[MikeD]

There's a lot of polarized UN talk going on in almost every thread here...the "UN is lame" and the "UN is the only valid way to accomplish international action" seem to be the two camps. Once again, I find myself in the middle.

Personally, I think the UN is a very useful tool for the world in certain situations. When there's an obvious moral problem in the world inside a particular nation (genocide, say in the Sudan, whatever), the UN provides a less-than-efficient but generally non-offensive (in that it reduces the appearance or possibility of imperialist motives) way for the world community to come together and deal with it. This isn't to say it's being used that way now-look at the amount of resolutions that are passed, which are then ignored (often by the US)-and look at the amount of horror in the world which isn't addressed promptly. (Sudan, to be topical, and probably lots more that we don't hear about.)

However, any nation should not need to consult the UN for acting in its own self-interest (defense being the main self-interest). The UN inefficient and bureaucratic, which does not make for decisive action, and frankly, the world should view a nation's actions as righteous or deplorable on their own merits, without the filter of some international approval or protest.

To whit, IMHO, US foreign policy should be swift to act and obviously just to all those who see it. International leadership, if it exists as such, is through example and not through coercion and/or oppression. Obviously, though, you're walking a fine line here...'obviously just' is obviously dependent on your point of view, and you're talking about an international popularity contest in the worst of all worlds. But that's kind of what you're talking about with the UN anyhow.

The US was once good at winning the international popularity contest...even Japan and Germany, once thoroughly and decisively defeated in WWII, feared and came to respect the US and pattern themselves somewhat in its image to their great self-benefit. Somehow, though, the world has become a lot less clearly defined, and the popularity contest isn't as winnable as it was in the days of runaway facism.

So, in the end, I think the US should be that cowboy in the back of the saloon...he doesn't talk excessively, but when he does, he means it...he keeps to himself and his friends, but doesn't scowl at anyone and is polite to anyone outside the circle, and laughs off jibes or threats until someone is about to take a swing at him, in which case he puts them in an arm-bar and tosses them out the door. If they come back, he puts them in the hospital for a week...if they pull a knife or a gun, he shoots them and doesn't worry about what the sherriff is going to think.

But yeah, back to the UN...what's its value? Can it effectively mediate all the world's conflicts?

MD

 

[Silver]

If we want to be the world's policeman, we have to start going into situations where there is no real benefit to us, otherwise we're just bad cops who only do a bust if there is a cache of money or drugs to snatch.

The UN is important because those blue helmets mean that you can't point the finger at the US for looting your country (which we do better with the IMF anyways.) Besides, 300 million people are going to have trouble policing the other 5.7 billion, no matter how many weapons they have.

edit: I think I'm making the same point you are, now that I read you again. "Obviously just" and "Obviously not corrupt" are two sides of the same coin.

 

[Changleen]

I agree with Silver's point about going into situations where there is no real benefit to America. I really think a huge part of America's problem with the UN is perception. The UN does do loads of things. They employ thousands of people across the globe, doing all kinds of work, most of it goes completly unreported. The US sees the UN as toothless as in general they are uneducated about the work the UN actually does.

With respect to 'the big issues' - going to war and so forth, essentially the dealing of the Security Council - In a lot of ways I feel America is it's own worst enemy. Americans complain that 'The UN is toothless' - essentially what they mean is that the Security council never achieves anything. The security council is the sharp end, the newsworthy face which obscures of the thousands of boring jobs the UN also takes care of.

Now let's just take a quick look at the dealings of the Security Council. At it's inception there was never meant to be the power of veto. The members were supposed to vote democratically about any given issue, and that was that. As we know, this isn't how it played out. Vetos are now used way too frequently, and, take a guess who uses them most often since the end of the cold war? There is no better way to render a decision making body useless than for one of the decison makers to have the power to decide that everyone cannot to make a decision on a certain issue.

This goes straight back to Silver's point. Maybe if America could genuinly put aside it's own agendas in favour of the greater good occasionaly, and if they would even give serious time and support to other issues that had nothing to do with them whatsoever, maybe then the UN (Security Council) could get more done. Just google 'US UN veto record' or similar.

 

[Changleen]

Essentially I think the UN is the world's organisation for international democracy. It is a place for the governments of the world to get together and make group decisions, share common goals and do better for everyone. The US also purports to be the advocate for democracy in the world - spreading freedom, spreading democracy and so on.

And yet when it comes to it, when it comes to actually sharing the decisions, actually participating in global democracy, surley the most import arena of all, the US shows a different, far more selfish face through it's actions.

