobody found an appropriate warhead, or even a SCUD rigged to accept such a warhead. In any case, the mere fact that a SCUD could carry a nuclear, biological or chemical (NBC) weapon does not make it a weapon of mass destruction. In short, NBC ≠ WMD; with the NBC weapons Iraq is known to have possessed, there was no legitimate capability for mass destruction, rather, only localized carnage would have been possible. (They might have been able to kill or maim everyone in a 1 km radius with gas, but they couldn't have levelled the city like the Americans did Nagasaki.)

As for the prisoner abuse: It is indisputable that the number of American violations was not equal to the number of Iraqi violations. It's absurd to even suggest this--let's give Andy A. the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't trying to say something so positively ficticious. On the other hand, while the Americans aren't accused of killing their prisoners, their other alleged acts of torture are perfectly in keeping with some of the methods allegedly used by the Iraqis. The scale is different, the alleged atrocities are equally reprehensible as individual events.

I'd also like to point out that evidence of terrorist training camps in Iraq does not imply govermental co-operation with those "institutions". In America, there are criminal, even terroristic organizations that operate outside the law. Does this imply that the United States government is due to be overthrown? But I'll give Andy B. the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he feels that the Iraqis were casting a blind eye on these alleged terroristic activities (rather than actively supporting them, since there is insufficient evidence to prove governmental support). Maybe that's true, and therefore the old Iraqi government would not be without fault.

As for this supposed moral victory, need I point out that the electricity grid worked under Saddam (no worse than now, at any rate), the schools were in session (and they were even secularized and under governmental scrutiny, despite the blatant propaganda), and oil production in Iraq depends on the Kurds (who Saddam tried to kill). The major oil fields are centred not around the Gulf coast, like in other neigbouring states, but rather in he north, in territory that is predominantly Kurdish in ethnic makeup--they don't hate the U.S., and they are willing to permit oil production, rather than sabotaging the Hussein government's attempts to produce oil. Basically, that's not evidence of a moral victory--it's a combination of the pre-war status quo, and citizens who aren't as interested in blowing up American-sponsored oil facilities (yet?). Maybe a moral victory exists, but those examples do not demonstrate it.

So what do we have? No evidence for Iraqi support of terrorism (maybe they ignored it) and no evidence for weapons of mass destruction (they had tactical chemical weapons, and at one time had some interest in nuclear technology of all sorts).
It seems that the only one of the above things that we can actually pin on the Iraqis is that they killed, tortured and oppressed thousands (no small atrocity, granted). But that much was never in dispute, and didn't prompt the U.S. to go to war (they've known of this for around 20 years, now). Instead, it was the phantoms of terrorism and WMDs that sent America to war (and make no mistake--until such time as sufficient proof is freely presented to the world, Iraqi WMDs and state-sponsored terrorists are purely conjectural apparitions).

[David Kelly]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

It seems like we're having a problem with the relative scale of things here.

For example, a SCUD with mustard gas is not a weapon of mass destruction--with a chemical payload, it's intended mainly as a tactical weapon (albeit a fantastically outdated and highly inaccurate one). With a nuclear payload, it could be used strategically, but that's moot, since nobody found an appropriate warhead, or even a SCUD rigged to accept such a warhead. In any case, the mere fact that a SCUD could carry a nuclear, biological or chemical (NBC) weapon does not make it a weapon of mass destruction. In short, NBC ≠ WMD; with the NBC weapons Iraq is known to have possessed, there was no legitimate capability for mass destruction, rather, only localized carnage would have been possible. (They might have been able to kill or maim everyone in a 1 km radius with gas, but they couldn't have levelled the city like the Americans did Nagasaki.)

As for the prisoner abuse: It is indisputable that the number of American violations was not equal to the number of Iraqi violations. It's absurd to even suggest this--let's give Andy A. the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't trying to say something so positively ficticious. On the other hand, while the Americans aren't accused of killing their prisoners, their other alleged acts of torture are perfectly in keeping with some of the methods allegedly used by the Iraqis. The scale is different, the alleged atrocities are equally reprehensible as individual events.

I'd also like to point out that evidence of terrorist training camps in Iraq does not imply govermental co-operation with those "institutions". In America, there are criminal, even terroristic organizations that operate outside the law. Does this imply that the United States government is due to be overthrown? But I'll give Andy B. the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he feels that the Iraqis were casting a blind eye on these alleged terroristic activities (rather than actively supporting them, since there is insufficient evidence to prove governmental support). Maybe that's true, and therefore the old Iraqi government would not be without fault.

As for this supposed moral victory, need I point out that the electricity grid worked under Saddam (no worse than now, at any rate), the schools were in session (and they were even secularized and under governmental scrutiny, despite the blatant propaganda), and oil production in Iraq depends on the Kurds (who Saddam tried to kill). The major oil fields are centred not around the Gulf coast, like in other neigbouring states, but rather in he north, in territory that is predominantly Kurdish in ethnic makeup--they don't hate the U.S., and they are willing to permit oil production, rather than sabotaging the Hussein government's attempts to produce oil. Basically, that's not evidence of a moral victory--it's a combination of the pre-war status quo, and citizens who aren't as interested in blowing up American-sponsored oil facilities (yet?). Maybe a moral victory exists, but those examples do not demonstrate it.

So what do we have? No evidence for Iraqi support of terrorism (maybe they ignored it) and no evidence for weapons of mass destruction (they had tactical chemical weapons, and at one time had some interest in nuclear technology of all sorts).
It seems that the only one of the above things that we can actually pin on the Iraqis is that they killed, tortured and oppressed thousands (no small atrocity, granted). But that much was never in dispute, and didn't prompt the U.S. to go to war (they've known of this for around 20 years, now). Instead, it was the phantoms of terrorism and WMDs that sent America to war (and make no mistake--until such time as sufficient proof is freely presented to the world, Iraqi WMDs and state-sponsored terrorists are purely conjectural apparitions).

You really need to check your facts because you are wrong on sooooo many levels. The Canadian media is known to be very biased so perhaps it's not your fault. Heck, the Canadian government is even allowing and giving free sanctuary to deserters from the American Army. ...but that is not what this subject is about. It really is amazing to see what is coming out of the media about what is going on in Iraq. We always see and lots of people always talk about how when the media do interviews and stories about FIRST, they are always so off. Why are we to believe that this doesnt happen across the board of ALL news? 3 field reps from Rolls-Royce that provide support for the Army for the engines that are in the Kiowa Warrior OH-58 helicopter. These guys talked about how we should not believe the elite media for what is actually going on in Iraq. They said that the war is going soooo much better than what the elite media portrays it to be. If you talk to almost any service man or service woman who has just returned from there, you will get the same story time after time again. Everybody should talk to somebody who just returned from the war, you will learn a lot about what is the REAL truth.