I've said this many times before, and I'll say it again. One of the massive problems the rest of the world has with the US is it's blatent, repeated, and self serving two-faced hypocracy in world affairs. Under Bush this has been taken to new extremes.

If America wants the respect of the rest of the world (does it even? I feel like the Republicans grow more insular and less democratic everyday) then they must realise this at some point and make an effort to be more neighbourly. There is only one world, and America needs to learn to share. 25% vs 2% and all that.

 

[Changleen]

Somehow, though, the world has become a lot less clearly defined, and the popularity contest isn't as winnable as it was in the days of runaway facism.

I'm not sure I agree with that, I'd say there are more people trying to lie to you now, though, and for more complex reasons - which might make it seem 'harder' - and probably has much the same effect in the end I suppose.

 

[Changleen]

the world should view a nation's actions as righteous or deplorable on their own merits, without the filter of some international approval or protest.

I think the world does. I think it is local agendas that get in the way of the obviously 'right' course of action being quickly and effectivly implemented internationally. It's not just the US that is guilty of this though, but once again we see that it is one of the main offenders. If the US could lead by example a little more, maybe smaller nations would actually start to follow that lead.

If one of the biggest members of a club starts acting completely self-servingly, the others, trying to share, will obviously all suffer and be far more likely to act in their own interests in future.

There is a responsibilty in being a member of a community that you do not always act on your own best interests first. Surely this is obvious to everyone?

Why is it that this fundametal principal is activley denied in America today? Both the Republicans and Democrats promise they will always put America first, no matter what. How about putting the people in the most serious toruble first? Isn't it obvious that at the end of the day, helping people rather than oppresing them is going to have the most beneficial outcome for everyone? Again there is this loss of sight of basic democratic and, dare I say it, 'Christian' values when it comes to America's foreign policy decisions, and for some reason it seems to be supported by the public. I think that's very sad.

 

[Changleen]

Bump - I thought this was a good thread...any more opinions?

 

[ridecruz88]

Bump - I thought this was a good thread...any more opinions?

I think the UN has so many opinions that its almost always impossible for it to make a big descision so i think we should hear what they have to say but not base our descisions upon them like kerry would do

 

[JRogers]

I think the world does. I think it is local agendas that get in the way of the obviously 'right' course of action being quickly and effectivly implemented internationally. It's not just the US that is guilty of this though, but once again we see that it is one of the main offenders. If the US could lead by example a little more, maybe smaller nations would actually start to follow that lead.

If one of the biggest members of a club starts acting completely self-servingly, the others, trying to share, will obviously all suffer and be far more likely to act in their own interests in future.

There is a responsibilty in being a member of a community that you do not always act on your own best interests first. Surely this is obvious to everyone?

Why is it that this fundametal principal is activley denied in America today? Both the Republicans and Democrats promise they will always put America first, no matter what. How about putting the people in the most serious toruble first? Isn't it obvious that at the end of the day, helping people rather than oppresing them is going to have the most beneficial outcome for everyone? Again there is this loss of sight of basic democratic and, dare I say it, 'Christian' values when it comes to America's foreign policy decisions, and for some reason it seems to be supported by the public. I think that's very sad.

Note: I am merely presenting some opposing views and do not necessarily agree with what I say below.

You raise some good points. However, where is it written that a nation must be concerned to people in other countries? A country's government has the primary and overriding duty to protect and serve the citizens of that country and not to assist others. In international politics, because there is a relative scale of power, countries must be self-interested. Part of the reason that America might deny this ''fundamental principle" is because they do not and cannot accept it. We fight other nations, take issue with their policies, attempt to stop their citizens from gaining entry into the US and try to keep jobs away from them. From this perspective, is their really a "community" as you call it? Aren't we still in competition? Doesn't the government have a responsibility to undertake all the reasonable measures it can for self-protection? Isn't that the fundamental purpose and basis for government, however arbitrarily its borders may be drawn? Besides, the American culture is predisposed to notions of "going it alone" even against the tide of opinion. It values its independence so highly because of history. At the start of the United Nations, when it was a mere idea, it was opposed vehemently by many Americans because they took fundamental issue with the idea that any foreign body could control the politics of the United States.

Plus, there is another issue. Since this discussion is largely based on Iraq, we can use that as an example. If we accept the idea that the invasion was undertaken with the pretense of threats to national security, there is also the implied concern for global security. I.e.: what is good for America is good for everyone.